This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
>http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/andy-coulson-palace-phone-ha...
Good grief. I'm looking forward to hearing what the defence has to say about this and earlier revelations. It's not easy to see why someone who isn't engaging in a criminal conspiracy to purchase royal telephone directories and hack phones should authorise the purchase of the former for £1,000 cash and should write 'do his phone' on an email suggesting a story on somebody.
jcm
Good grief. I'm looking forward to hearing what the defence has to say about this and earlier revelations. It's not easy to see why someone who isn't engaging in a criminal conspiracy to purchase royal telephone directories and hack phones should authorise the purchase of the former for £1,000 cash and should write 'do his phone' on an email suggesting a story on somebody.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
The prosecution does seem to be having fun. As you say it's going to be fascinating to see how the defence deal with it all.
The prosecution does seem to be having fun. As you say it's going to be fascinating to see how the defence deal with it all.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
what sort of moron sends an email saying they are going to commit an illegal act.
what sort of moron sends an email saying they are going to commit an illegal act.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: All rather amusing to me. It is the only court case I think should have video cameras in and have them pointing at the defendants as they squirm. That could be me taking things too far though.
In reply to dissonance:
Where do we start?
> what sort of moron sends an email saying they are going to commit an illegal act.
Where do we start?
In reply to tony:
1 "I didn't read the email properly"
2 "I thought I was answering a different email"
3 "I hit send by mistake, then walked over to his desk and corrected the mistake verbally"
4 "<Do his phone> is fleet-street slang for <Call his phone>"
5 "Uncle Rupert say hello"
I'm always impressed by the way some people can lie so blatantly and expect people to believe them. As you say it should be fascinating, but don't place any bets until the defence start their case. And don't forget they have the final word.
> (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
> The prosecution does seem to be having fun. As you say it's going to be fascinating to see how the defence deal with it all.
>
> The prosecution does seem to be having fun. As you say it's going to be fascinating to see how the defence deal with it all.
1 "I didn't read the email properly"
2 "I thought I was answering a different email"
3 "I hit send by mistake, then walked over to his desk and corrected the mistake verbally"
4 "<Do his phone> is fleet-street slang for <Call his phone>"
5 "Uncle Rupert say hello"
I'm always impressed by the way some people can lie so blatantly and expect people to believe them. As you say it should be fascinating, but don't place any bets until the defence start their case. And don't forget they have the final word.
In reply to Chris the Tall: The trial is a few days old and already we have learned that Coulson, who was recruited as David Cameron's director of communications without the usual vetting procedure, had a long-term affair with Cameron's chum Rebecca Brooks. There's another 6 months to go - can't wait to see what else we learn.
In reply to John2:
>can't wait to see what else we learn.
You mean apart from the fact that Prince Harry got his aides to write his essays for him while he was at Sandhurst?!
jcm
>can't wait to see what else we learn.
You mean apart from the fact that Prince Harry got his aides to write his essays for him while he was at Sandhurst?!
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Sorry, but....
This is classic example of why we shouldn't televise trials. What you are doing is essentially taking one line from the prosecution and instantly describing them as guilty. So one piece of evidence (5 minutes court time) from a trial that may take two weeks (say 60 hours court time) and you make up your mind. The jury, meanwhile, will sit through, and presumably base their judgement on the full 60+ hours.. If they come to a different decision, many (presumably including you) will cry foul, fix, etc. This is already a pretty common occurence, (think of several judge led inquires, for example) and if we televise trials, it would only get worse, as a good soundbite delivered well by a lawyer will get multiple television repeats, while long-detailed responses will get edited down. Look at the coverage of Leveson, for example, where one witness would give evidence for several hours, and we would see this distilled into a 30 second clip that night.
Rant over.
Sorry, but....
This is classic example of why we shouldn't televise trials. What you are doing is essentially taking one line from the prosecution and instantly describing them as guilty. So one piece of evidence (5 minutes court time) from a trial that may take two weeks (say 60 hours court time) and you make up your mind. The jury, meanwhile, will sit through, and presumably base their judgement on the full 60+ hours.. If they come to a different decision, many (presumably including you) will cry foul, fix, etc. This is already a pretty common occurence, (think of several judge led inquires, for example) and if we televise trials, it would only get worse, as a good soundbite delivered well by a lawyer will get multiple television repeats, while long-detailed responses will get edited down. Look at the coverage of Leveson, for example, where one witness would give evidence for several hours, and we would see this distilled into a 30 second clip that night.
Rant over.
In reply to mav:
One document isn't quite the same as 'one line'. Any litigation lawyer will tell you the old saying; every trial is about one conversation and two documents.
