Coulson & Brooks hacking trial starts today
Discussion
I've been reading James Doleman's reports for The Drum, which have been very comprehensive.
My guess is that Charlie Brookes, Rebekah Brookes and Mark Hannah will be not guilty on their PCOJ charge; Rebekah Brookes & Cheryl Carter will be not guilty on their PCOJ charge; Goodman & whoever else was accused of paying a public official (for the royal phonebooks) will be not guilty of that. For all these charges, I don't think the prosecution have shown evidence "beyond reasonable doubt".
I do think that Coulson will be found guilty of knowingly being involved in phone hacking, and probably Rebekah Brookes as well. Not sure about Kuttner.
My guess is that Charlie Brookes, Rebekah Brookes and Mark Hannah will be not guilty on their PCOJ charge; Rebekah Brookes & Cheryl Carter will be not guilty on their PCOJ charge; Goodman & whoever else was accused of paying a public official (for the royal phonebooks) will be not guilty of that. For all these charges, I don't think the prosecution have shown evidence "beyond reasonable doubt".
I do think that Coulson will be found guilty of knowingly being involved in phone hacking, and probably Rebekah Brookes as well. Not sure about Kuttner.
Baroness Warsi gave a character reference for Coulson:
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/05/06/phone-ha...
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/05/06/phone-ha...
kev1974 said:
Gargamel said:
Both are going to jail, Brooks two years, Coulson 4-5 years - Guilty, but not on all charges.
No doubt at the Chris Huhne / Max Clifford holiday camp prison!
t at particular times of day. Have pretty well all aspects of their lives be subject to regulation and control. It's quite a thing. Resources dictate that low risk white collar crims move early to low security prisons, but even there they face significant inroads on their liberties. I don't think that any of us would like it one bit.
Breadvan72 said:
Resources dictate that low risk white collar crims move early to low security prisons, but even there they face significant inroads on their liberties. I don't think that any of us would like it one bit.
How dumb is that quote.And we all thought prison was a holiday camp.
Prison should be hell and up and coming criminals should be made aware of that.
So how does someone serving 13 life sentences get out on day release after 11 years. The system is a joke.
carinaman said:
Baroness Warsi gave a character reference for Coulson:
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/05/06/phone-ha...
Scraping the barrel therehttp://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/05/06/phone-ha...
hunton69 said:
Breadvan72 said:
Resources dictate that low risk white collar crims move early to low security prisons, but even there they face significant inroads on their liberties. I don't think that any of us would like it one bit.
How dumb is that quote.And we all thought prison was a holiday camp.
Prison should be hell and up and coming criminals should be made aware of that.
So how does someone serving 13 life sentences get out on day release after 11 years. The system is a joke.
Tough prisons and long sentences appear from experience in the US and elsewhere to have little impact on crime rates. Deterrence appears not to work, because crims don't plan to get caught, and/or are too thick to associate actions with consequences.
The skull cracker git has his very own thread. If Brookes et al go down, they don't pose the same risks as he does. Whoever risk-assessed him as suitable for release appears to have cocked up wildly. I agree that we should stop calling life sentences life sentences unless they are life sentences and instead give out fixed terms, to be served.
Breadvan72 said:
Some here do seem to think that prisons are holiday camps. Having seen inside three prisons, I wouldn't be cashing in my air miles to stay somewhere like that.
Tough prisons and long sentences appear from experience in the US and elsewhere to have little impact on crime rates. Deterrence appears not to work, because crims don't plan to get caught, and/or are too thick to associate actions with consequences.
The skull cracker git has his very own thread. If Brookes et al go down, they don't pose the same risks as he does. Whoever risk-assessed him as suitable for release appears to have cocked up wildly. I agree that we should stop calling life sentences life sentences unless they are life sentences and instead give out fixed terms, to be served.
It's not about whether prisons work or not. Criminals need to be punished and prison is there to punish.Tough prisons and long sentences appear from experience in the US and elsewhere to have little impact on crime rates. Deterrence appears not to work, because crims don't plan to get caught, and/or are too thick to associate actions with consequences.
The skull cracker git has his very own thread. If Brookes et al go down, they don't pose the same risks as he does. Whoever risk-assessed him as suitable for release appears to have cocked up wildly. I agree that we should stop calling life sentences life sentences unless they are life sentences and instead give out fixed terms, to be served.
Prison should be a deterent they need a sharp short shock treatment the first time they get caught.
While in prison they need to be educated so that life on the outside is better than life in the inside.
A big issue is that some kids have no structure or disipline in there lives and therefor no understanding what's right or wrong and some have no fear of prison.
The effectiveness of prisons as a punishment has been looked at long and hard and all the research I've read suggest it is not cost effective and that it has many negative effects. There are other forms of punishment that are cheaper, more effective, and considerably cheaper.
Gut reaction and the desire for revenge is quite natural but that doesn't make it right.
Other punishments have been put forward which would suit this odious pair.
