Foot in mouth...

[jayne lee wilson]

She was aiming for the demure innocent look - something women (oh dear, I feel that I'm straying into sexism territory) tend to do in such situations. Men go for the neat suit & tie look (cf any footballer had up in court).

Martin Raowson in the Guardian had her as a Puritan -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nquiry-cartoon

Yes, she probably overdid the demure thing here, but what's a girl to do? Dressing for a situation like this you'll often look as if you're trying too hard NOT to look a certain way - sexy, flashy, fashionista etc.
Remember Naomi Campbell's cream suit at the war crimes trial in the Hague? Possibly a more stylish option but there's the problem: someone else will say you're attention-seeking, not serious enough.

But Rebekah's never been a flashy or sexy dresser, her firebrand reputation does come from her life and work (and her hair! - which she often sets off with her dark outfits) - whatever you think of it...

[scottycelt]

I find it rather pathetic that a new thread has started based solely on personal attack and personal insult. I assume the OP finds it hilarious that the term "witch hunt" was used. However that is precisely what has occured. This a politically motivated prosecution, and I am sure that when it comes to court it will be shown to be just that. Besides which, any chance of a fair trial has long since been scuppered. Just look at a thread such as this.

Mr Pee makes a 'fair' point about the trial, though to claim the prosecution is 'politically motivated' without any evidence whatsoever is just as unfair to the police and prosecutors as for others to assume (gleefully in some cases) that Ms Brooks is guilty of anything criminal at this stage.

However, I do wonder just how much concern Ms Brooks gave to those in similar situations to herself. when she was editor of NOTW ?

There is an undeniable element of rough justice already occurring here even if she is ultimately found to be innocent of committing the crime(s) alleged ...

[Flosshilde]

Yes, she probably overdid the demure thing here, but what's a girl to do? Dressing for a situation like this you'll often look as if you're trying too hard NOT to look a certain way - sexy, flashy, fashionista etc.
Remember Naomi Campbell's cream suit at the war crimes trial in the Hague? Possibly a more stylish option but there's the problem: someone else will say you're attention-seeking, not serious enough.

But Rebekah's never been a flashy or sexy dresser, her firebrand reputation does come from her life and work (and her hair! - which she often sets off with her dark outfits) - whatever you think of it...

I agree broadly with what you say - damned if she does, damned if she doesn't - & having trawled through a few Google images the few not of her arriving at court or the Leveson enquiry don't suggest an overtly 'sexy' dress sense, but I think it was the white collar that tipped it into a parody of Puritan dress.

[MrGongGong]

I find it rather pathetic that a new thread has started based solely on personal attack and personal insult. I assume the OP finds it hilarious that the term "witch hunt" was used. However that is precisely what has occured. This a politically motivated prosecution, and I am sure that when it comes to court it will be shown to be just that. Besides which, any chance of a fair trial has long since been scuppered. Just look at a thread such as this.

To (mis?) quote yourself mr P

"Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"


Rough Justice it might be but ..............the phrase "Just deserts" springs to mind and i'm not thinking about trifle !

Personally I couldn't give a monkeys what she looks like but if one is responsible for profiting from the stereotyping of people based on their appearance (NOTW ? ) then what on earth do these people expect ?


(and do we get a point for the word "Pathetic" as well as the word that describes the big blue thing that's above us when we go outdoors ?)

[Flosshilde]

Mr Pee, your post was fine without the first two sentences - why did you think they were neccessary? You are quick to complain about posts that attack or criticise the poster rather than adress the substance of the post; why do you find it so difficult not to do so yourself?


(& I won't say anymore on that topic, ff )

[anotherbob]

I assume the OP finds it hilarious that the term "witch hunt" was used.

Dead right I did.
How Charlie could spend his days with a lady straight out of Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1, and yet not see how the term "witch hunt" might raise a laugh I cannot imagine.