Besides, I should have thought what you describe was an argument for televising trials, rather than the reverse. No highlights programmes, maybe.
I haven't described them as guilty. Time will tell. And, as indicated, it will be fascinating to hear how the defence seek to explain these - on the face of it rather unhelpful - documents.
jcm
One document isn't quite the same as 'one line'. Any litigation lawyer will tell you the old saying; every trial is about one conversation and two documents.
Besides, I should have thought what you describe was an argument for televising trials, rather than the reverse. No highlights programmes, maybe.
I haven't described them as guilty. Time will tell. And, as indicated, it will be fascinating to hear how the defence seek to explain these - on the face of it rather unhelpful - documents.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I read that bit rather more charitably - he says he's "got most of the stuff" and asks if the aide has "any info" - it's the sort of request that most students make of other students.
> (In reply to John2)
>
> >can't wait to see what else we learn.
>
> You mean apart from the fact that Prince Harry got his aides to write his essays for him while he was at Sandhurst?!
>
>
> >can't wait to see what else we learn.
>
> You mean apart from the fact that Prince Harry got his aides to write his essays for him while he was at Sandhurst?!
>
I read that bit rather more charitably - he says he's "got most of the stuff" and asks if the aide has "any info" - it's the sort of request that most students make of other students.
In reply to mav: Interestingly this thread and its publishers are in contempt of court. None of the newspapers people criticise would publish comment on an ongoing trial for risk of the editor being locked up, because a juror could read this and be prejudiced by it. But hey-ho, it's the internet, so let's blaze away.
In reply to Richard Baynes:
>Interestingly
Straining the language slightly there.
>this thread and its publishers are in contempt of court.
Assuming that the thread constitutes material likely to prejudice a fair trial, then of course you're right.
Where your theory falls down, however, is that obviously there's more chance of Cameron imposing a sensible system of press reform than of this thread having any effect whatsoever on the trial.
jcm
>Interestingly
Straining the language slightly there.
>this thread and its publishers are in contempt of court.
Assuming that the thread constitutes material likely to prejudice a fair trial, then of course you're right.
Where your theory falls down, however, is that obviously there's more chance of Cameron imposing a sensible system of press reform than of this thread having any effect whatsoever on the trial.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Actually, I was rather more diverted to learn that the reason Cameron doesn't have time to think up too many of those boring policy things is that he's too busy dressing up as The Stig for Jeremy Clarkson's birthday videos. That came from a background story rather than trial evidence, however.
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Are you sure about that? All the information that's been referred to on this thread has either appeared in print over the last few days, or any of today's disclosures in court today will almost certainly appear in print tomorrow.
Are you sure about that? All the information that's been referred to on this thread has either appeared in print over the last few days, or any of today's disclosures in court today will almost certainly appear in print tomorrow.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: The jury have in fact been instructed not to look at anything concerning the trial on the internet, so they'll have to get through the next six months without UKClimbing.
In reply to John2:
Wasn't that three years ago? I didn't realise it was connected to this case either.
I do see from the Telegraph's story on the subject a sidebar linking to a story called 'Shop apologises for severed limbs in freezer', though. Does sound a bit regrettable.
jcm
Wasn't that three years ago? I didn't realise it was connected to this case either.
I do see from the Telegraph's story on the subject a sidebar linking to a story called 'Shop apologises for severed limbs in freezer', though. Does sound a bit regrettable.
jcm
In reply to John2:
On the plus side, they probably face that prospect safe in the knowledge that the Right Eliminate chockstone debate and Coel and Tim's religious arguments will still be alive and raging, as ever, long after the trial has concluded.
>
> ... so they'll have to get through the next six months without UKClimbing.
> ... so they'll have to get through the next six months without UKClimbing.
On the plus side, they probably face that prospect safe in the knowledge that the Right Eliminate chockstone debate and Coel and Tim's religious arguments will still be alive and raging, as ever, long after the trial has concluded.
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
>
> Are you sure about that? All the information that's been referred to on this thread has either appeared in print over the last few days, or any of today's disclosures in court today will almost certainly appear in print tomorrow.
Yes, the information is fine but the opinions about the trial aren't.>
> Are you sure about that? All the information that's been referred to on this thread has either appeared in print over the last few days, or any of today's disclosures in court today will almost certainly appear in print tomorrow.
In reply to Richard Baynes: How can it be contempt of court when the jury have been specifically instructed to avoid internet speculation on the trial?
In reply to Richard Baynes:
How so? If went to the trial and then discussed in the (real)pub would that be a problem too?
