aris Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'd be very interested in reading the full verdict. I'm dumbfounded that she got away with this. Putting my tin-foil-hat on, i'd say her political connections got her out of this. Coulson got left carrying the can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic1281 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Looking at it from a lay persons view and only knowing what was in the news I'd say your spot on! But maybe the details may show how/why she was found innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Looking at it from a lay persons view and only knowing what was in the news I'd say your spot on! But maybe the details may show how/why she was found innocent. Money and influence seems to get you (or away with) everything these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Nick Davies in an interview on Newsnight last night said that the case against her (and her husband) was weak. Looking at it from a lay persons view and only knowing what was in the news I'd say your spot on! But maybe the details may show how/why she was found innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 nasty piece of work, political connections and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Innocent or not, I do not care for the woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbo33 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Its not over yet, next trial due to start October and run well into 2015. But as surprised as others at yesterdays verdict on the hacking. Slipperier than a slippy thing No flies on her, one smart woman I think she has been very clever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I met her a few years ago on holiday when she was married to the bloke from Eastenders. He was a knob who sat around in dark glasses and a baseball cap trying to be invisible. She, however, was quite pleasant. I got the impression she iwas quiet 'dirty' ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Is she the one who Mr Cameron was riding (with)? Gave a job to that reptile phone hacker? The fetid stink of corruption and deceit seems to contaminate our upper echelons be it politicians , cops or media . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Juicer Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Being involved with trials I can point out juries make the strangest decisions at times. I'd 2 chaps up for GBH, one wanted to plead guilty for a deal, th3 other didn't want to plead. The CP's rejected his guilty plea and went to trial...... And they both got off. Justice doesn't exist in court, just the best story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'd be very interested in reading the full verdict. I'm dumbfounded that she got away with this. Putting my tin-foil-hat on, i'd say her political connections got her out of this. Coulson got left carrying the can. I'd be interested to hear your reasons for saying this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Dave had a word I should think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I reckon she knows where a few bodies are buried. A little black book can come in ever so handy at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Juicer Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Very true..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Who cares? The news of the screws dialled into some voice mails. Big deal. If you take away the moral indignation about Milly Dowler in particular it's the non event of the century and appears to have only really affected celebs, politicos and that's why it's such a lathered up non event. I may have watched too much CSI but I thought modern policing was a tad better - the suggestion that the police enquiry was put into jeopardy because some Fleet Street hack simply dialled into Milly Dowler's voicemails is stoneage to say the least. If that's what it takes to derail a police investigation or the police didn't think to check out the "who, when and where" of the circumstances surrounding the access to her voicemails then I would be amazed. And in the meantime, one wonders what else is going on in the world and how this matter is now being used to run the argument that there should be legislation to control the freedom of the press (and such that the press would then be under the control of the State). That my friends is a slippery slope and if it means putting Hugh Grants not-very-interesting-to-me private life on the bonfire of civil liberties and retained freedoms then so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaniel Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Think they have their escape goat on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe soapy Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Who cares? The news of the screws dialled into some voice mails. Big deal. If you take away the moral indignation about Milly Dowler in particular it's the non event of the century and appears to have only really affected celebs, politicos and that's why it's such a lathered up non event. I may have watched too much CSI but I thought modern policing was a tad better - the suggestion that the police enquiry was put into jeopardy because some Fleet Street hack simply dialled into Milly Dowler's voicemails is stoneage to say the least. If that's what it takes to derail a police investigation or the police didn't think to check out the "who, when and where" of the circumstances surrounding the access to her voicemails then I would be amazed. And in the meantime, one wonders what else is going on in the world and how this matter is now being used to run the argument that there should be legislation to control the freedom of the press (and such that the press would then be under the control of the State). That my friends is a slippery slope and if it means putting Hugh Grants not-very-interesting-to-me private life on the bonfire of civil liberties and retained freedoms then so be it. I'm not sure whether the likes of csi gives us a false expectation of whats possible, or,that our