Rebecca Brooks & Andy Coulson

[Ray Scully]

I bet you could not get odds on them being found 'not guilty'
Why do they not do the decent thing for once and save us all millions.
NO their arrogance would not let them do this.

Ray

[sumdumbloke]

Not only will you get odds, my guess is they would be quite good ones. It's always the same when you've heard only half of the story; it sounds very black and white.

They both have hugely expensive lawyers. If it really was a foregone conclusion for sure the advice would have been 'plead guilty', since by doing they'll get at least 1/3rd off whatever sentence is imposed. By choosing to plead not guilty, they must be confident of at least raising a doubt. Like you, I think it's difficult to see what that might be, but I'm sure there'll be something unexpected.

[towny44]

Who decided phone hacking was illegal anyway, from all the news I see and hear it seems that everyone from Govt agencies down to the lowest private eye have been doing it for ages, or at least since mobile phones were invented.
It only seemed to become illegal when the possibility that Millie Dowler's phone had been hacked and messages removed, prior to that the police had seemed indifferent to it, and if the buck stops with whoever is at the top of the pile, why did Sharon Shoesmith get a £600,000 pay off for wrongful dismissal.

[Stephen]

My bets on them getting a suspended sentence and a fine each.

The 'OLd Boy' network will no doubt kick in somewhere along the line.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Who decided phone hacking was illegal anyway.

The short answer is the Government, who pass our laws. It has specifically been illegal since 2000. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the unauthorised interception of communications covers fixed and mobile telephone lines, emails, texts and pager messages. A person ‘intercepts’ a communication by making some or all of the content of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.

Unlike many similar offences and civil claims, there is no public interest defence for anyone caught breaking the act for phone hacking and there is no provision for anyone outside the police and security services to obtain the authority to intercept calls or messages.

The source of the above, by the way, is not my finely tuned legal brain, but a legal website.

To my mind the police and security services taking such action to reduce the chances of a terrorist attack is, in any case, a rather better reason than to flog a few newspapers.

However, we must remember this is likely to be a six month trial. We have so far only heard the opening summary by the prosection. We've not yet heard witnesses give their evidence and be examined and cross-examined so let's not place any bets on the outcome yet.

[Ray Scully]

As far as witnesses are concerned, will this not be payback time for those Brooks and Coulson have stuffed in the past?
It could be an entertaining 5/6 months if the trial runs its course. The self righteous Daily Mail will have a field day.

Ray

[Dark Knight]

so will this self righteous forum

[Mervyn and Trish]

The self righteous Daily Mail will have a field day.

Ray

Because they've never done the same, or because they've never been caught?

[Ray Scully]

so will this self righteous forum

DN

I Know I will

Ray

[Dark Knight]

As will many others no doubt Ray

[Frank Manning]

The self righteous Daily Mail will have a field day.

Ray

Because they've never done the same, or because they've never been caught?

[towny44]

Who decided phone hacking was illegal anyway.

The short answer is the Government, who pass our laws. It has specifically been illegal since 2000. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the unauthorised interception of communications covers fixed and mobile telephone lines, emails, texts and pager messages. A person ‘intercepts’ a communication by making some or all of the content of the communication available, while being transmitted, to a person other than the sender or intended recipient of the communication.

HaHa, brought in by a Labour Govt so it does not apply to me.

[Frank Manning]

What is worse, for me, is that the smug Rupert Murdoch is not on trial as well.

I wonder if the Daily Wail is too busy thinking up wheezes to slate the BBC to worry about a little matter of phone hacking. Some of these press and media people are beneath contempt. One such low life, threatened to park his car across our drive and leave it there if we didn't give him a photograph that he wanted. I am so pleased that parliament held firm over the Royal Charter, because innocent members of the public do need protection.

[oldbluefox]

I'm with you Frank.

I have no time at all with any of them. They all deserve each other. Unfortunately there is little protection for Joe Public. As I was once told by a local newspaper when I complained about the way a news story was presented - 'It sells papers' and they will go to any lengths to put a slant on a story, even resorting to fiction because 'It sells papers'.

[Meg 50]

I'm with you Frank.