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
> Yes, the information is fine but the opinions about the trial aren't.
> [...]
> Yes, the information is fine but the opinions about the trial aren't.
How so? If went to the trial and then discussed in the (real)pub would that be a problem too?
In reply to MG:
Come on. You know the answer to that.
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
> [...]
>
> How so? If went to the trial and then discussed in the (real)pub would that be a problem too?
> [...]
>
> How so? If went to the trial and then discussed in the (real)pub would that be a problem too?
Come on. You know the answer to that.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
One would hope that a sensible judge would agree, but then, believe it or not, there's those that are not so sensible. Yep I don't think UKC will get hauled over the coals, but where to draw the line on such issues is interesting, and the whole issue of internet publication versus some badly defined notion of "the press" is one that it's worth payiong attention to. Many of the worst abuses and intrusions are happening on the web these days, but is there a Leveson style inquiry?
> >Interestingly
>
> Straining the language slightly there.
>
Well it is interesting when the press is generally on trial over its behaviour yet internet threads are getting more liberalised... but whoa, I'm dangerously linking other current issues with the trial.>
> Straining the language slightly there.
>
>
> Where your theory falls down, however, is that obviously there's more chance of Cameron imposing a sensible system of press reform than of this thread having any effect whatsoever on the trial.
> Where your theory falls down, however, is that obviously there's more chance of Cameron imposing a sensible system of press reform than of this thread having any effect whatsoever on the trial.
One would hope that a sensible judge would agree, but then, believe it or not, there's those that are not so sensible. Yep I don't think UKC will get hauled over the coals, but where to draw the line on such issues is interesting, and the whole issue of internet publication versus some badly defined notion of "the press" is one that it's worth payiong attention to. Many of the worst abuses and intrusions are happening on the web these days, but is there a Leveson style inquiry?
In reply to John2:
I'm not aware of that direction to the jury but if it is the case, it doesn't stop internet comment being technically in contempt.
> (In reply to Richard Baynes) How can it be contempt of court when the jury have been specifically instructed to avoid internet speculation on the trial?
I'm not aware of that direction to the jury but if it is the case, it doesn't stop internet comment being technically in contempt.
In reply to The New NickB: It's the wobbly definition of publication that's interesting here, and which could shred our contempt laws once printed media disappear.
In reply to Richard Baynes: Well the judge has already stated that contempt of court proceedings are not required with respect to the front cover of Private Eye. What's more, he has turned your argument on its head by stating that the jury will be held in contempt of court if they access internet speculation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24723801
In reply to John2:
>Well the judge has already stated that contempt of court proceedings are not required with respect to the front cover of Private Eye.
Which to be fair didn't comment on the trial at all.
>What's more, he has turned your argument on its head by stating that the jury will be held in contempt of court if they access internet speculation.
Publication could be in contempt, as well, of course. But nothing on this thread comes anywhere near, imho.
jcm
>Well the judge has already stated that contempt of court proceedings are not required with respect to the front cover of Private Eye.
Which to be fair didn't comment on the trial at all.
>What's more, he has turned your argument on its head by stating that the jury will be held in contempt of court if they access internet speculation.
Publication could be in contempt, as well, of course. But nothing on this thread comes anywhere near, imho.
jcm
In reply to Richard Baynes:
I'm not sure there's anything terribly wobbly about the definition of publication. I'd have thought what might cause more problems is the practical difficulty of proving who anonymous internetters actually are.
jcm
> (In reply to The New NickB) It's the wobbly definition of publication that's interesting here, and which could shred our contempt laws once printed media disappear.
I'm not sure there's anything terribly wobbly about the definition of publication. I'd have thought what might cause more problems is the practical difficulty of proving who anonymous internetters actually are.
jcm
In reply to The New NickB: Only very vaguely. Is somehow the writing down the crucial bit?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Well yes.
I also note that the Guardian story has been shared 14 times on Facebook and 48 times on Twitter.
The fact that the judge puts the onus on the jurors not to read stories on the interweb suggests to me that he understands the futility of trying to limit comment and speculation.
If we get quality revelations like this every day for the next few months it'll certainly brighten up my winter, that's for sure.
Well yes.
I also note that the Guardian story has been shared 14 times on Facebook and 48 times on Twitter.
The fact that the judge puts the onus on the jurors not to read stories on the interweb suggests to me that he understands the futility of trying to limit comment and speculation.
If we get quality revelations like this every day for the next few months it'll certainly brighten up my winter, that's for sure.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Well who is the publisher of this thread? UKC? The OP? Me and you? Is it published in the normally accepted sense of the word?
