Whilst the verdicts returned were not guilty in the majority of cases, it seems inconceivable that Coulson was the only person who knew what was going on.
It's not about whether she 'knew about' what was going on, it's whether she was actually involved in a conspiracy to commit the acts.
Whilst the verdicts returned were not guilty in the majority of cases, it seems inconceivable that Coulson was the only person who knew what was going on.
The verdicts may be right in that there was insufficient evidence to convict but that does not mean that certain people knew nothing about what was going on. However, legally speaking I have to respect the verdicts. In my personal view though I think some scummy people are damn lucky.
But he wasn't. Five have already admitted their guilt so no need for a trial.
It's not about whether she 'knew about' what was going on, it's whether she was actually involved in a conspiracy to commit the acts.
Depends on what is meant by a conspiracy and the associated action such as 'hack' and 'intercept'.
The BBC report:
- Andy Coulson was found guilty of a charge of conspiracy to intercept voicemails
- Mrs Brooks was found not guilty of conspiracy to hack voicemails, two counts of conspiracy to pay public officials and two counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
It's fair enough that Cameron apologises for being lied to - but he's hardly the first leader to make some bad decisions based upon a pack of lies. There's no evidence that Cameron knew about the hacking.
Dave was warned on numerous occasions that appointing Coulson was highly risky - so it is Dave's judgment that is being called into question and not for the first time
It's not about whether she 'knew about' what was going on, it's whether she was actually involved in a conspiracy to commit the acts.
Come on - I'm not suggesting "she" knew or in fact any nameable individual knew because that would be potentially libelous - and I'm very keen, unlike Coulson, to stay on the right side of the law. I'm suggesting that someone other than Coulson knew and that unnamed individual or individuals has been very lucky that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Depends on what is meant by a conspiracy and the associated action such as 'hack' and 'intercept'.
The BBC report:
- Andy Coulson was found guilty of a charge of conspiracy to intercept voicemails
- Mrs Brooks was found not guilty of conspiracy to hack voicemails, two counts of conspiracy to pay public officials and two counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
Unless they can show she had active involvement in planning/carrying out the acts in question, she was going to be found not guilty on conspiracy charges. That she might have known it was going on is insufficient.
Come on - I'm not suggesting "she" knew or in fact any nameable individual knew because that would be potentially libelous - and I'm very keen, unlike Coulson, to stay on the right side of the law. I'm suggesting that someone other than Coulson knew and that unnamed individual or individuals has been very lucky that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
You've missed my point. Simply showing that she, or anyone else, was aware of/knew about what was happening is not sufficient to demonstrate guilt on a conspiracy charge.
Dave was warned on numerous occasions that appointing Coulson was highly risky - so it is Dave's judgment that is being called into question and not for the first time
you think rumours about someone should be sufficient and legitimate grounds to deny them employment?
You've missed my point. Simply showing that she, or anyone else, was aware of/knew about what was happening is not sufficient to demonstrate guilt on a conspiracy charge.
Some of the charges were conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If you knew about something and lied to the police then this is what you would be charged with. I believe that someone, un-named of course, knew about the hacking and lied to the police. My points still stand.
because reportedly he didn't tell her not to talk to the press until all the decisions were completed, he reportedly told her that she had plenty of celebrating to do without talking to the press. Completely different
Cameron should apologise for not having a time machine, finding out the verdict from the court case, then returning to last year and admitting he should have known better than a future jury.
Comments
It's not about whether she 'knew about' what was going on, it's whether she was actually involved in a conspiracy to commit the acts.
But he wasn't. Five have already admitted their guilt so no need for a trial.
Because charges are still being deliberated over in respect of other defendants.
I started another thread, comparing Rebekah Brooks and Nick Clegg
Both in charge of organisations, and conveniently neither having any idea what their underlings are up to.
Would he apologise then?
It is not so bad. Not so long ago Coulson knew nothing about it either and had no case to answer.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1406057&highlight=coulson
So who knows what the future may bring?
He was reported as saying rather cryptically, I thought that "she had enough to celebrate without talking to the press"
Are you suggesting that coulson admitted his guilt to cameron and cameron employed him anyway?
Depends on what is meant by a conspiracy and the associated action such as 'hack' and 'intercept'.
The BBC report:
- Andy Coulson was found guilty of a charge of conspiracy to intercept voicemails
- Mrs Brooks was found not guilty of conspiracy to hack voicemails, two counts of conspiracy to pay public officials and two counts of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
In what way does that affect my statement?
Ever heard of "plausible deniability"?
Dave was warned on numerous occasions that appointing Coulson was highly risky - so it is Dave's judgment that is being called into question and not for the first time
Come on - I'm not suggesting "she" knew or in fact any nameable individual knew because that would be potentially libelous - and I'm very keen, unlike Coulson, to stay on the right side of the law. I'm suggesting that someone other than Coulson knew and that unnamed individual or individuals has been very lucky that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Unless they can show she had active involvement in planning/carrying out the acts in question, she was going to be found not guilty on conspiracy charges. That she might have known it was going on is insufficient.
what do you mean hacking you? what do you think they are doing to you as we speak?
You've missed my point. Simply showing that she, or anyone else, was aware of/knew about what was happening is not sufficient to demonstrate guilt on a conspiracy charge.
you think rumours about someone should be sufficient and legitimate grounds to deny them employment?
really?
Well this Lefty supports the system of trial by jury and innocent until proven guilty, and therefore accepts the courts findings.
Some of the charges were conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If you knew about something and lied to the police then this is what you would be charged with. I believe that someone, un-named of course, knew about the hacking and lied to the police. My points still stand.
This lefty does too.
The disdain I feel for those found not guilty however is an other matter
because reportedly he didn't tell her not to talk to the press until all the decisions were completed, he reportedly told her that she had plenty of celebrating to do without talking to the press. Completely different
Yeah, just like Blair.