|
Post by notanimby on Jun 25, 2014 14:40:41 GMT -1
Well I think it is courageous to take the blame for someone else, you can pick and choose certain cases but in the case I mentioned, nothing to do with murders etc., I did point out that he COULD have dropped her and no doubt others in it but chose not to. Many, in fact most ira guilty verdicts were due to other terrorists giving information and often testimony againt their own. Coulson has shown courage, albeit I dont like him, Brooks, Bliar and their whole Cabal, in my opinion he has for whatever reason chosen to be silent. That does not automatically mean what you say Nota, I am merely commenting on this case and Lee Cleggs case where Clegg also showed remarkable courage. Hmmmmmm... Much more courageous if she and they had admitted their guilt- the big boy done it and ran away excuses are not courageous actions - but I think it is beyond this pair and their compatriots/employers to even begin to think about how this is viewed by the general public. They do not care what the general public think, they are only interested in their bank balance courage, honour, probity and honesty are ideals that these scum don't even believe in, never mind aspire to. this filth are not deenet human beings who are the victims of circumstance
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jun 25, 2014 16:00:23 GMT -1
Yes, I have the same opinion of them as you, however he still took the blame, like Clegg!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 0:19:22 GMT -1
Yep, I am somewhat amazed, gobsmacked and all sorts of flabbergasted to learn that Rebekah Brooks is innocent. Hmmm. Yeah, hmmm indeed, Celyn. This 'good bloke' taking the rap for a woman is total TOSH. Rebekah Brooks was the editor of a national newspaper: I find it highly unlikely she didn't know about the phone hacking that went on on her watch. She had a long-standing affair with Andy Coulson, are we to honestly believe she had NO CLUE what her own people were doing? Yeah, right And sadly I doubt she's above playing the gender card to escape conviction for the crimes she has allowed to be committed in the name of the newspaper she edited... She doesn't fool me for a second. What she HAS done is let down good women everywhere: that's an inescapable FACT whether she's convicted of a crime or not. Hell mend her for that.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jun 26, 2014 0:27:28 GMT -1
Was it a jury trial?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2014 0:33:49 GMT -1
Might I suggest a bit of reading on the background of Rebekah and her gang Oz? She knew fine WELL what was going on with the phone hacking. She's not daft. Likely some have been bribed by Murdoch to take the rap. The whole shebang stinks to high heaven. What's most interesting is the Tommy Sheridan case, as Coulson was instrumental in breaking the story of Sheridan's apparent misbaviour. POT,KETTLE, I say. Why? Im not interested in a mucky case on the far side of the world. I always thought innocent till proved guilty however innuendo is a wonderful weapon btw I have no idea who Sheridan is and dont really care either What does interest me is people's reaction to a court's findings when it doesnt suit their preconceived ideas or political agenda. Oz, you opted to comment on Andy Coulson. He's up to his neck in it re the Sheridan perjury trial so it was pertinent to mention it as part of the bigger picture. If you're interested in 'one' mucky case this side of the globe, then it seems slightly absurd to complain when the more complex associations-- that are highly relevant-- are brought to the table. What this is all about is that a certain cabal believe they're above the law and can operate without interference. Well, it ain't so and we're not having it. Everyone involved in this seedy phone-hacking shite will get theirs, sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jun 26, 2014 0:47:31 GMT -1
was it a jury trial?
PS A simple yes or no will suffice
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jun 26, 2014 12:36:10 GMT -1
Yes our trials are by jury except in N I when the troubles were still on! Brooks is in my OPINION as guilty as anyone, however Oz the Jury found her NOT GUILTY, therefore until other evidence or another case comes up, in the eyes of the law she is not guilty. As it should be. However, I would say that the vast majority who have followed this trial certainly can not understand the jury's finding! That happens sometimes, maybe the Judge's summing up, maybe she was just believed? It does not stop us, nor should it stop us, thinking what we wish, however we must accept the result.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jun 26, 2014 13:52:36 GMT -1
Yes our trials are by jury except in N I when the troubles were still on! Brooks is in my OPINION as guilty as anyone, however Oz the Jury found her NOT GUILTY, therefore until other evidence or another case comes up, in the eyes of the law she is not guilty. As it should be. However, I would say that the vast majority who have followed this trial certainly can not understand the jury's finding! That happens sometimes, maybe the Judge's summing up, maybe she was just believed? It does not stop us, nor should it stop us, thinking what we wish, however we must accept the result. Apparently there were only eleven jury members left out of 12 Under Scots Law a jury is made up of 15 people The only major Scots Law trial recently convened without a jury wass the Lockerbie Trial - look how much of a debacle that turned out to be In Engerland there are moves afoot to have secret trials with only a judge sitting and without the defence team having any access to the evidence against their client - Hmmmm that'll work well
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jun 26, 2014 15:53:57 GMT -1
Yes, was it Hitler who arranged these type of trials Nota?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Jun 26, 2014 18:10:11 GMT -1
Yes, was it Hitler who arranged these type of trials Nota? Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pinochet, Franco, UK Tory/Lie-Dumbs- they are a feature of right wing governments the world over - even Bliar wanted a go at it but failed They are a feature of governments with something to hide from the people - same with imprisoning people without trial or banning orders, kidnapping people of the streets - b those defenders of democracy and freedom ( the USA & UK & Israel ) do it day-in, day-out by just bending the rules to suit their own agenda
