No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
And the PM gets back on topic for PB. Good man.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
Should we be asking serious questions of the police and CPS?
All these high profile cases over the past 12 months, £10's million spent on phone hacking and celeb paedo investigations and hardly anything to show for it.
And another set of can't reach a verdict.
Seems like a lot of innocent people have been dragged through court.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
"I broadly agree with you. I get's my goat that my license fee is bloated by crap such as Strictly (sorry, Strictly fans) which could survive quite happily on a commercial basis.
Then why doesn't it? Why didn't Sky or ITV think of it? In any case, the BBC makes a boatload of cash selling the format to foreign commercial stations.
The BBC has always has entertainment as part of its Reithian brief. More objectionable perhaps are programmes like The Voice which look suspiciously like the BBC's me-too versions of ITV hits.
For every successful one, there are plenty that fail. Can taxpayer money really be justified on Eastenders, or Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps? If the taxpayer is going to fund entertainment, why not subsidise football tickets?
Jury discharged by Mr Justice Saunders after reporting it had been unable to reach a majority verdict on the remaining four charges against Goodman and Coulson.
Now up to CPS whether to go for a retrial.
Surely, given the money the CPS has spent on this nonsense, I can't see how they CAN'T go for a retrial. They have to come away from all of this with more than one conviction for phone hacking.
I thought it couldn't get much worse for Ed at PMQ's ....
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.
Can't think on his feet, and completely failed to make any attack on EU shenanigans.
Milliband's a plum.
He can't attack on the EU issue - as he has agreed in public that Juncker is not the right man for the job. He could have tried to make it a process issue - but given his public support for blocking Juncker, he would have struggled on that as well!
If a group of charges are related insofar as the evidence presented for each charge is interdependent, then can a retrial be held on two of the charges when a verdict has been reached in the original trial on one?
I thought it couldn't get much worse for Ed at PMQ's ....
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.
Can't think on his feet, and completely failed to make any attack on EU shenanigans.
Milliband's a plum.
A man whose ability to think on his feet is shown by the fact that he cannot remember the words of a question he is, supposedly, all fired-up about. Now translate that to the man sitting in an international negotiation where his job is to get the best deal for the UK. What is he going to do when the likes of Putin or Merkel or Hollande start coming on hard (possibly all at once and pulling in different directions)? What is he going to do? Call for an adjournment every five minutes so that his team of teenage SpADs can write him a new script?
FWIW I think Cameron's defence was too technical and Westminster-oriented for public opinion - some stuff about Leveson and inquiries that I struggled to follow even though I'm interested. "You employed a criminal as your closest adviser" is the phrase more likely to stick in the public mind. The whole affair is uncomfortable for Cameron but not below the waterline - certainly demanding that he resign over it would have been a serious misjudgment.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Should we be asking serious questions of the police and CPS?
All these high profile cases over the past 12 months, £10's million spent on phone hacking and celeb paedo investigations and hardly anything to show for it.
And another set of can't reach a verdict.
Seems like a lot of innocent people have been dragged through court.
The CPS will probably blame thick jurors and push for more prosecution-friendly tribunals.
I thought it couldn't get much worse for Ed at PMQ's ....
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.
Can't think on his feet, and completely failed to make any attack on EU shenanigans.
Milliband's a plum.
A man whose ability to think on his feet is shown by the fact that he cannot remember the words of a question he is, supposedly, all fired-up about. Now translate that to the man sitting in an international negotiation where his job is to get the best deal for the UK. What is he going to do when the likes of Putin or Merkel or Hollande start coming on hard (possibly all at once and pulling in different directions)? What is he going to do? Call for an adjournment every five minutes so that his team of teenage SpADs can write him a new script?
Putin v Milliband? I'd pay good money to watch that.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
And the PM gets back on topic for PB. Good man.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
At least this trial didn't suffer the fate of the longest criminal trial in English history, something I suggested to Mike might happen when these hacking began
What is believed to be the longest ever British jury trial collapsed at the Old Bailey yesterday after almost two years in court, when a disgruntled juror went on strike. Other jurors also protested about their hardships.
Cameron's defence was not too technical, it was quite simple and amounted to Leveson has looked into all the points you have raised and found me not guilty. What more is there to say? Ed was dreadful today, surely even loyal Labourites can see that.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
FWIW I think Cameron's defence was too technical and Westminster-oriented for public opinion - some stuff about Leveson and inquiries that I struggled to follow even though I'm interested. "You employed a criminal as your closest adviser" is the phrase more likely to stick in the public mind. The whole affair is uncomfortable for Cameron but not below the waterline - certainly demanding that he resign over it would have been a serious misjudgment.
Actually I think it's fairly simple line's for people to follow:
Milliband: You employed a criminal and were negligent in your vetting.
