Rebekah Brooks charged :)

[NicholasTeakozy]

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

I think he's great.

I think he's very clever but he comes across as a bitchy old queen

Is Robert the name of the hunky bearded spectacle wearing questioner?

I might have crush on him

Get in line, justfab. I staked my claim months ago.

You can have Elvis though, not keen on him!

I haven't had dealings with her but have friends who have.

As Nancy66 says do not feel sorry for her. She would sell her granny for a story and expects everyone else to behave in the same way

It's her incredible smugness and superiority and sense of indignation that anyone would dare challenge her behaviour. Obviously not used to it.

You sum up everything about her outraged statement yesterday marysa

Talk of waste of public money, diverting police officers from more important matters, talk of a witchhunt, concern for the 'little people' etc.

Meanwhile the little people settled for something along the lines of 'these charges are groundless and I look forward to clearing my name. Thank you and goodbye.'

As much as I dislike RB I actually DO think the money and manpower spent on this is ludicrous.

The fact that she and her husband are getting such a pasting from joe-public has nothing to do with the actual evidence and matters relating to these charges, but much more to do with her immoral conduct whilst in the employ of Murdoch and the immorality of the red tops

I agree with this. Or as DH put it when he heard the 'witch hunt' whinge: "Well, let's be fair, they are witches".

Mind you, I also agree with higgle and one or two others of the need to be careful. The most important thing is to have a fair trial. Not because it's Rebekah Brooks, but because it's a fundamental part of the rule of law.

Pressed post too soon: so in short, I'm sitting on the fence demanding fair trials whilst bellowing "Witches!" and other abuse...

I disagree Nancy. This is the press being called to account. It was long overdue.
I believe completely & absolutely in the freedom of the press. I think it is a fundamental part of a free society. However, I also believe in the freedom of the individual & the right to privacy.
The papers have abused the right to privacy by hacking into private emails, private phonecalls & private text messages. In the majority of cases, the hacking they conducted was not in the public interest in any way shape or form & was solely done to expose people & thus sell newspapers.

I disagree re Cameron. Charlie Brooks is a friend from way back when. Im sure we all have mates who are not rolling in sweet roses. Its not like he cosied up and had only just met them.

This isn't just about privacy, is it? It is about a culture of impunity and wholsesale corruption: press/police, politicians/Murdoch. The man seems to think he has more right than the voters to decide UK governments and their policies. The idea that having a particular newspaper group bugging Cabinet Ministers whenever they want, and print media as a whole driving a market in large-scale data theft in pursuit of trivial tittle-tattle is only about a narrow issue of phone hacking is very odd to me.

I can't think of a more worthy use of money and attention than examining the close links between media organisations, politicians and the police and the way the lives of the little people Brooks cares so much about appear to have taken second place at best.

I'm very concerned that some people have undue influence in those spheres.

I chose the word influence very carefully. There are others in my head but to use them might prejudice a fair trial.

Cameron was at Eton with Charlie Brooks.

I agree Eldritch - but think those things will be harder to prove and alot of very high profile & powerful individuals of all political hues have very, very vested interests in ensuring that as little as possible comes to light.

However, the hacking issue is more tangible & will hopefully be the catalyst for change.

It does get my goat that Teflon Tony is getting away with it yet again. Did anyone else see Campbell at Leveson the other day? He didn't think it unusual that Blair was phoning Murdoch directly during the days he was deciding whether or not to take our counrty to war.

I want to know what was said during those phonecalls and if it influenced Blair's decision to go to war.

This is worth every penny

I agree re Teflon Tone.

I am feeling a bit of a dimlow. She has been charged basically over trying to hide evidence?
But why does the evidence not have to be used to prove something first?
Is it purely because the evidence might have been relevant to an ongoing investigation and therefore if the evidence is incriminating, will she be facing charges in regard to that investigation later on?
Why does that investigation not have to be concluded first?

She will probably try the 'it wasn't me' defense and try to push the blame onto some other poor sod.

Frida, your fourth line is correct, I believe - it's an offence to conceal evidence, doesn't matter whether the evidence has been used at the point the offence occurs (otherwise you'd be able to get away with it...).

Wasnt it lovely yesterday when Lord Levison to cut a long speech short, told Harriet Harperson to button it re hunt!!!!!!! [big grin]