News International phone-hacking trial

[amateur51]

Clear sign of how low The Times has sunk - headline is Brooks being cleared, small sub-deck mentioned Coulson. One would expect nothing else from The Sun - trumpeting the 'sensational' news with a front page pic of Brooks.

'Phew! That's us in the clear, anyway ...'

Never mind The Thunderer of old - I bet it's all go at Private Eye - I have orders for copies from friends living abroad

[Serial_Apologist]

Never mind The Thunderer of old - I bet it's all go at Private Eye - I have orders for copies from friends living abroad

Is it tomorrow it comes out, Ams?

[amateur51]

Is it tomorrow it comes out, Ams?

I'm pretty certain there's a new edition out with a picture of Prince Charles in Arab garb so that's not it. I think I'll check out the website in the by & by

[Flosshilde]

But, of course, " Lessons must be learned."

They usually go further than that - "Lessons will be learned." The principal one being 'We must learn how not to get caught.'

[jean]

I'm pretty certain there's a new edition out with a picture of Prince Charles in Arab garb...

That's the latest one, it came in the post today - too early for a postmortem on the Trial of the Century

[Bryn]

P.G.T, may I refer you to that fine writer Lu Xun:

II. On three kinds of dogs in the water which should be beaten

Modern critics often compare "beating a dead tiger" with "beating a dog in the water," considering both as somewhat cowardly. I find those who pose as brave by beating dead tigers rather amusing. They may be cowards, but in an engaging way. Beating a dog in the water is not such a simple issue, however. You must first see what sort of dog it is and how it fell in. There are three chief reasons for a dog's falling into the water:

1. It may fall in by mistake.
2. It may be pushed in by someone.
3. It may be pushed in by you.

In the first two cases, of course, it is pointless if not cowardly to join in beating the dog. But if you are in a fight with a dog and have pushed it into the water yourself, even to go on belabouring it with a bamboo pole is not too much, for this is different from the two other cases.

They say that a brave prize-fighter never hits his opponent when he is down, and that this sets a fine example for us all. But I agree to this only on condition that the opponent is a brave pugilist too; for then once he is beaten he will be ashamed to come back, or will come back openly to take his revenge, either of which is all right. But this does not apply to dogs, who cannot be considered in the same class; for however wildly they may bark, they really have no sense of "propriety." Besides, a dog can swim, and will certainly swim ashore. If you are not careful, it will shake itself, spattering water all over you, then run away with its tail between its legs. But next time it will do exactly the same. Simple souls may think that falling into the water is a kind of baptism, after which a dog will surely repent of its sins and never bite men again. They could hardly be more mistaken.

So I think all dogs that bite men should be beaten, whether they are on the land or in the water.

from: http://202.194.48.102/englishonline/...deferring1.htm

[mercia]

I'm rather disappointed that Bekhy wasn't found guilty, after she so matter-of-factly said to that select committee "oh we regularly pay police officers for information"

Also I don't quite understand the potentially prejudicial nature of what Cameron said in his apology - it wasn't anything that he hasn't said before i.e. "I relied on the advice and information given to me by the civil service as to the suitability of Coulson - gave him a second chance etc. etc. .... "

[french frank]

I'm rather disappointed that Bekhy wasn't found guilty, after she so matter-of-factly said to that select committee "oh we regularly pay police officers for information"

Could be a very wily answer. Was it 'slap-on-wrist' information or criminal?

Also I don't quite understand the potentially prejudicial nature of what Cameron said in his apology - it wasn't anything that he hasn't said before i.e. "I relied on the advice and information given to me by the civil service as to the suitability of Coulson - gave him a second chance etc. etc. .... "

I suppose he did add 'If I'm proved wrong, I shall, of course, apologise.' But I think most members of the public knew by that time that he'd been 'proved wrong'. But if they'd missed the headline ... :-)

The Drum expounds why Brooks was found not guilty

And Coulson was convicted.

[jean]

I like this bit, from your second link:

...In the end though it was the skillful cross-examination by lead prosecutor Andrew Edis QC that made the conviction certain. The QC honed in on the events of April 2002 when a News of the World article which directly quoted the voicemails of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler was published. Coulson told the court that it was not his job to police every story in the News of the World, to which Edis responded: "Can we at least agree that part of editing a newspaper involves reading it?" Even long-time court watchers winced when the prosecution barrister put it to the defendant: "You are a powerful and intelligent man – well, you used to be powerful, but you are still intelligent." When Edis suggested to Coulson that "even the office cat knew about hacking" his clipped reply, "we didn't have an office cat", did him no favours, unless one could believe that the putative cat would know more about what was taking place in the newsroom than the editor...

(only they should have written homed in...)

[french frank]

Yes, lovely! As sharp as the judge in the Gary Glitter trial yesterday: "Addressing him, Judge Alistair McCreath asked: "Mr Gadd, can you hear me now?"

Mr Glitter, from Marylebone in central London, said: "I'm sorry, I can't."

The judge replied: "It sounded like you just did."

But how very unfair of The Drum to comment that in the case of the Brooks verdict it didn't mean the jury believed her and thought she was innocent, just that they felt the evidence presented was not good enough to warrant conviction. In law, she IS innocent ...

[Bryn]

... In law, she IS innocent ...

Really? I though she found "not guilty" as charged. Not quite the same thing.

[jean]

It is certainly true that a jury may find a defendant not guilty through lack of evidence, even if they believe otherwise.

Is it wrong to mention that?

[Serial_Apologist]

Being found guilty is not the same as being innocent, objectively.

[jean]

Is there a 'not' missing somewhere there?

[aeolium]

Being found [not] guilty is not the same as being innocent, objectively.

Given that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 11 enshrines the presumption of innocence principle which is also present in English law, then surely one is indeed innocent if one is found not guilty, i.e. one remains innocent until proven guilty.