Rebekah Brooks Trial

[FrankelInFoal]

I'm no fan of Rebekah Brooks but having watched the news reporting from court today I'm finding myself feeling incredibly sorry for her.

Apparently today she was questioned about her fertility issues. I mean what the hell does that have to do with phone hacking? According to the report I watched she was asked about her problems conceiving with Ross Kemp which prompted her to ask for a break in proceedings and she left the room in tears. Later she was questioned about the surrogacy that she and her current husband had gone through to get their daughter.

Seriously, how is that relevant/appropriate?! If she was a man I sincerely doubt she'd have been asked about such a private matter.

[Viviennemary]

I read yesterday that Ed Miliband doesn't intend to stand down even if Labour lose the next election. Is he really a Tory. Why doesn't he give Labour a chance and stand down.

[ParsingFlatly]

But he insisted it had been the civil service's role to vet the appointment and that he had been exonerated by a public inquiry following the hacking scandal. "Every single one of these issues was dealt with exhaustively by the Leveson Inquiry," the prime minster told MPs. "He looked into all of these questions about the warnings I was given and the response I gave and he made no criticism of my conduct."

Er, the Leveson Enquiry was into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. Many, many other issues got mentioned and Leveson was careful to say they were outside the scope of his enquiry. He couldn't exonerate Dave of picking his nose - never mind of appointing a crook.

Cameron's statement does have a familiar ring, mind you. Sounds just like Murdoch saying Harbottle & Lewis had exonerated News International of phone hacking, when they'd actually found various smoking criminal guns, and were only commenting on NI's likely success at an employment tribunal.

[Lottapianos]

squoosh, I've been sticking up for him because I thought it was pathetic how people kept harping on about how he looked geeky and 'weird' - FFS we're electing a leader of the country not the next James Bond! But even I've gotten sick of it now. Either he's utterly incompetent or his advisers are having a laugh.

[Chippednailvarnish]

As I said back in February, I would love to know who is paying her legal fees.

[nauticant]

I would love to know who is paying her legal fees

Her legal fees were paid by one of the Murdoch companies. Apparently it was a vast vast amount.

[Saganoren]

Yes, Murdoch footed the bill and it paid off for him

[Nancy66]

Murdoch is paying Andy's C's legal fees too after AC won legal battle to News Int to pay after they refused

[ExcuseTypos]

Yes the Jury were dismissed as they couldn't reach a verdict. Nothing to do with Cameron's comments. However the lawyers will now argue that Coulson can't get a fair trail because of the comments made by Cameron. Milli and also called him a criminal so I expect his comments won't have helped.

[Tanith]

Can it be that we will be treated to a politician's second apology in one week?? Unprecidented, isn't it?

The PM, too!

[ParsingFlatly]

My italicised bit at 14:36:43 was from the then BBC article "Judge rebukes Cameron for comments on Coulson conviction", BTW, which has been edited since I C&P'd.

[IthoughtATMwasacashpoint]

Anyone else read that the head od her legal team is David Cameron's brother?

[BOFster]

Some of the clearest and most unbiased daily coverage of the trial came from James Doleman at The Drum. This is his explanation of why Rebekah Brookes was found Not Guilty.

[FunLovinBunster]

I am BEYOND AMAZED that she was cleared.
So she, as the boss, knew nada about what her employees were up to, in their desperate quest to get scoops?!
It's brown comes out of a horse's arse and smells of.....

[Nancy66]

That's a well rounded piece BOFster. Bottom line is it doesn't matter what you think or believe, it has to be absolutely proved.

I know what I think (and know come to that) but if I was on that jury I would probably have to acquit

[PetiteRaleuse]

nancy you are a tease :o

[Saganoren]

I agree, take back my earlier remarks about juries, though I am still a bit baffled as to how destroying laptops etc doesn't count as perverting the course of justice. Anyone with any knowledge of a a newsroom is just a bit sceptical about the innocent daffy editor knowing nothing about his/her reporters' methods

[PetiteRaleuse]

This is an interesting article about the affair:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch

[ParsingFlatly]

Hahahaha!

Rebekah Brooks does [sadface]

[ParsingFlatly]

She can get a job on the front page with a quality [sadface] like that.

What do you reckon: "My editorship hell" for a few bucks to the Daily Wail, in case Rupes doesn't call?

[Chippednailvarnish]

As long as she doesn't start releasing "intimate" family photos, featuring her and the baby in soft focus...

[drudgetrudy]

Her karma isn't to be infertile, no, it is to have a painful personal issue exposed in public.
Actually think this line of questioning is very inappropriate but find it difficult to feel sorry for her.

[Jux]

Drudge, the questions about her 'painful personal issue' were put to her by her own barrister. You can be absolutely 100% certain that they spent quite a lot of time rehearsing her answers. If she hadn't wanted it 'exposed' then it wouldn't have been as she could easily have instructed her legal team not to bring it up. As they did, she must have agreed to it. Why would she do that? Perhaps so that people will feel sorry for her, do you think? "I'm just a terribly tragic figure who was unable to keep track of anything in the office because of my terribly painful personal difficulties and I was having a hard time and when this is over I can be terribly brave about it all too." Laugh. Bank.

[nauticant]

I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict on the phone hacking. It was an interesting circumstantial case but that's not enough. I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict on the perverting the course of justice. There was clearly a orchestrated effort to get up to some mischief at a critical time during the course of which potentially interesting materials and information went missing but without an indication of what disappeared, I can imagine the jury erring on the side of doubt.

I was though gobsmacked that she was found not guilty of the misconduct in a public office (paying public officials). Especially since there's a video recording of her admitting paying the police for information in front of a Parliamentary Committee. But then I read the article linked to above and it becomes clear:

Nor were [the jury] shown Brooks’s famous evidence to that committee in March 2003 when she said that her journalists had paid police for information in the past. Select committee evidence is not admissible in court because of rules around parliamentary privilege.

I have my own views on the soundness of the misconduct in a public office verdict.

[ParsingFlatly]

Ah, thanks for explaining that, nauticant. I too have been wondering how the select committee evidence didn't sink her (assumed I'd just missed it).

Agree completely with this, too:
"There was clearly a orchestrated effort to get up to some mischief at a critical time during the course of which potentially interesting materials and information went missing but without an indication of what disappeared, I can imagine the jury erring on the side of doubt."

[ProfessorDent]

It seems we've got a new Louise Woodward.