Cameron: I didn't know he was a criminal when I employed him and Justice Leveson said I wasn't negligent in my vetting.
Both lines are easy enough to follow and who you believe will depend on who you support in the first place.
Ed should have done better given the circumstances, but we all knew he'd mess it up as he always does, so probably no biggie within the PLP?
Incidentally, is anybody from the Labour Party going to apologize for all the things they've said about the entirely innocent Mrs Brooks?
Should we be asking serious questions of the police and CPS?
All these high profile cases over the past 12 months, £10's million spent on phone hacking and celeb paedo investigations and hardly anything to show for it.
And another set of can't reach a verdict.
Seems like a lot of innocent people have been dragged through court.
Would Cameron visit Coulson in prison ? If not, why not ? Is he the kind of person who dumps friends when it is inconvinient ? Rebekah Brookes husband was saddened when Cameron suggested that Brookes' resignation should have been accepted.
PMQs is about imagery. Projecting a strong, confident and competent image to encourage your own side, depress your opponents and impress the media enough for them to pass it on to the voters. IDS failed at PMQs because he could not think on his feet and was poor at the forensic stuff, combined with the famous 'frog' that made him sound nervous. Hence, his own side became fearful every time he stood up, Blair was encouraged to steamroller him with BS and quicker wits and he gave nothing positive to counter the press's impression of him as a dead man walking. Miliband is failing because the image he creates at PMQs is that of a 6th former who needs to get out more. That doesn't encourage the troops, frighten the enemy or counter the press's desire to paint him as weak. Of course, PMQs isn't much more than a sideshow when it comes to shifting votes, but the images created inform the press coverage of the leaders, and that is why Miliband's regualar Wednesday failures are important.
Jury discharged by Mr Justice Saunders after reporting it had been unable to reach a majority verdict on the remaining four charges against Goodman and Coulson.
Jury discharged by Mr Justice Saunders after reporting it had been unable to reach a majority verdict on the remaining four charges against Goodman and Coulson.
Now up to CPS whether to go for a retrial.
The fact is these are not the verdicts labour were hoping and praying for. But then these events took place whilst Labour were in office and the NOTW was supporting Labour. Why did the police drop their investigations?
Re: Coulson - why didn't the Judge wait for the Jury to decide on all the charges before announcing the initial verdicts?
That is very curious. For the sake of another 24 hours, this could all have been concluded in one set of announcements. As it is, it looked shambolic.
I can't blame the jurors for wanting it all to end. 8 months is too long for any trial - no matter how complex. The only winners are the lawyers who have been coining it it.
Miliband is failing because the image he creates at PMQs is that of a 6th former who needs to get out more.
Indeed.
Unfortunately that's all Ed Milliband has ever been. However, it was obvious when he elected leader that this was all he could offer, so Labour can't say they weren't warned.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
And the PM gets back on topic for PB. Good man.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
At least this trial didn't suffer the fate of the longest criminal trial in English history, something I suggested to Mike might happen when these hacking began
What is believed to be the longest ever British jury trial collapsed at the Old Bailey yesterday after almost two years in court, when a disgruntled juror went on strike. Other jurors also protested about their hardships.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
And the PM gets back on topic for PB. Good man.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
At least this trial didn't suffer the fate of the longest criminal trial in English history, something I suggested to Mike might happen when these hacking began
What is believed to be the longest ever British jury trial collapsed at the Old Bailey yesterday after almost two years in court, when a disgruntled juror went on strike. Other jurors also protested about their hardships.
One of my friends was involved in what was expected to be a long running fraud case last year. On the first day the Advocate Depute, late in the day, said "Can I now refer you to another document..." A juror moaned audibly saying "Oh Jesus".
In my opinion it is the way these cases are prosecuted that is the problem. Every possible charge is brought and every possible piece of mud is thrown in the hope that some of it sticks. Prosecutions need to identify the clearest and most obvious charges and bin the rest so that the evidence is brought within a compass that a jury can properly understand. If they don't the result is a lottery.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
And the PM gets back on topic for PB. Good man.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
At least this trial didn't suffer the fate of the longest criminal trial in English history, something I suggested to Mike might happen when these hacking began
What is believed to be the longest ever British jury trial collapsed at the Old Bailey yesterday after almost two years in court, when a disgruntled juror went on strike. Other jurors also protested about their hardships.
"What is he going to do when the likes of Putin or Merkel or Hollande start coming on hard (possibly all at once and pulling in different directions)? What is he going to do?"
He'd be out of the room, making the tea for them.
Not that Cammo would be a lot better.
My final word on celebrity hacking. Wise parental advice. Stop pandering to them, they're only showing off now.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
Not from my observation - he clearly wants to make a drama out of everything.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
Robinson was the President of Oxford Conservatives Association. The BBC is full of Tories. The current Director of Communications of Cameron [ Andy Coulson's predecessor ], Craig Oliver's wife is a TV newspresenter.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
Not from my observation - he clearly wants to make a drama out of everything.