Yeah, well aware of the unlikelihood of the thread actually being held to be in contempt, and interested in the idea that it'll be the jurors who access the web who'd be in contempt ... How about a juror who goes out and buys a paper and seeks reports of his case in the paper (and it then happens that those reports contemptuously (!) contain speculation and comment etc). Would that be contempt by the juror?
> (In reply to Richard Baynes)
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure there's anything terribly wobbly about the definition of publication.
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure there's anything terribly wobbly about the definition of publication.
Well who is the publisher of this thread? UKC? The OP? Me and you? Is it published in the normally accepted sense of the word?
Yeah, well aware of the unlikelihood of the thread actually being held to be in contempt, and interested in the idea that it'll be the jurors who access the web who'd be in contempt ... How about a juror who goes out and buys a paper and seeks reports of his case in the paper (and it then happens that those reports contemptuously (!) contain speculation and comment etc). Would that be contempt by the juror?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I'm wondering whether they are hoping that press reports will prejudice the trial, and the jury and the judge will have to dismiss it on technicalities?
I've never had any doubts whatsoever that Coulson knew that phone hacking was going on on more than an isolated case as in the Clive Goodman case.
I've never had any doubts about Rebekah Brooks also knowing full well what was going on.
I await the prosecution's evidence about that with interest.
Just a shame that Murdoch or Murdoch are not in dock. Or Les Hinton, although I believe he has been named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit brought by American Shareholders against News Corp over it's handling of the scandal, along with Rupert, James, and Rebekah
I'm also wondering that as it becomes more and more obvious that they are guilty they are going to try and drag other press barons and editors into it using the defence that they were all doing it...
If that is any defence at all. (not, in my opinion)
So is a deal going to be made? So as not to get Murdoch in court and then in gaol?
> >http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/01/andy-coulson-palace-phone-ha...
>
> Good grief. I'm looking forward to hearing what the defence has to say about this and earlier revelations. It's not easy to see why someone who isn't engaging in a criminal conspiracy to purchase royal telephone directories and hack phones should authorise the purchase of the former for £1,000 cash and should write 'do his phone' on an email suggesting a story on somebody.
>
> jcm
>
> Good grief. I'm looking forward to hearing what the defence has to say about this and earlier revelations. It's not easy to see why someone who isn't engaging in a criminal conspiracy to purchase royal telephone directories and hack phones should authorise the purchase of the former for £1,000 cash and should write 'do his phone' on an email suggesting a story on somebody.
>
> jcm
I'm wondering whether they are hoping that press reports will prejudice the trial, and the jury and the judge will have to dismiss it on technicalities?
I've never had any doubts whatsoever that Coulson knew that phone hacking was going on on more than an isolated case as in the Clive Goodman case.
I've never had any doubts about Rebekah Brooks also knowing full well what was going on.
I await the prosecution's evidence about that with interest.
Just a shame that Murdoch or Murdoch are not in dock. Or Les Hinton, although I believe he has been named as a defendant in a class-action lawsuit brought by American Shareholders against News Corp over it's handling of the scandal, along with Rupert, James, and Rebekah
I'm also wondering that as it becomes more and more obvious that they are guilty they are going to try and drag other press barons and editors into it using the defence that they were all doing it...
If that is any defence at all. (not, in my opinion)
So is a deal going to be made? So as not to get Murdoch in court and then in gaol?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Regardless of her guilt/innocence Brookes is a rough looking auld trout considering her considerable wealth.
In reply to Ian Black:
Probably not if you are Rupert Murdoch, although in comparison to Wendy Deng - Rupert's recently "filing for divorce" ex-wife - she is, and they are both within a few months of the same age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Deng
December 8, 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebekah_Brooks
27 May 1968
I wonder if it's the stress of having to maintain all those lies and hypocrisy in her role as Editor of NotW, The Sun, then being CEO of News International have aged her, whereas Wendy has only really had to stand up for Rupert when he was "pied" by Jonathan May-Bowles at Parliamentary Committee meeting to discuss the phone hacking scandal...
||-)
Probably not if you are Rupert Murdoch, although in comparison to Wendy Deng - Rupert's recently "filing for divorce" ex-wife - she is, and they are both within a few months of the same age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Deng
December 8, 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebekah_Brooks
27 May 1968
I wonder if it's the stress of having to maintain all those lies and hypocrisy in her role as Editor of NotW, The Sun, then being CEO of News International have aged her, whereas Wendy has only really had to stand up for Rupert when he was "pied" by Jonathan May-Bowles at Parliamentary Committee meeting to discuss the phone hacking scandal...
||-)
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...