police are a bit inept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm not actually having a pop at the police for the Dowler case - after all they got the right bloke and he'll never see the light of day again. The point I am making is the suggestion that the reporter de-railed a police investigation by phoning Milly Dowler's voicemail. There was then some suggestion that the very act of accessing her voicemail gave false hope to the parents - I jsut don't see it. It's a non passworded voicemail and if it was accessed it could have been anyone. In probability the police would have asssumed it was Milly Dowler herself or her assailant. However, I would also hazard a guess that on the same piece of paper that reported (from the teleco to the police that the voicemail had been accessed) the teleco would have confirmed if the voicemail had been accessed by the registered handset or by a landline. They probably also captured details of the incoming number which we now know the police traced to the journo. So, back on point, take Milly Dowler out of the whole shebang entirely and it's a load of attention seeking celebs getting precious about their voicemails which if they are to be believed should be treated like state secrets and now requires state regulation. Give a monkeys I can't quite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'd be interested to hear your reasons for saying this. It beggars belief that you are the editor of a newspaper that publishes scandalous information, and don't know exactly where your information came from. Turning a blind eye makes you just as culpable as doing the deed itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Who cares? The news of the screws dialled into some voice mails. Big deal. If you take away the moral indignation about Milly Dowler in particular it's the non event of the century and appears to have only really affected celebs, politicos and that's why it's such a lathered up non event. I may have watched too much CSI but I thought modern policing was a tad better - the suggestion that the police enquiry was put into jeopardy because some Fleet Street hack simply dialled into Milly Dowler's voicemails is stoneage to say the least. If that's what it takes to derail a police investigation or the police didn't think to check out the "who, when and where" of the circumstances surrounding the access to her voicemails then I would be amazed. And in the meantime, one wonders what else is going on in the world and how this matter is now being used to run the argument that there should be legislation to control the freedom of the press (and such that the press would then be under the control of the State). That my friends is a slippery slope and if it means putting Hugh Grants not-very-interesting-to-me private life on the bonfire of civil liberties and retained freedoms then so be it. I am with you on this one, if people do not protect their voicemail inbox and someone gets hold of their number, to me it's like leaving your front door unlocked. We regularly used to change our colleagues voicemail messages back in the old days when the less technical in our team hadn't set up a pin code. Some of the red tops lived and do live on scandalous information. The rumour mill has always been rife. The Internet has only added to the frenzy. It's very simple to me, if you are a celebrity or want to be a celebrity make sure you are whiter than white. A final note, the indignation from the Millipede was hilarious. Compared to what Mandelson and that absolute waste of space Alistair Campbell did during their years in office, employing then sacking Coulson is minor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'd be very interested in reading the full verdict. I'm dumbfounded that she got away with this. Putting my tin-foil-hat on, i'd say her political connections got her out of this. Coulson got left carrying the can. Then I only hope that should you go to trial, you don't mention this to the jury. They were the ones that passed the not guilty verdict. Whilst I agree that much in court is about what people believe, ultimately it's the jury that makes the decision. Lawyers and salespeople are pretty much the same, we both try to convince people about our story..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I'm surprised nobody realised the way it would go given that she had the Prime Ministers brother as her barrister , it was over before it started Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I am with you on this one, if people do not protect their voicemail inbox and someone gets hold of their number, to me it's like leaving your front door unlocked. Not quite so simple. The hacker had inside info on how to bypass the voicemail codes even if they were changed by the owners. They did this calling customer service and using a codeword which remarkably allowed someone to do this over the phone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Prosecute those responsible by all means, but personally I have no interest in reading about some celebrity or politicians private life. But to suggest the press are 'regulated' is the thin end of a wedge which will end in tears for all of us. As far as I'm aware wasn't it the press who exposed the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big bad lindz Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 The reason, IMO, that she got off with it is that the jury could not see on the evidence provided that there was enough to find her guilty of the charge. Was it the correct verdict? well we weren’t there and only heard what the press wanted us to hear. What was carried out in in the sake of a scoop news story correct well I am sure the public (PW members included) will make there own mind up. We openly use this forum and others (twitter, face book etc) as a public debate and who knows who reads it and we all know that Big Brother is always watching. Its now the way of life with a modern electronic wizardry and who knows what has been accessed by whoever for what ever purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts