This was so obviously going to happen. The defence knew that somebody had to carry the can, so it was all about making it Coulson and presenting her in the most flattering light. Brilliant piece of defending.
I don't quite understand how you can be found guilty of a conspiracy charge on your own? You have to have at least two people to make a conspiracy surely?
Whatever it is highly embarrassing for David Cameron.
Were there not some text or email messages between David Cameron and his friend Rebecca Brooks famously signed off 'LOL', which Cameron took to mean lots of luck? Were not Rebecca Brooks and Andy Coulson sharing special moments together, and didn't Andy Coulson then work for David Cameron? Andy Coulson has now been found guilty of stuff. It now turns out that Andy Coulson was doing bad stuff, and of course without David Cameron having been involved in any way at any point. I mean Cameron said he asked Andy Coulson if he was a naughty boy and Andy said no, so Cameron decided to give him a 'second' chance. I wonder what the first chance was.
Cameron said he was led to believe Coulson had done nothing wrong, but later said; "I gave a man a second chance and that was a mistake." But I figured, you don't give second chances to innocent people. Unless you know, really, that they f****d up.
Remember the legal test was 'beyond reasonable doubt' and not 'the balance of probabilities'. We do need to be careful what we say here .It seems that there was some key evidence which damned Coulson whereas from what I could determine the evidence against Brooks was more circumstantial.
Just seen a TV report and I think it was his email to a colleague saying 'do his phone' which damned him. His visit to David Blunkett to discuss his affair also seems to have been seen to be significant.
Sometimes people may be guilty but the evidence isn't there. With Coulson there was a telephone converstaion - aptly- that had him banged to rights. The fact he was guilty suggests possibly that other editors of that paper followed the same practices - but if they deny it and you don't have any proof you can't convict! Rightly so.
She is obviously not the fantastic top journalist she likes to think she is if she didn't know where half the stories she printed came from or did it not occur to her to ask how the journalists got the information.
I don't quite understand how you can be found guilty of a conspiracy charge on your own? You have to have at least two people to make a conspiracy surely?
Whatever it is highly embarrassing for David Cameron.
The conspiracy was with a bunch of journos who've already plead guilty IIRC
Scandalous that with the evidence he didn't plead guilty. Cost of trial enormous. Can he be chased for proceeds of crime as his bonuses would have been based on the papers phone taps sold?
Comments
Guess the buck doesn't always stop with the boss.
She's about as innocent as Linda Lovelace.
Enough conspiracy theories on CL with the football, let alone this.
Brilliant piece of defending.
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/42363/would-ya-hacking-special
Whatever it is highly embarrassing for David Cameron.
It now turns out that Andy Coulson was doing bad stuff, and of course without David Cameron having been involved in any way at any point. I mean Cameron said he asked Andy Coulson if he was a naughty boy and Andy said no, so Cameron decided to give him a 'second' chance. I wonder what the first chance was.
Did he ask him to do it?
If you've got that far with the CPS you must done something
And being ginger.
Harsh may be but trials would be a lot quicker if I was in charge.
Just seen a TV report and I think it was his email to a colleague saying 'do his phone' which damned him. His visit to David Blunkett to discuss his affair also seems to have been seen to be significant.
A sad day for Britain.