Andy Coulson, Rebekah Brooks and others charged

(122 Posts)
NicholasTeakozy Tue 24-Jul-12 13:07:40

BBC article. Good.

SerialKipper Tue 02-Oct-12 15:31:09

Oh yes oh yes oh yes!

Maybe I should start a new thread for this, but I just wanted to let everyone know that "and others" now includes Alex Marunchuk and Jonathan Rees.

I'm not sure how much we can say. But look up the murder of Daniel Morgan and subsequent allegations that someone from NoW was conducting surveillance on Chief Det Supt Dave Cook who led the murder investigation.

Eg: Thornton Heath murder victim was to reveal Met corruption to News of the World

BlackOutTheSun Thu 02-Aug-12 21:56:40

Rebekah Brooks is formally charged over alleged phone hacking grin

limitedperiodonly Mon 30-Jul-12 21:29:48

Thanks hackmum

Viviennemary Sun 29-Jul-12 19:21:52

So this paying police officers business. Are we to assume that these payments are declared on tax returns. hmm

hackmum Sun 29-Jul-12 17:28:26

edam: " Strikes me apparently interfering in a murder investigation is quite important - why haven't they been held to account over that and why is no-one reporting developments in that case?"

I've been wondering exactly the same thing. When I first read about this, I thought it was going to be sensational and could even be the one thing that brings down Cameron, purely through his association with Brooks and Coulson. But since then, not a peep. What's going on?

limited - have very much enjoyed your posts on this thread.

limitedperiodonly Sat 28-Jul-12 09:08:42

To add: to me it seems unfair and illogical that journalists are charged with allegedly corrupting public officials and there will be none of those public officials in the dock. But it is surely desirable that anyone with a strong case to answer is made to answer it.

the time seems right to do something like this again with the Met

And I'm not going to accept any arguments about how much it would all cost. We should just do it right this time and follow through to the end.

Hundreds of officers were sacked or allowed to retire but not one faced criminal charges. The findings have never been released either. What a surprise.

limitedperiodonly Fri 27-Jul-12 23:08:56

I know. But there's a world of difference between a drink and a drink.

Some people might get time called on them.

Nancy66 Fri 27-Jul-12 22:50:23

Paying police/public officials for information is pretty common business in journalism - always was - still is - always will be....

limitedperiodonly Fri 27-Jul-12 12:44:00

It is breathtaking stupidity. Most people, not just journalists, would suspect that making payments to police officers and other public officials was at the very least unorthodox and not something to shout about.

The only explanation for such a glaring gap in education is that Rupert Murdoch thought she was so talented in other respects that he expected more knowledgeable executives to provide a safety net.

That's common enough. It's always a bit of a worry, though.

But she's said she didn't do it so we'll have to see.

If it's proved I'd expect to see some officers charged and not just lowly Plods who pass over registration numbers for a drink. I'm surprised no police officer has been charged already. How can you charge someone with alleged bribery if you don't know who they were allegedly bribing? It's not fair and makes the whole thing hard to prove. Hmm.

That Select Committee was a disgrace. Did they mishear that statement or just not want to follow it up?

I was flabbergasted by the brass neck of the chairman John Whittingdale saying the other day something like being glad that we may get to the bottom of this matter now. No, thanks to you and your partisan colleagues Louise Mensch, Therese Coffey and the bloke whose name I keep forgetting.

edam Fri 27-Jul-12 12:20:12

she did, and she was right for a very long time - it was only the fact that the Guardian didn't give up, and that they turned up the Millie Dowler allegations, that meant the chickens eventually made it home to roost. The Met and the government spent years telling people to 'move along, nothing to see here' while the CPS claimed listening to other people's voicemail wasn't a crime.

emmieging Fri 27-Jul-12 12:17:00

Either extreme stupidity/ naivety, or the fact that someone who is THAT self-serving probably thinks they're above the law....

edam Fri 27-Jul-12 12:16:37

I don't see how it was deflecting the heat - the admission was made a few years ago at a select committee enquiry, not during the present scandal. And confessing to a crime doesn't deflect the heat anyway, does it?

lisaro Fri 27-Jul-12 12:15:01

Actually it may not have been naivety. Deflecting the heat. And a lot more of it will be done during the trial. No doubt there are people who haven't been mentioned in this sweating.

edam Fri 27-Jul-12 12:09:17

Apparently not. She doesn't seem to have done any media law training - AFAIK didn't do NCTJ as she moved from being a features secretary into journalism. Nowt wrong with that, plenty of people do, but most have the common sense to do some media law training, especially if they work in national newspapers and become an editor. That footage of Rebekah merrily admitting to paying cops at the select committee shows Coulson, who did do formal training, stepping in PDQ to correct her. Amazing that MPs didn't follow this up at the time.

Viviennemary Fri 27-Jul-12 11:57:54

Something that really puzzles me about all this. She actually admitted to paying police officers. I heard her on TV. Surely she must realise this is against the law.

tuckchop Fri 27-Jul-12 11:21:59

I like the Rebekka hair style....but she should save her explanations for the court. Ordiary people dont get a say pre court hearing.

edam Fri 27-Jul-12 10:51:32

Strange thing is, although they've been charged over phone hacking, there's been nothing more heard about the murder case where the prime suspect was a private detective who did an awful lot of work for the Screws, and the Screws was tailing the officer in charge of the investigation. When this one came out, their very thin excuse was that they thought the guy was having an affair - with his own wife! Clearly bollocks. Strikes me apparently interfering in a murder investigation is quite important - why haven't they been held to account over that and why is no-one reporting developments in that case?

limitedperiodonly Thu 26-Jul-12 23:23:23

It would be wrong to say someone is guilty because that's for a jury to decide. But you could always say you can't wait to hear their vigorous defence in court.

That's what they've promised us, after all.

<keen legal student>

<rubs hands>

Nancy66 Thu 26-Jul-12 23:14:52

A tad over cautious of MN I'd say....

But it is a complete myth that prefixing a damaging statement with 'allegedly' makes it legally safe.

lisaro Thu 26-Jul-12 23:06:55

So IF I thought they were all guilty as sin, I couldn't say? I'll keep quiet then.

limitedperiodonly Thu 26-Jul-12 23:04:10

No.

But it's okay IMO as long as you don't say someone is guilty as sin or speculate on evidence such as

lisaro Thu 26-Jul-12 22:59:01

Wonder if we could get away with more if we say 'ALLEGEDLY' in front of everything, as Ian Hislop ALLEGEDLY does on HIGNFY.

limitedperiodonly Thu 26-Jul-12 22:57:18

Not me <preens>

<don't take this as a challenge MNHQ>

I think it always helps to stay on the right side of the law if you stick to base abuse about people's looks and personal habits.

LineRunnerSpartanNaked Thu 26-Jul-12 22:23:56

Still an attractive thread heading.

donnie Thu 26-Jul-12 18:48:01

oh gosh I had one of my posts deleted....confused

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now