For a massive that frequently moans about tax dollars being wasted - and I am one of them - this desire to imprison everyone seems a bit odd.
Someone posted that prison should be hell. It's not nice by the way. But when prison was hell, this country was a lot more lawless. Suggesting that it will stop reoffending is nonsense and is not supported by the evidence.
Further, the problem with our current system is that those who commit repeated anti-social offences where prison could be both a deterrent and a way of keeping them from the public are not given long enough sentences because prisons are overcrowded.
Coulson and Brooks should receive severe punishment. However, prison is going to be expensive and they are not going to be changed by it. Who will be me that Brookes, out within a year or so, will go straight back into an NI job? However, if she was punished by, amongst other limitations, being banned from any involvement in any form of media for 5 years then that would hurt.
From the case and other information in the public domain, Brookes is a nasty creature. However, prison will not change her. Another bad thing is that, as I understand it, she's banned from entering the USA. Would have been nice to dump her there.
Prison reform is something that those who have studied it are, apart from the politically biased, in almost unanimous agreement. We need to get it sorted.
Gut reaction and the desire for revenge is quite natural but that doesn't make it right.
Other punishments have been put forward which would suit this odious pair.
For a massive that frequently moans about tax dollars being wasted - and I am one of them - this desire to imprison everyone seems a bit odd.
Someone posted that prison should be hell. It's not nice by the way. But when prison was hell, this country was a lot more lawless. Suggesting that it will stop reoffending is nonsense and is not supported by the evidence.
Further, the problem with our current system is that those who commit repeated anti-social offences where prison could be both a deterrent and a way of keeping them from the public are not given long enough sentences because prisons are overcrowded.
Coulson and Brooks should receive severe punishment. However, prison is going to be expensive and they are not going to be changed by it. Who will be me that Brookes, out within a year or so, will go straight back into an NI job? However, if she was punished by, amongst other limitations, being banned from any involvement in any form of media for 5 years then that would hurt.
From the case and other information in the public domain, Brookes is a nasty creature. However, prison will not change her. Another bad thing is that, as I understand it, she's banned from entering the USA. Would have been nice to dump her there.
Prison reform is something that those who have studied it are, apart from the politically biased, in almost unanimous agreement. We need to get it sorted.
Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 9th May 16:50
Derek Smith said:
Coulson and Brooks should receive severe punishment. However, prison is going to be expensive and they are not going to be changed by it. Who will be me that Brookes, out within a year or so, will go straight back into an NI job? However, if she was punished by, amongst other limitations, being banned from any involvement in any form of media for 5 years then that would hurt.
From the case and other information in the public domain, Brookes is a nasty creature. However, prison will not change her. Another bad thing is that, as I understand it, she's banned from entering the USA. Would have been nice to dump her there.
I reckon the pair will be fine, even after prison. Friends in high places, keeping your mouth shut etc.From the case and other information in the public domain, Brookes is a nasty creature. However, prison will not change her. Another bad thing is that, as I understand it, she's banned from entering the USA. Would have been nice to dump her there.
Breadvan72 said:
The trouble with the jury system is that it is like democracy itself. It's pretty rubbish in practice, but everything else on offer is much worse, so we have to cling on to both juries and democracy, warts and all.
[mashup]Churchill-Cromwell[/mashupmode]Have you ever considered becoming the next Lord Archer?
Derek Smith said:
...But when prison was hell, this country was a lot less lawless. Suggesting that it will stop reoffending is nonsense and is not supported by the evidence.
Derek - have you contradicted yourself there intentionally, or am I being thick? Make prison hell and outside the nick it's nicer?The Don of Croy said:
Derek Smith said:
...But when prison was hell, this country was a lot less lawless. Suggesting that it will stop reoffending is nonsense and is not supported by the evidence.
Derek - have you contradicted yourself there intentionally, or am I being thick? Make prison hell and outside the nick it's nicer?Whilst it might be nice to think of retribution, the point is that for most prisoners, being locked up only encourages recidivism. We should consider, I think, of finding which offenders will respond to diversion and then work on them. For the rest, we would be able to lock them up longer.
Further, if the punishment was seen as less punitive so to speak it could be brought in earlier in the offending cycle.
We currently lock up more of our population than any other civilised country in the western world.
The USA locks up considerably more of course and that doesn't seem to work too well.
If a person is found to be beyond redemption then any investment in helping them to change would, I think, be of no use so they could be abandoned. But making prisons 'hell' doesn't work. That's been proved often enough and still is.
Derek Smith said:
Someone posted that prison should be hell. It's not nice by the way. But when prison was hell, this country was a lot more lawless. Suggesting that it will stop reoffending is nonsense and is not supported by the evidence.
How can you compare like for like as years go by every thing moves forward.Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 9th May 16:50
Years ago there was wasn't CCTV what state would crime be in now.
Add up all the money spent on all security.
How much is spent on private security these days. (the goverment love that one as it probably employs a million people)and the CCTV companies and extra insurance premiums due to crime.
So in simple terms Joe public pays for all of that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff