Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Rebekah Brooks charged :)

348 replies

NicholasTeakozy · 15/05/2012 10:13

Short version here I'll have a dig for more details. Oh happy day! :o

OP posts:
NickNacks · 15/05/2012 10:14

Isn't she Brooks???

jaquelinehyde · 15/05/2012 10:15
Grin
Original poster
NicholasTeakozy · 15/05/2012 10:16

More details on The Guardian website.

OP posts:
ASillyPhaseIAmGoingThrough · 15/05/2012 10:16
Grin
Original poster
NicholasTeakozy · 15/05/2012 10:17

Sorry about my error NickNacks! I do it all the time. :o

OP posts:
NickNacks · 15/05/2012 10:19

:) great news though!

Original poster
NicholasTeakozy · 15/05/2012 10:19

Have reported to HQ and asked them to amend my tiny mistake Blush

OP posts:
Greythorne · 15/05/2012 10:34

Very good.

Greythorne · 15/05/2012 10:36

What is the standard sentence for pervering the course of justice?

Pan · 15/05/2012 10:43

Sentence? Depends on the impact. Usually a custodial is the starting point, but there will be mitigation from her barrister.

lets not forget she has been 'charged' not convicted. With a media profile such as MN have, it might be godd to be careful in what's said. Maybe.

Pan · 15/05/2012 10:44

no lets not be godd at all. Try good instead....

MissKeithLemon · 15/05/2012 10:46

I like the idea of her pervering the course of justice Greythorne Grin

noddyholder · 15/05/2012 10:47

Wonder if she's LOL'ing now

Greythorne · 15/05/2012 10:47

No, I quite understand that she has only been charged. Just trying to understand what she faces if convicted.

Northernlurker · 15/05/2012 10:48

Hopefully HQ will pull this thread, I am reporting it. She has been charged not convicted and what are her chances of a fair trial in this climate?

bruxeur · 15/05/2012 10:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

GoPoldark · 15/05/2012 10:49

Hurrah! Scameron next, charged and convicted for perverting the course of history :)

noddyholder · 15/05/2012 10:50

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Greythorne · 15/05/2012 10:51

Northernlurker, people are allowed to discuss the facts of a legal case!

Pan · 15/05/2012 10:54

bruxeur - if this one is 'pulled' HQ will just end up having a 'pull' a few others that will replace it. Whilst RB isn't counting MN posters as her biggest fan base she is entitled to not have prejudicial posts made on line. (now at very limit of my legal knowledge..)

Pan · 15/05/2012 10:55

^ was to NL, not bruxeur in particular.

bruxeur · 15/05/2012 10:55

Is any part of my post not factual?

noddyholder · 15/05/2012 10:55

I don't think she can complain considering her performance at the leveson etc where her memory was selective at the very least.

jaquelinehyde · 15/05/2012 10:55

Why would you want it pulled Northern, we are discussing a topical news issue.

She has been charged and I am glad that there was enough evidence to do so.

noddyholder · 15/05/2012 10:57

I do think she thought she was untouchable I feel for her in that way I am sure murdoch has her convinced that he could protect her.It is a fascinating case tbh and should be discussed