In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
"There may be good technical reasons for this verdict." such as "it was all my editors fault, he never told me nuffink about it honest guv, just went off and did it by himself"
How about waiting until the details are better known? The jury would have listened to a lot of evidence apart from what RB said. Also, I don't recall seeing a complete transcript of the judge's summing up. (Has that been made available yet?)
Maybe it's the old gangland form of justice. We all got caught, but if you say it was all your fault, and we were innocently implicated, we will club together to make your life after the sentence a rich and pleasant one?
> (In reply to pebbles)
> To reiterate my critical judgement about Ross Kemp ... May I introduce for the record Ultimate force...One of the worst pieces of televisual dross know to humanity.
That was indeed a terrible episode in his offending, but I feel he has made it up somewhat with his Gang stories, and especially the Afganistan stuff he did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Kemp_in_Afghanistan I feel this should be taken as mitigation against some of the severity of the charge aforementioned
> Most of us have heard the minutest fraction of the evidence; and we have not yet heard how the judge directed the jury. There may be good technical reasons for this verdict.
Had Coulson got off I'd have been very surprised - it would have meant the jury believed his "Do his phone" defence which was clearly laughable. I didn't think Charlie Brooks reasons for hiding his laptop were particularly credible either. But yes the trial lasted 8 months and we only heard snippets. You have to feel for the jury that had to sit through it all
In reply to Chris the Tall: Possibly quite interesting though? To hear details a lot of people wouldn't get to hear about journalism in this country, about how it was practised by some influential people.
Lots of boring detail I imagine too, but possibly quite interesting in parts.
If she was v. Pretty she'd be getting just as much stick given what the public perceive her to have done and got away with (milly dowler, celeb hacking, undue influence in high places, generally being part of the rich elite, but above all being a manipulative woman (suspected of using her assets to get where she wanted) and being a successful woman in general seems to bring about a strange form of envy/resentment in some people (particularly women oddly).
And even if she isnt an oil painting, she is not ugly. I would say average looking
> David Cameron: "We need a government that listens to people. That's why I hired Andy Coulson."
That is a brilliant quote, well done Cam, what a plonker.
On the Sheridan trial, I think it was Ponsenby that said at the end after he was convicted, that there was more than one prosecution witness in that trial that had given conflicting evidence that could not both be true ( so someone was lying)
If he was guilty, then so are they, and they too should be locked up.
We've now had Cameron two times running interfering with the course of justice. On both occasions judges, legal experts (and now the Attorney General) have implied/said that he is in contempt of court. Yet the way he arrogantly, and totally unapologetically, attacked Milliband at PM questions today for daring to criticise him was a sorry spectacle of hubris gone mad. IMHO.
> Rebekah Brooks innocent?
> Now if that could be prove it really would be news.
Not to worry, there are another hundred or so others to come to trial, there is always the chance the evidence needed to prove her guilt , and what many believe to be true , will come out.
She is possibly not off the hook just yet.
Can you remind me of his other blunder - I know there was one but can't remember the details. Some sympathy for him - he'd have been criticised if he'd said nothing - but he's a very poor judge of character.
Jury unable to decide on other charges. Will the DPP go for a retrial ? Is it worth it ? Will they be able to find a un-prejudiced jury ?
> Can you remind me of his other blunder - I know there was one but can't remember the details. Some sympathy for him - he'd have been criticised if he'd said nothing - but he's a very poor judge of character.
Of course he would have been criticised if he said nothing, because he promised ages ago that he would make an apology if Coulson was found guilty. All he had to do though was wait until the trial was over.
Ah yes - a really stupid blunder, so you'd have expected him to have learnt from it. OK he's got more important things to deal with, such as derailing the EU, but you'd have thought his advisors would have been aware of it. Mind you, given the sort of person he hires as an advisor....