| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! 12:11 - Jun 24 with 4489 views | MrSheen |
Delighted to see a fellow ginge go free, but who saw that coming? And does this means her husband gets his porn back? |  | | |  |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 23:04 - Jun 24 with 1571 views | MrSheen |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 23:01 - Jun 24 by bosh67 |
This, convict Rebekah Brooks and I reckon a lot of top people would be shaking in their boots as to what she could reveal. I am not a fan of hers at all but she probably has a lot more on 'them' than 'they' have on her! |
Yes, but I doubt she's got much on the jury. If the establishment were that frightened of her, it would have never come to trial. | | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 23:07 - Jun 24 with 1567 views | QPRMUSO |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 23:04 - Jun 24 by MrSheen |
Yes, but I doubt she's got much on the jury. If the establishment were that frightened of her, it would have never come to trial. |
What he says! |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 23:40 - Jun 24 with 1546 views | TearsOfaClown |
same verdict due on Suarez |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 00:33 - Jun 25 with 1521 views | HollowayRanger |
best thing to come out of all of this is the destruction of the scummy news of the world, now I can buy that nice decent paper instead the sunday sun!  |  |
| |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 02:15 - Jun 25 with 1515 views | kysersosaqpr |
Politicians and media in bed together - is everyone on this web site doing too many blue pills (or was it the red ones?) Course there not - innocent little lambs being got at by nasty policemen. Now where did I put my tape of Rolf harriss's two little boys??? | |
| The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. |
| |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 04:20 - Jun 25 with 1511 views | timcocking |
good old British injustice |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 09:48 - Jun 25 with 1478 views | SpiritofGregory |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 12:48 - Jun 24 by johann28 |
Fortunately for all of us, in a civilised country you normally need clear and tangible evidence to convict someone. Can't stand her but from what i've read the hard evidence (as opposed to hearsay) seemed pretty thin to me. |
The disclosure of evidence can be controlled especially when you potentially have a dossier of most politians, judges and high ranking members of the Police force. |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 10:27 - Jun 25 with 1459 views | BromleyHoop |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 12:59 - Jun 24 by paulparker |
Wasn't Ross Kemp hanging out the back of it for a while ??
BTW has anyone clocked a picture of Stuart Kuttner the managing editor of The NOTW
he looks like he has been to one of DiscoDroid sex parties
I can see him good old frank Bough (look it up kids) & Max Moseley in nothing but their sock suspenders tied to a huge wheel while 2 six foot blondes dressed as Nazis whip their bare bottoms
whilst shoving huge amounts of Colombians finest up their Bugle's |
Now there's a thought, especially as I hadn't got anything planned for this weekend! |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 10:31 - Jun 25 with 1449 views | MrSheen |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 09:48 - Jun 25 by SpiritofGregory |
The disclosure of evidence can be controlled especially when you potentially have a dossier of most politians, judges and high ranking members of the Police force. |
And Coulson hasn't? | | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 10:34 - Jun 25 with 1447 views | Northernr |
Juries are capable of some perverse decisions but that's amazing. You can't find Coulson guilty and not Brooks as well. 100k a year going out to a PI and she never asked what it was for? Shagging Coulson for eight years and it never came up in conversation where these stories were coming from? Edited the papers herself so we're supposed to believe it went from zero hacking at all under her to endemic under Coulson?
Guilty as sin. |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 10:39 - Jun 25 with 1439 views | SpiritofGregory |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 10:31 - Jun 25 by MrSheen |
And Coulson hasn't? |
Someone has to be the fall guy but lets just see what he actually gets.
It's like all these enquiries that we keep on having. Lots of toffs getting together just to talk about what went wrong. | | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 15:23 - Jun 25 with 1387 views | robith |
Anyway, Andy shouldn't be too upset, his paper was always telling us prison is a holiday camp |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 16:02 - Jun 25 with 1371 views | ShotKneesHoop |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 23:40 - Jun 24 by TearsOfaClown |
same verdict due on Suarez |
UK establishment rigs what ever they want to happen. "T'was ever thus" - as Mark Lazarus said at Wrexham.