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jun 26, 2014 20:11:42 GMT -1
Yes our trials are by jury except in N I when the troubles were still on! Brooks is in my OPINION as guilty as anyone, however Oz the Jury found her NOT GUILTY, therefore until other evidence or another case comes up, in the eyes of the law she is not guilty. As it should be. However, I would say that the vast majority who have followed this trial certainly can not understand the jury's finding! That happens sometimes, maybe the Judge's summing up, maybe she was just believed? It does not stop us, nor should it stop us, thinking what we wish, however we must accept the result. Beautifully put Bormes The "vast majority" rely on comment, heresay and innuendo as well as prejudice. The jury relied on 231 days of hard evidence and legal argument. Logic says they have a much better chance of getting it right. The result was unanimous! Personally I have great faith in the jury system. Here they have done a study on court findings based on appeals and Inquiries. They found that juries got it right in about 95% of the cases. The jury was down to 11 as one juror took ill and the judge decided to carry on. England like Oz can have trials without jury at the behest of the accused. As commented on here in Oz Certain rants here which have no bearing on the case prompted me to print this other comment . My only regret about it is I didnt think of it
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jun 27, 2014 6:50:39 GMT -1
I think? Most of us saw this as a kind of liberty taking group of journalists ( not because it was Murdoch, although some did) who with the wee Lassie that was murdered, Milly, there was revulsion and we all wanted the perpetrators of that punished? It then gave the chance to politicians who were caught with their trousers down with their expenses scandal, a chance to pay the journalists back? I, even after all the publicity do not think the Press should be gagged. Politicians, journalists, other privileged people and the rest of us should NOT be able to pay money to stop the press writing about our behaviour or doings, if however they lie about it, then they should be forced to pay for it and the only changes I would want is for there to be a way to challenge what they do by a direct and easy route. There is an arrogance with most of the press and most politicians that needs to be curbed, both are massive egos.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Jun 27, 2014 8:47:45 GMT -1
I think? Most of us saw this as a kind of liberty taking group of journalists ( not because it was Murdoch, although some did) who with the wee Lassie that was murdered, Milly, there was revulsion and we all wanted the perpetrators of that punished? It then gave the chance to politicians who were caught with their trousers down with their expenses scandal, a chance to pay the journalists back? I, even after all the publicity do not think the Press should be gagged. Politicians, journalists, other privileged people and the rest of us should NOT be able to pay money to stop the press writing about our behaviour or doings, if however they lie about it, then they should be forced to pay for it and the only changes I would want is for there to be a way to challenge what they do by a direct and easy route. There is an arrogance with most of the press and most politicians that needs to be curbed, both are massive egos. Yeah I couldnt agree more. They acted way way above themselves and thought the sun shone out there arses Arrogant bastards! Didnt seem to think the laws were for them. Disgusting people. Doesnt alter the fact that Becky was found not guilty and the direct conduit to Rupe was cut much to the consternation and horror of the Murdoch haters ie the left who seem to be having apoplexy. It is one of the main differences between our countries. The ordinary folk here ( thats most of us) abhor arrogance and wont put up with it. It reflects in our attitude to "celebrities" eg Angelica Jolie was here a while ago and took her kids to the Zoo just mingled with the crowds who left her alone. She did not crave attention, they realised she was "off-duty" and they respected that and left her alone. The press are the same they will get their photo opportunities and interviews then they leave them alone. Similarily any one that "bungs-it-on" will get hammered like Frank Sinatra who the unions black banned because of his stupid arrogance. If Paxton for example came here I would lay odds someone would "caw the feet frae him" quick smart. In his British Empire series he never came here. I think its our "Jack is as good as his master" attitude
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Jun 27, 2014 9:06:47 GMT -1
Which attitude, I personally LOVE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2014 18:16:48 GMT -1
Yes our trials are by jury except in N I when the troubles were still on! Brooks is in my OPINION as guilty as anyone, however Oz the Jury found her NOT GUILTY, therefore until other evidence or another case comes up, in the eyes of the law she is not guilty. As it should be. However, I would say that the vast majority who have followed this trial certainly can not understand the jury's finding! That happens sometimes, maybe the Judge's summing up, maybe she was just believed? It does not stop us, nor should it stop us, thinking what we wish, however we must accept the result. Sure, we have to accept the verdict of the jury, that's the price of democracy after all. In my view, she's managed to 'get away with it', whether due to clever legal briefs or playing the gender card in court. If she truly DID NOT KNOW about the phone-hacking going on under HER WATCH (even through pillow-talk via her affair with Andy Coulson, now a convicted criminal) then at the very least she's derelict in her duty as editor of a newspaper and is clearly shit at her job. So for that reason alone, she's let herself and other professional women down. I do suspect there's layers more to come out re her/Murdoch/Tony Blair in the fullness of time......but for now, yes, Bormes, she's 'not guilty'...
|
|