What are you suggesting her friends in the right places did? tampered with the jury? kidnapped the judge's cat?
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that it was a fair trial and the jury was not able to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt? or is it definitely a conspiracy?
What are you suggesting her friends in the right places did? tampered with the jury? kidnapped the judge's cat?
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that it was a fair trial and the jury was not able to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt? or is it definitely a conspiracy?
Exactly. 'Friends in the right places' would have meant no trial at all, not a jury trial...
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that it was a fair trial and the jury was not able to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt? or is it definitely a conspiracy?
I think it's the right verdict. As the trial went on and little snippets of info were released to the press it was becoming more and more apparent this verdict was on the way for her. CPS will have some questions to answer.
I think it's the right verdict. As the trial went on and little snippets of info were released to the press it was becoming more and more apparent this verdict was on the way for her. CPS will have some questions to answer.
who was the guy that said 'do his phone' or something like that.
up-until that point i was sure the evidence would be too nuanced to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Having to go through it all again will be time consuming.
Not sure how quick appeals are held but is there any chance of it co-inciding with the General Election run-up
"If I have been lied to, that would be the moment for profound apology" July 2011
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.
I do not believe for one second that she is innocent of anything.
Coulson bring convicted (and jailed) is a colossal embarrassment for Cameron though, which is lovely; can't wait to see him squirm PMQs tomorrow.
When does Piers Morgan's trial start?
you think that a criminal operating out of number 10 is worth it for cameron squirming? you must be one of these people that hopes the economy doesn't recover before the election.
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.
quite. It's not exactly the same as systematically deceiving the country and parliament to take us in to an illegal war in which people are still dying.
I do not believe for one second that she is innocent of anything.
Thankfully we have a jury system in this country which relies on 12 people sitting through all of the evidence rather than people like you making judgements based upon second hand reports.
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.
An independent jury sat through a case, heard all the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the defendant wasn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges faced.
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.
Comments
What are you suggesting her friends in the right places did? tampered with the jury? kidnapped the judge's cat?
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that it was a fair trial and the jury was not able to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt? or is it definitely a conspiracy?
Exactly.
That puzzles me.
Exactly. 'Friends in the right places' would have meant no trial at all, not a jury trial...
I think it's the right verdict. As the trial went on and little snippets of info were released to the press it was becoming more and more apparent this verdict was on the way for her. CPS will have some questions to answer.
who was the guy that said 'do his phone' or something like that.
up-until that point i was sure the evidence would be too nuanced to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
presumably that was coulson?
Because that was George Osborne...he and others have testified under oath on more than one occasion it was his bright idea in the first place.
Coulson bring convicted (and jailed) is a colossal embarrassment for Cameron though, which is lovely; can't wait to see him squirm PMQs tomorrow.
When does Piers Morgan's trial start?
Yeah I think it was. I don't think RB was ever directly implicated as ordering phone hacking to take place.
Having to go through it all again will be time consuming.
Not sure how quick appeals are held but is there any chance of it co-inciding with the General Election run-up
I think juries need something like that.
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.
you think that a criminal operating out of number 10 is worth it for cameron squirming? you must be one of these people that hopes the economy doesn't recover before the election.
how pleasant.
quite. It's not exactly the same as systematically deceiving the country and parliament to take us in to an illegal war in which people are still dying.
Thankfully we have a jury system in this country which relies on 12 people sitting through all of the evidence rather than people like you making judgements based upon second hand reports.
"Rock on Tommy!"
An independent jury sat through a case, heard all the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the defendant wasn't guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges faced.
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.
BIB. you can't say that.
Why did the judge tell her not to talk to the press. What does it have to do with him?