After Andy Coulson resigned, David Cameron tried to replace him with -- drama queen or not -- Nick Robinson.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
And the PM gets back on topic for PB. Good man.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
At least this trial didn't suffer the fate of the longest criminal trial in English history, something I suggested to Mike might happen when these hacking began
What is believed to be the longest ever British jury trial collapsed at the Old Bailey yesterday after almost two years in court, when a disgruntled juror went on strike. Other jurors also protested about their hardships.
One of my friends was involved in what was expected to be a long running fraud case last year. On the first day the Advocate Depute, late in the day, said "Can I now refer you to another document..." A juror moaned audibly saying "Oh Jesus".
In my opinion it is the way these cases are prosecuted that is the problem. Every possible charge is brought and every possible piece of mud is thrown in the hope that some of it sticks. Prosecutions need to identify the clearest and most obvious charges and bin the rest so that the evidence is brought within a compass that a jury can properly understand. If they don't the result is a lottery.
Yup, and that is what the City of London plod wanted to do back in they day. Bin all the complex stuff because at the heart of every tricksy fraud is a simple Theft Act 1972 offence that a jury can understand, that don't take years to investigate, let alone try, and for which the penalties are more than adequate (10 to 14 years). HMG, advised by treasury counsel, didn't like that idea (what a surprise) and set up the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) instead. The SFO's record in securing convictions has been less than stellar, but it has provided a very lucrative living for lots of lawyers and accountants.
Robinson was the President of Oxford Conservatives Association. The BBC is full of Tories. The current Director of Communications of Cameron [ Andy Coulson's predecessor ], Craig Oliver's wife is a TV newspresenter.
There are a handful of Tories at the BBC, but they're always left-leaning, Europhile Tories.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
Hat-trick of ill advised sub-judice comments from Cameron, Miliband and the general press ?
The Judge is a bit of a naive plonker if he thought that lot could keep schtum for a day..
Does seem a little odd that the Judge couldn't wait 24 hours and disclose all, as a job lot. - That is not to say however, that those reporting/commenting on the case should have known better.
No retrial I'd say, Miliband and the press have prejudiced any chance of a fair trial
Hat-trick of ill advised sub-judice comments from Cameron, Miliband and the general press ?
The Judge is a bit of a naive plonker if he thought that lot could keep schtum for a day..
Indeed.
Supposing Cameron had said nothing all yesterday and this morning - Labour and the media would have been been all over him accusing him of running scared and hiding from Coulson's conviction.
Robinson was the President of Oxford Conservatives Association. The BBC is full of Tories. The current Director of Communications of Cameron [ Andy Coulson's predecessor ], Craig Oliver's wife is a TV newspresenter.
There are a handful of Tories at the BBC, but they're always left-leaning, Europhile Tories.
Stephen Milligan, BBC Corrspondent. Later Tory MP. Died with a satsuma in his mouth, I think.
Maybe Nick Robinson just thinks he needs to basically hold the Gov't to account on this ?
After all judging by the comments here seems Ed Miliband isn't. Always tricky to judge a PMQs when I never listen to it and my only sources are Twitter and here at any rate.
So watched PMQ exchanges between Ed and Cammo - I thought Ed was ok actually but what astonished me was the seeming lack of any vocal support from his backbenchers. His big ending line about Cammo being remembered as the PM who brought a crim in to downing street and quite a flouncey sit down was to silence when surely his side should have been baying their support at such an outrage and punchline?
Fair play to Nick Robinson for not letting Cameron off the hook. Leveson didn't clear Cameron over the vetting issue as Gin has suggested.
Now the Judge has gone after Cameron for his ill-advised comments.
Mr Justice Saunders did criticise Cameron for his statement yesterday but he made it clear that he was only using the Prime Minister's statement as an example of how comments by politicians might improperly influence a jury reaching a verdict.
The criticism made by Saunders applied equally to all the statements made by politicians yesterday, including that made by Ed Miliband, which was far less considered in its legal implications than the Prime Minister's.
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 3 mins The world has gone nuts. The jury had just found Coulson guilty of being a criminal. How could Cameron or Ed statement "influence" them?
Fair play to Nick Robinson for not letting Cameron off the hook. Leveson didn't clear Cameron over the vetting issue as Gin has suggested.
Now the Judge has gone after Cameron for his ill-advised comments.
Mr Justice Saunders did criticise Cameron for his statement yesterday but he made it clear that he was only using the Prime Minister's statement as an example of how comments by politicians might improperly influence a jury reaching a verdict.
The criticism made by Saunders applied equally to all the statements made by politicians yesterday, including that made by Ed Miliband, which was far less considered in its legal implications than the Prime Minister's.
According to Nick Robinson the PM made his statement with the Attorney General in the room advising on what could and could not be said. Where do you get a decent lawyer these days?
Robinson was the President of Oxford Conservatives Association. The BBC is full of Tories. The current Director of Communications of Cameron [ Andy Coulson's predecessor ], Craig Oliver's wife is a TV newspresenter.
There are a handful of Tories at the BBC, but they're always left-leaning, Europhile Tories.
Stephen Milligan, BBC Corrspondent. Later Tory MP. Died with a satsuma in his mouth, I think.
So watched PMQ exchanges between Ed and Cammo - I thought Ed was ok actually but what astonished me was the seeming lack of any vocal support from his backbenchers. His big ending line about Cammo being remembered as the PM who brought a crim in to downing street and quite a flouncey sit down was to silence when surely his side should have been baying their support at such an outrage and punchline?
I think the PLP has largely given up on Ed. They know he's a loser and just can't be bothered anymore...
Quick questions, now that the trial has collapsed, will there have to be a retrial of all the defendants, will it even be possible? And what about the other 112 (yes one hundred and twelve) cases?
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
He was a conservative in his younger days,get your facts right or have you any evidence he's a tory now ?
So watched PMQ exchanges between Ed and Cammo - I thought Ed was ok actually but what astonished me was the seeming lack of any vocal support from his backbenchers. His big ending line about Cammo being remembered as the PM who brought a crim in to downing street and quite a flouncey sit down was to silence when surely his side should have been baying their support at such an outrage and punchline?
I think the PLP has largely given up on Ed. They know he's a loser and just can't be bothered anymore...
What were we talking about leadership? A leader is someone whose people will follow him/her.
Some stats on the phone hacking trial courtesy of the Press Association via The Guardian:
Press Association has just published this brilliant breakdown of the hacking trial by numbers:
• 454 million US dollars (£268 million) has been paid out by News Corp to alleged victims of phone hacking.
• £28 million to £30 million was agreed as the News of the World's annual budget under Rebekah Brooks between 2000 and 2003.
• £18,723,141 has been spent by Scotland Yard on Operation Weeting since the investigation into phone hacking was launched in 2011.
• £9,978,138 is the total spend on Operation Elveden, the police probe into payments to public officials.
• Some £95,000 to £105,000 was paid annually to private detective Glenn Mulcaire between 2001 and 2006.
• £2 million was the cost of the NotW's Sarah's Law campaign, leading to a budget overspend during Brooks's editorship.
• £600,000 was paid to Andy Coulson in settlement when he resigned as editor of the NotW in 2007.
• £140,000 was paid to Clive Goodman in a financial settlement with News International after he claimed he was unfairly dismissed following his conviction for phone hacking.
• 5,600 taskings were found on notes at Mulcaire's home - 2,200 of them had the name of Greg Miskiw, Neville Thurlbeck, James Weatherup or another NotW journalist written in the top left-hand corner.
• 600 of the Mulcaire taskings were dated during Brooks's time as editor of the NotW between May 2000 and January 2003.
• 5,500 is the total number of victims of NotW phone hacking, of which 1,000 have been classified by police as "likely victims" as opposed to "potential victims".
• 3,000 pages of evidence exhibits have been shown to the jury during the trial in Court 12 of the Old Bailey.
• The trial went on for 130 days before the jury was asked to consider its verdicts.
• 718 people settled claims with News International before May 31, including the parents of Milly Dowler.
• About 200 stories were published every week in the NotW, with the same number being rejected.
• Seven defendants sat in the dock - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Clive Goodman, Cheryl Carter, Charlie Brooks and Mark Hanna. Each was represented by a team of lawyers, including a QC.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
He was a conservative in his younger days,get your facts right or have you any evidence he's a tory now ?
His bias for the Tories is clear for all to see every night on our screens.
Fair play to Nick Robinson for not letting Cameron off the hook. Leveson didn't clear Cameron over the vetting issue as Gin has suggested.
Now the Judge has gone after Cameron for his ill-advised comments.
Mr Justice Saunders did criticise Cameron for his statement yesterday but he made it clear that he was only using the Prime Minister's statement as an example of how comments by politicians might improperly influence a jury reaching a verdict.
The criticism made by Saunders applied equally to all the statements made by politicians yesterday, including that made by Ed Miliband, which was far less considered in its legal implications than the Prime Minister's.
According to Nick Robinson the PM made his statement with the Attorney General in the room advising on what could and could not be said. Where do you get a decent lawyer these days?
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
He was a conservative in his younger days,get your facts right or have you any evidence he's a tory now ?
Yes. David Cameron tried to recruit him to replace Andy Coulson.
Quick questions, now that the trial has collapsed, will there have to be a retrial of all the defendants, will it even be possible? And what about the other 112 (yes one hundred and twelve) cases?