[Resurrection Man]

I am somewhat bemused to find myself in total accord with Flosshilde and Mr GongGong at at odds with Mr Pee on this one. The phrase " Just deserts" is very true.

[ahinton]

I find it rather pathetic that a new thread has started based solely on personal attack and personal insult.

It might indeed be so had that actually occurred.

I assume the OP finds it hilarious that the term "witch hunt" was used. However that is precisely what has occured.

Well, I don't find it especially amusing personally - or at least not so much so as I might do when the elusive Jeremy finally takes the witness stand and Jay opens his interrogation of him with the question "and which Hunt are you, then?"

This a politically motivated prosecution, and I am sure that when it comes to court it will be shown to be just that.

Whether or not and to what extent it might be such or indeed might be seen as such would have to some degree to be predicate upon the meaning of the term "politically motivated prosecution"; what precisely do you personally mean by it? It might be easier to usderstand the motivation behind that part of your post if you cared to explain this.

Besides which, any chance of a fair trial has long since been scuppered. Just look at a thread such as this.

Why and on what grounds do you claim this to be the case? and would your view of this change if Mrs Brooks and/or others charged alongside her are acquitted following that trial? And what might you mean by an unfair trial? - one in which some of the relevant evidence is somehow hidden from view or selectively destroyed before it can be presented to court? Oh, shurely not!...

I really do not see how this thread or indeed any other here is likely to scupper any opportunity for a fair trial; its contents hardly constitute counsel for the defence and the prosecution, judge, jury and executioner, do they?

[Mr Pee]

Dead right I did.
How Charlie could spend his days with a lady straight out of Macbeth, Act 4, Scene 1, and yet not see how the term "witch hunt" might raise a laugh I cannot imagine.

How depressing. By all means lambast Mrs. Brooks for her alleged past wrongdoings, and criticise her on that level, but I think personal abuse based on her appearance is both distasteful and childish.

Where are we- primary school?

[anotherbob]

Where are we- primary school?

I enjoyed Primary School

[Mr Pee]

I enjoyed Primary School

And it seems you have only just left.

[ahinton]

And it seems you have only just left.

I realise that you did not address you remark here to me but, for the record, whilst I happen personally to dislike Mrs Brooks's appearance, I couldn't give two semiquavers about it in the greaer scheme of things, since she's neither my partner nor a friend nor even someone from whom I've ever sought to borrow a horse; I am, however, concerned about what she and her husband and colleagues may have done to pervert the course of justice and other illegal acts that she/they may have committed and I await that justice taking its due course in order that we may hopefully find out.

[Mr Pee]

I realise that you did not address you remark here to me but, for the record, whilst I happen personally to dislike Mrs Brooks's appearance, I couldn't give two semiquavers about it in the greaer scheme of things, since she's neither my partner nor a friend nor even someone from whom I've ever sought to borrow a horse; I am, however, concerned about what she and her husband and colleagues may have done to pervert the course of justice and other illegal acts that she/they may have committed and I await that justice taking its due course in order that we may hopefully find out.

Absolutely. And I happen to think think that debasing the argument to nothing more than mud-slinging based on somebody's appearance contributes nothing to such an issue and simply makes the poster, and by association these messageboards, look childish and spiteful.

[anotherbob]

Great minds........

[ahinton]

Absolutely. And I happen to think think that debasing the argument to nothing more than mud-slinging based on somebody's appearance contributes nothing to such an issue and simply makes the poster, and by association these messageboards, look childish and spiteful.

Indeed so but, pace the Private Eye quote above, as long as the majority of those who see or hear said mud-slinging treat it as what it is rather than as though directly representative of the heinous crimes that Mrs Brooks and her husband and colleagues may or may not have committed, then its value will be what it is, no more, no less and the said mud, once slung, won't stick - so people can do and say what they like about Mrs Brooks, mindful of the fact that, if by so doing, they happen to break the law and are prosecuted for having done so, they obligate themselves to take the risk of the consequences of such prosecution if it's successful.