There is no justice in the UK - unless you are a Level 2 umpire - and then you can sort out the arseholes with impunity - I do it every weekend. You just look harder for evidence of wrong doing by people know are complete harrises - rather than for others who aren't. The trick is not to appeal when you put your finger up.
I do worry about how that jury was picked. Was it a telephone poll from Britain's Got Talent?
Sorry, but she would have her middle stump cartwheeling if I was one of the 12. How can she get away with being in charge of the circus, when it's the clowns that get the blame for throwing the custard pies at the targets she wants? |  |
| Why does it feel like R'SWiPe is still on the books? Yer Couldn't Make It Up.Well Done Me! |
| |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 19:27 - Jun 25 with 1343 views | jamois |
This is the problem with the english judicial system, this annoying need for clear incriminating proof. I think for trials such as these that involve huge sums of taxpayer's money, and are of national interest, they should go out to a national poll, the results of which should comprise 50% of the jury. Question - By bedding Coulson and hiring a PI, and for being editor of a toilet rag, ugly and scary looking, is Brooks guilty? Vote Yes or No. Much more fun. And probably a fairer result too. |  |
| |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 09:27 - Jun 26 with 1278 views | Discodroid |
i agree, can i vote for harriet harman to be thrown to a tribe of masi warriors covered in cows blood and high on spanish fly.
if she survives this fair and even handed trial she is guilty
if, unfortunately, she does'nt , she is innocent..
according to miliband in prime ministers question time yesterday 'the whole country want to know the truth' about this coulsen affair.
do they ???. it seems to me in stratford the people dont give a fu ck, their attentions being diverted to food banks , getting a job and something to eat
didnt the 'guardian' pay for the legal fees of mandelsons brazillian fresh chicken fu ck piece and sparticus 'antoninus' look a like , when he tried to smuggle national secruity documents hidden in the sticky pages of homo erotic 'quo vadis.' magazine.
good to see man of the people kieth vaz , taking the time to write from one of his 5 homes to the pm , to demand another inquiry, as he didnt like the result of the first one.
i imagine bob from filbert street who hasnt had a job for two years and has to give his kids spaghetti hoops for dinner is overwhelmed with empathy that mr vaz is eschewing , yet again ,headline grabbing topics on behalf of his impoverished constituants.
[Post edited 26 Jun 2014 9:32]
|  |
| " I guess in four or five years, the new generation's music will be .. electronics, tapes. I can kind of envision .. maybe one person .. with a lot of machines, tapes, and electronics setups, singin or speaking .. and using machines " James Douglas Morrison | 1969 |
| |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 09:48 - Jun 26 with 1258 views | baz_qpr |
It was never about who celebrities were flucking, it was about the fact that victims of crime and their families were being hacked too at their most vulnerable moments, that the press got hold of witness protection programme information and the press were paying the plod to give them information. Then their friends in the plod, deliberately chose not to reveal it and were rewarded with post plod jobs.
If you think that was a waste of money then fair enough, but IMHO its about corruption. Brooks got off because there was no hard evidence that could be used in the same way there was for cousin who was unfortunate enough not to have had his killer email destroyed by News International when they destroyed their historic records that might have contained any evidence weeks before the arrests.
Also it helps if you have Murdoch supping a money no object defence. |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 10:15 - Jun 26 with 1251 views | Discodroid |
we see it quite differently baz, and thats the way the cookie should crumble. | |
| " I guess in four or five years, the new generation's music will be .. electronics, tapes. I can kind of envision .. maybe one person .. with a lot of machines, tapes, and electronics setups, singin or speaking .. and using machines " James Douglas Morrison | 1969 |
| |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 11:11 - Jun 26 with 1226 views | WrightUp5hit___ |
I've just realised, you THE Clive Anderson |  | | |
| Rebekah Brooks not guilty!?!?! on 11:41 - Jun 26 with 1203 views | N12Hoop |
I actually know one of the jurors from the trial. She told me that after listening to all the evidence for 8 months it really did seem that she was innocent (and certainly not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt). |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