The CPS can ask for a retrial and the defence can oppose. The test is essentially the interests of justice.
Yesterday was a bit of a catastrophe for the CPS. An acquittal rate like that makes bulk pleas very unlikely. They really need to winnow out the cases with e-mails like Coulson's saying "do their phone" and forget the rest.
The corrupt payments to the police are much more important and should be prioritised over the hacking charges. My understanding, though, is that this is a much bigger part of the next trial.
@The Watcher You are a fraud and a cheapskate, Watcher. If you want I'll nail to the mast a long list of Tory and Labour MPs that have actually gone to prison for crimes various. Just not worth printing their names.
Re: Coulson - why didn't the Judge wait for the Jury to decide on all the charges before announcing the initial verdicts?
Another good question. its something I find indecipherable.
I can only assume that as several of the defendants were found not guilty, it was thought appropriate that they should be released there and then from the proceedings hanging over them.
Why the jury were allowed to release their partial deliberations to the judge is odd, unless they were split on those outstanding charges and have been told to go back and see if they can get a majority verdict - but I would have thought that would have been made known?
The political imperative dictated that Cameron had to respond as soon as Coulson was found guilty. He could hardly say "let's wait and see what the jury made of the total package of charges against him..."
The Labour party going on about "judgement" is odd. Politicians by their nature think their own judgement is always right, or they wouldn't enter politics. Cammo may have been given advice but he'll still trust what he wants to trust. Labour PMs always think their judgement is spot on too.
"Are you sure that invading a foreign and relatively secular country is a good way to punish dangerous Islamic extremists, Mr Blair?" "Hmm ... perhaps you're right, I'll have a rethink."
Yes, very likely.
MPs have inordinate faith in their own judgement. That's why they like to control the levers of power. Can't have the plebs making decision; they'll only get it wrong.
And that's why we should introduce a Catch 22 into the selection procedure. "Explain why you might be totally wrong, please?" If they can't explain, pick someone else.
There's something a bit unreasonable in the venom with which some here object to hardcore environmentalists having a single MP.
That's the sentiment that should let her hold the seat. It must have something to do with LibDem incumbency as well. If there were loads of Green MPs it would be different, but the voters know when they're providing a habitat for an endangered species.
Yesterday was a bit of a catastrophe for the CPS. An acquittal rate like that makes bulk pleas very unlikely. They really need to winnow out the cases with e-mails like Coulson's saying "do their phone" and forget the rest.
I think that is a key point. As far as I could see, they didn't actually offer a single piece of solid evidence against Rebekah Brooks, just a load of smearing-by-association, so I wasn't at all surprised that the jury acquitted her on all counts. That part of the prosecution should never have been brought.
If we had a sensible political debate, the Leader of the Opposition would be asking for a public enquiry (and one not led by a judge!) into why our justice system is so catastrophically inefficient and so ludicrously expensive.
I thought it couldn't get much worse for Ed at PMQ's ....
Then he scores six own goals. The glum faces on the opposition benches says it all.
Can't think on his feet, and completely failed to make any attack on EU shenanigans.
Milliband's a plum.
A man whose ability to think on his feet is shown by the fact that he cannot remember the words of a question he is, supposedly, all fired-up about. Now translate that to the man sitting in an international negotiation where his job is to get the best deal for the UK. What is he going to do when the likes of Putin or Merkel or Hollande start coming on hard (possibly all at once and pulling in different directions)? What is he going to do? Call for an adjournment every five minutes so that his team of teenage SpADs can write him a new script?
Putin v Milliband? I'd pay good money to watch that.
Isn't there something called the League Against Cruel Sports ?
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
He was a conservative in his younger days,get your facts right or have you any evidence he's a tory now ?
Yes. David Cameron tried to recruit him to replace Andy Coulson.
Can you please show details to that,even if true,it doesn't make robinson a tory.
Even If you even have the evidence Cameron wanted robinson,maybe robinson turned down camerom because he isn't a Conservative.
@The Watcher You are a fraud and a cheapskate, Watcher. If you want I'll nail to the mast a long list of Tory and Labour MPs that have actually gone to prison for crimes various. Just not worth printing their names.
UKIP playing the "your lot are just as bad!" card doesn't exactly fit with their attempts to ride the anti-politics wave largely bought about by expenses. Weren't they meant to be the new brooms in our politics?
Dan Hodges @DPJHodges · 3 mins The world has gone nuts. The jury had just found Coulson guilty of being a criminal. How could Cameron or Ed statement "influence" them?
Hodges has a point...
The point made by Mr Justice Saunders was that Cameron revealed in his statement that Andy Coulson had given undertakings to his Chief of Staff and the Civil Service which later turned out not to be true.
The Jury were not aware (at least from the court proceedings) that such undertakings had been made by Andy Coulson and the court had ruled that such evidence was not to be admitted.
Saunders felt that the revelation that Coulson had made such undertakings would have led the jury to make assumptions about Coulson's credibility as a witness which were not relevant to the specific charges on which he was being tried.
As often happens in such cases, the judge also reached the conflicting conclusion that the jury had shown themselves capable of disregarding external influence in their prior deliberations and could be trusted to disregard the implications for Coulson's credibility conveyed in Cameron's statement.
So more a judge's whinge than a considered opinion that Cameron's statement was a real barrier to justice!
Quite astonishing how game changing this is proving... I note one of the Eagles was tweeting during PMQ using surbiton's line last night about why is the PM apologising blah blah...
PB leads the way... or actually thinking of Surbitons role on here, perhaps it's not such a coincidence.
I'm not sure this counts as a betting tip, but I've put £20 on Madison Keys winning Wimbledon at 50/1 with Betfair. She won the Eastbourne tournament a matter of days ago.
Yesterday was a bit of a catastrophe for the CPS. An acquittal rate like that makes bulk pleas very unlikely. They really need to winnow out the cases with e-mails like Coulson's saying "do their phone" and forget the rest.
I think that is a key point. As far as I could see, they didn't actually offer a single piece of solid evidence against Rebekah Brooks, just a load of smearing-by-association, so I wasn't at all surprised that the jury acquitted her on all counts. That part of the prosecution should never have been brought.
If we had a sensible political debate, the Leader of the Opposition would be asking for a public enquiry (and one not led by a judge!) into why our justice system is so catastrophically inefficient and so ludicrously expensive.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
One thing though - Isn't Ed Miliband being poor at PMQs totally priced in.
Hague regularly battered Blair but a fat lot of good it did him at the General Election....
That is a fair point. And very few watch PMQs anyway. Of those that do very few do so with open minds. Present company excepted of course!
The audience that matters is sitting behind him -- it is important for backbenchers' morale that their man lands a punch. IDS was defenestrated because he was a poor Commons performer -- the Conservatives were actually doing quite well at the ballot box.
I agree and Labour MPs and particularly those that hope to become MPs after the next election must be disappointed.
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
Interesting. I'm sure the BBC and Robinson will try to paint it otherwise.
For the umpteenth time, Robinson is a Conservative. The whole toenails thing was designed to make the BBC even more biased to the right.
He was a conservative in his younger days,get your facts right or have you any evidence he's a tory now ?
Yes. David Cameron tried to recruit him to replace Andy Coulson.
Can you please show details to that,even if true,it doesn't make robinson a tory.
Even If you even have the evidence Cameron wanted robinson,maybe robinson turned down camerom because he isn't a Conservative.
David Cameron consulted Nick Robinson over Craig Oliver's appointment.
Yes marquee mark - I can understand the judge wanting to get all the charges about Brookes out of the way - but set against that surely he could not have known the verdicts until the foreman announced them - so how could he know he was putting her out of her misery? Plus even if so all he had to do was announce them for Brookes when they were all in and then wait until they were all in for Coulson.
That part of the prosecution should never have been brought.
Given the whirlwind of speculation whipped up by the left wing press (as well as the fire storm on here and other places) there was no way Brooks was going to avoid trial.
Did Cameron attend Rebekah's aprty last night ? After all they were friends and used to have supper together.
One should celebrate a friend's acquittal , shouldn't one ?
Dunno, were Sarah and Gordon there? They could have had a nostalgic time remembering the happy days of sleepovers at Chequers with Wendi and Elizabeth, and the help Sarah gave in organising Rebekah's and Charlie's wedding. And presumably Tony would have sent his best wishes and thanks for all those years of News International's support.
Wasn't it said on here Dave was lazy and didn't prepare, and add in Ed's intellectual self confidence, I'm shocked, shocked I tell you by this outcome.
The PM had had years to prepare for this moment - and it showed. It was a fluent and unwavering performance. Miliband will be widely accused of missing an "open goal", but his failure to land any memorable blows on Cameron today had more to do with the reality that much of the political damage from the scandal has already been done.
No. 10 believes that the affair has already been factored into the PM's share price. Nothing that occurred today suggests that they are wrong.
Comments
Questions have to be asked about the press coverage over the past 24 hours - and also about the management of the trial as a whole.
On the retrial I agree. They have already been through one of the longest trials in English legal history and to go through all that again would be outrageous although there is a second trial involving very similar allegations.
All these high profile cases over the past 12 months, £10's million spent on phone hacking and celeb paedo investigations and hardly anything to show for it.
And another set of can't reach a verdict.
Seems like a lot of innocent people have been dragged through court.
If a group of charges are related insofar as the evidence presented for each charge is interdependent, then can a retrial be held on two of the charges when a verdict has been reached in the original trial on one?
With this black swan of all weeks?
WTF?
Cameron, on the other hand, looked pretty solid.
What is believed to be the longest ever British jury trial collapsed at the Old Bailey yesterday after almost two years in court, when a disgruntled juror went on strike. Other jurors also protested about their hardships.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/mar/23/transport.constitution
The whole of QT was a pot and kettle dance: "you covered your arse, I'm covering mine. Enough hypocrisy to make anyone sick.
Come on UKIP, clean up this mess!!!!
Milliband: You employed a criminal and were negligent in your vetting.
Cameron: I didn't know he was a criminal when I employed him and Justice Leveson said I wasn't negligent in my vetting.
Both lines are easy enough to follow and who you believe will depend on who you support in the first place.
Ed should have done better given the circumstances, but we all knew he'd mess it up as he always does, so probably no biggie within the PLP?
Incidentally, is anybody from the Labour Party going to apologize for all the things they've said about the entirely innocent Mrs Brooks?
IDS failed at PMQs because he could not think on his feet and was poor at the forensic stuff, combined with the famous 'frog' that made him sound nervous. Hence, his own side became fearful every time he stood up, Blair was encouraged to steamroller him with BS and quicker wits and he gave nothing positive to counter the press's impression of him as a dead man walking.
Miliband is failing because the image he creates at PMQs is that of a 6th former who needs to get out more. That doesn't encourage the troops, frighten the enemy or counter the press's desire to paint him as weak.
Of course, PMQs isn't much more than a sideshow when it comes to shifting votes, but the images created inform the press coverage of the leaders, and that is why Miliband's regualar Wednesday failures are important.
I can't blame the jurors for wanting it all to end. 8 months is too long for any trial - no matter how complex. The only winners are the lawyers who have been coining it it.
Unfortunately that's all Ed Milliband has ever been. However, it was obvious when he elected leader that this was all he could offer, so Labour can't say they weren't warned.
In my opinion it is the way these cases are prosecuted that is the problem. Every possible charge is brought and every possible piece of mud is thrown in the hope that some of it sticks. Prosecutions need to identify the clearest and most obvious charges and bin the rest so that the evidence is brought within a compass that a jury can properly understand. If they don't the result is a lottery.
Wouldn't it suck to be the guy who took his lawyer's advice to accept the plea bargain...
"What is he going to do when the likes of Putin or Merkel or Hollande start coming on hard (possibly all at once and pulling in different directions)? What is he going to do?"
He'd be out of the room, making the tea for them.
Not that Cammo would be a lot better.
My final word on celebrity hacking. Wise parental advice. Stop pandering to them, they're only showing off now.
http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/05/20/ukip-meps-are-more-likely-to-go-to-prison-than-romanians/
Now the Judge has gone after Cameron for his ill-advised comments.
The Judge is a bit of a naive plonker if he thought that lot could keep schtum for a day..
The entire situation is a clusterf*** on all concerned.
Supposing Cameron had said nothing all yesterday and this morning - Labour and the media would have been been all over him accusing him of running scared and hiding from Coulson's conviction.
After all judging by the comments here seems Ed Miliband isn't. Always tricky to judge a PMQs when I never listen to it and my only sources are Twitter and here at any rate.
The criticism made by Saunders applied equally to all the statements made by politicians yesterday, including that made by Ed Miliband, which was far less considered in its legal implications than the Prime Minister's.
The world has gone nuts. The jury had just found Coulson guilty of being a criminal. How could Cameron or Ed statement "influence" them?
Hodges has a point...
Way to make your point there..
Press Association has just published this brilliant breakdown of the hacking trial by numbers:
• 454 million US dollars (£268 million) has been paid out by News Corp to alleged victims of phone hacking.
• £28 million to £30 million was agreed as the News of the World's annual budget under Rebekah Brooks between 2000 and 2003.
• £18,723,141 has been spent by Scotland Yard on Operation Weeting since the investigation into phone hacking was launched in 2011.
• £9,978,138 is the total spend on Operation Elveden, the police probe into payments to public officials.
• Some £95,000 to £105,000 was paid annually to private detective Glenn Mulcaire between 2001 and 2006.
• £2 million was the cost of the NotW's Sarah's Law campaign, leading to a budget overspend during Brooks's editorship.
• £600,000 was paid to Andy Coulson in settlement when he resigned as editor of the NotW in 2007.
• £140,000 was paid to Clive Goodman in a financial settlement with News International after he claimed he was unfairly dismissed following his conviction for phone hacking.
• 5,600 taskings were found on notes at Mulcaire's home - 2,200 of them had the name of Greg Miskiw, Neville Thurlbeck, James Weatherup or another NotW journalist written in the top left-hand corner.
• 600 of the Mulcaire taskings were dated during Brooks's time as editor of the NotW between May 2000 and January 2003.
• 5,500 is the total number of victims of NotW phone hacking, of which 1,000 have been classified by police as "likely victims" as opposed to "potential victims".