I have no time at all with any of them. They all deserve each other. Unfortunately there is little protection for Joe Public. As I was once told by a local newspaper when I complained about the way a news story was presented - 'It sells papers' and they will go to any lengths to put a slant on a story, even resorting to fiction because 'It sells papers'.

"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"

[Kendhni]

To my mind the police and security services taking such action to reduce the chances of a terrorist attack is, in any case, a rather better reason than to flog a few newspapers.

There has been this world of delusion where people for some curious reason seem to be surprised that security services track their when, where and what? Of course it happens .. in pretty much every country that has a security service ... the previous government put in place many bits of legislation that allowed this to happen as well as CCTV's on every street corner. Then and today the media are making mountains out of mole hills ... I for one believe there is much more than coincidence behind this trial and the medias current obsession with very old news about who is watching who.

For the overwhelming majority of us it is meaningless and really does not infringe on anything. If however you do feel it is an infringement then we all have the choice to stop using the internet, stop using mobile phones and wear a false moustache if we dare to risk our lives on the streets. But, as most people, work out the benefits of such technology outweigh the very very minor issue that someone else may just see a text or email that you have written.

So I agree with M&T and have absolutely no problem with security services monitoring communications of all sorts ... it has in the past helped the police and security services to track criminals, provide evidence and, in some cases, prevent atrocities ... when such atrocities happen the same people that complain about 'invasion of privacy' are often the first screaming about why did the police not do more (or 'who will think of the children').

But should non-security organisations be allowed to hack for profit .. then the answer is a definite no-no and the law should be very harsh ... however one also has to then ask should a child or an adult have the ability to the law if their parent or husband/wife/brother/sister picks up their phone and flicks through the messages? I know some who would consider that a major invasion of privacy .. and I know some that would say big deal.

So there is a line and it is important that we get its position correct.

[Onelife]

Corporate espionage has been going on since the year dot but when it gets to the point where innocent people are being spied upon to sell papers then it becomes a completely different ball game.

The kind of edge Brook’s and Coulson are suspected of initiating has nothing to do with competitive newspaper reporting it was pure one-upmanship with total disregard for the feelings of their unsuspecting victims. It is for that reason, should they be found guilty I hope they get a sentence that allows plenty of time for them to reflect on the misery and heartbreak that they inflicted on familes such as the Millie Dowler family.
.......................................

Btw - I think I’ve got some pictures of Coulson and Brooks in bed together, do you think they would mind if I exposed what went on behind their bedroom door?

Regards

OL

[Ray Scully]

...

Btw - I think I’ve got some pictures of Coulson and Brooks in bed together, do you think they would mind if I exposed what went on behind their bedroom door?

Regards

OL

OL It should not be long now before the worlds media is camped outside your door trying to do a deal on your pics. Best of luck and make sure you get a top dollar price

Ray

[Kendhni]

Onelife, do you remember the prank played on the London gym owner who took and sold photos of Princess Diana. He was adamant that he had the right to do so because she was a customer in his gym (or various other reasons).

So a German (?) TV station said they wanted to do an interview. They flew him out and put him up in a luxury hotel with a TV that had a load of porn channels .. oh, and they had hidden cameras in his room. When he appeared for interview and yet again defended his actions the TV company then broadcast what he had got up to in the privacy of his own hotel room while watching TV.

[Onelife]

Sorry Ray... must dash there’s a knock at my door

[Onelife]

My Gawd it’s a German TV channel wanting to do an interview...Thanks Ken I'll remember not to take my Viagra

[Ray Scully]

So a German (?) TV station said they wanted to do an interview. They flew him out and put him up in a luxury hotel with a TV that had a load of porn channels .. oh, and they had hidden cameras in his room. When he appeared for interview and yet again defended his actions the TV company then broadcast what he had got up to in the privacy of his own hotel room while watching TV.

.....and whatever could that be Ken ???

Ray

[Stephen]

My Gawd it’s a German TV channel wanting to do an interview...Thanks Ken I'll remember not to take my Viagra

If you do take them remember to swallow not suck or you'll get a stiff upper lip

[Mervyn and Trish]

We put them in the wash to starch my shirt collars

[Dark Knight]

What's Viagra..is it something oldies need ?