• 3,000 pages of evidence exhibits have been shown to the jury during the trial in Court 12 of the Old Bailey.
• The trial went on for 130 days before the jury was asked to consider its verdicts.
• 718 people settled claims with News International before May 31, including the parents of Milly Dowler.
• About 200 stories were published every week in the NotW, with the same number being rejected.
• Seven defendants sat in the dock - Rebekah Brooks, Andy Coulson, Stuart Kuttner, Clive Goodman, Cheryl Carter, Charlie Brooks and Mark Hanna. Each was represented by a team of lawyers, including a QC.
Yesterday was a bit of a catastrophe for the CPS. An acquittal rate like that makes bulk pleas very unlikely. They really need to winnow out the cases with e-mails like Coulson's saying "do their phone" and forget the rest.
The corrupt payments to the police are much more important and should be prioritised over the hacking charges. My understanding, though, is that this is a much bigger part of the next trial.
RIP EdM's conspiracy theory RT @JGForsyth: Gus O’Donnell: I was not involved in Coulson’s appointment http://bit.ly/1moEfpF
Ed loses another goal after the final whistle..
You are a fraud and a cheapskate, Watcher. If you want I'll nail to the mast a long list of Tory and Labour MPs that have actually gone to prison for crimes various. Just not worth printing their names.
Why the jury were allowed to release their partial deliberations to the judge is odd, unless they were split on those outstanding charges and have been told to go back and see if they can get a majority verdict - but I would have thought that would have been made known?
The political imperative dictated that Cameron had to respond as soon as Coulson was found guilty. He could hardly say "let's wait and see what the jury made of the total package of charges against him..."
"Are you sure that invading a foreign and relatively secular country is a good way to punish dangerous Islamic extremists, Mr Blair?" "Hmm ... perhaps you're right, I'll have a rethink."
Yes, very likely.
MPs have inordinate faith in their own judgement. That's why they like to control the levers of power. Can't have the plebs making decision; they'll only get it wrong.
And that's why we should introduce a Catch 22 into the selection procedure. "Explain why you might be totally wrong, please?" If they can't explain, pick someone else.
Which party leader has the approach to the EU that is closest to yours.
Cameron 34%, Farage 29%, Miliband 26%, Clegg 11%
twitter.com/FT/status/481774850298904578
If we had a sensible political debate, the Leader of the Opposition would be asking for a public enquiry (and one not led by a judge!) into why our justice system is so catastrophically inefficient and so ludicrously expensive.
Even If you even have the evidence Cameron wanted robinson,maybe robinson turned down camerom because he isn't a Conservative.
zerohedge @zerohedge 6m
GDP -2.9%!!!
The Jury were not aware (at least from the court proceedings) that such undertakings had been made by Andy Coulson and the court had ruled that such evidence was not to be admitted.
Saunders felt that the revelation that Coulson had made such undertakings would have led the jury to make assumptions about Coulson's credibility as a witness which were not relevant to the specific charges on which he was being tried.
As often happens in such cases, the judge also reached the conflicting conclusion that the jury had shown themselves capable of disregarding external influence in their prior deliberations and could be trusted to disregard the implications for Coulson's credibility conveyed in Cameron's statement.
So more a judge's whinge than a considered opinion that Cameron's statement was a real barrier to justice!
PB leads the way... or actually thinking of Surbitons role on here, perhaps it's not such a coincidence.
I'm not sure this counts as a betting tip, but I've put £20 on Madison Keys winning Wimbledon at 50/1 with Betfair. She won the Eastbourne tournament a matter of days ago.
One should celebrate a friend's acquittal , shouldn't one ?
The Staggers @TheStaggers 4m
#PMQs review: Miliband's pose with the Sun and the Leveson inquiry gift victory to Cameron http://bit.ly/1lPnjIt
I'm saying bad weather is on no account to be used as a causal factor or correlation to econiomic growth. PBred Economic Theory 101.
Plus even if so all he had to do was announce them for Brookes when they were all in and then wait until they were all in for Coulson.
Given the whirlwind of speculation whipped up by the left wing press (as well as the fire storm on here and other places) there was no way Brooks was going to avoid trial.
Who was it advising Mrs Brooks to have a valium and an early night when the faux outrage was at it's worst?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-25/gdp-disaster-final-q1-gdp-crashes-29-worst-2009-far-below-worst-expectations
The PM had had years to prepare for this moment - and it showed. It was a fluent and unwavering performance. Miliband will be widely accused of missing an "open goal", but his failure to land any memorable blows on Cameron today had more to do with the reality that much of the political damage from the scandal has already been done.
No. 10 believes that the affair has already been factored into the PM's share price. Nothing that occurred today suggests that they are wrong.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/pmqs-review-shield-leveson-saves-cameron