Andy Coulson guilty

I wonder which of his former colleagues and supporters has popped over to Belmarsh to visit.
At least a clear example is being made to other journalists should they be tempted to stray into spying on people for the sake of a good story.
I guess he will be sent to a lower security establishment shortly.

So Coulson is still locked up in Belmarsh after three weeks. He really is carrying the can for his erstwhile mates and lover!

Interesting article from Hacked Off.
hackinginquiry.org/comment/three-developments-you-may-have-missed/

Given Piers Morgan in one of his books openly mentioned phone hacking and the fact he was Editor of the Mirror, also it was reported one of the accused was hired because of his knowledge of phone hacking whilst he was employed by the Sunday Mirror, I hope that the same effort applies to the Mirror Group soon.

If it doesn't then that would stink too.

I think there are a lot of people who are thinking 'There but for the grace of go I'.

I agree with everyone that we need politicians with a proper moral compass. Will Hutton's article in Sunday's Observer was brilliant (I thought)

The disparity between the defendants legal team (paid for by Murdoch) and the CPS budget has to be a factor.

Back to basics - Coulson guilty/Brooks not guilty. So what has all this this flushed up to the surface? That there has been, and may still be, an unholy alliance between powerful media interests, big business and politicians in the course of which the criminal law has been widely flouted. Much of the smelly court evidence now floating about has revealed lifestyle practices at the upper level of society, which whilst not necessarily illegal, are an anathema to most decent hard-working people. And the intertwined nature of the political/media/business worlds has been shown to pose a major threat to our democracy. I suggest, therefore, that its time to 'pull the chain' on some of these unacceptable people and practices and flush 'em away, forever!

I'm with Eleo on this - what we need are politicians who have some sort of moral compass, some set of values, some sort of vision about the sort of world that they believe in. What can change over time are the means that might be employed to try to achieve that vision ( or whatever you want to call it).

Asp -she also had the best defence team money can buy

thatbags and eloethan Wasn't "triangulation" the electioneering technique pioneered by Bill Clinton and didn't Tony Blair and his election advisors learn it from him? By definition, it avoids any big picture plan or idealism; it is entirely centred on getting an individual voted into office. And it worked in both cases.

It just shows how out of touch most of our politicians are. There can't be many people more cynical and hard bitten that your editor of a national newspaper.The sweetly naive little girl that she is purporting to be wouldn't have lasted five minutes!

I'm not suggesting that politicians (or anyone) should stick to the same beliefs unwaveringly but I think at least they should have some sort of vision which they are prepared to defend, rather than to keep adjusting their stance to fit in with the latest opinion polls.

I like your gutter press headlines, Riverwalk!
How did she do it? Simple! Compile dirt on the rich and powerful for years. Keep knives sharp and always at hand, and have a detailed map of where the bodies are buried. And when threatened with being sent down, just mention these things quiety to the appropriate people.... Oh, and show up in court in your Peter pan collars and play the ingenue. Incredible. In every sense of the word.

Do you think Cameron's or Boris's or Gideon's visions have changed?

I find myself agreeing * Bags* especially with the sentiment of your last sentence.

Many of my beliefs ("what I believe in") have changed over time, as has my political 'vision'. I expect this has happened to other people too, including politicians. Politics really isn't simple. People who stick to the same vision inflexibly are dictators and authoritarians. Give me normal, changeable human beings any day.

act.sumofus.org/go/4863?t=3&akid=5888.1669823.amvRUs

This is to get the watchdog to look into whether Murdoch is a fit and proper person to run Sky.

I agree Deeda. Why should someone be judged by the way they look or speak. Surely they should be judged by their actions. What we need is politicians who don't tailor their speeches to fit in with the findings of the latest "focus group" - people who actually tell us what they believe in and what their vision is, even if it doesn't accord with the "mood" of the general population (which, after all, is quite often generated by the rantings of the mainstream media).

We have too often been fooled by "image".

I think a worrying number of them are idiots rosequartz look at the way Blair carried on with Carole Caplin. Why would a PM need styling? I wouldn't care if he looked like an unmade bed if he seemed halfway capable of doing the job!
I bet Cameron and Osborne loved RB's protestations of innocence today! Breathy little girl voice, Rapunzel curls and a girly little dress more suitable for someone half her age. If she is really the all powerful woman we are told she is why doesn't she look and behave like one?

He has always got the beloved ex wife of his who defended him at Leveson.......... sorry did she not get into bed with that Blair fellow, he of the lovely bum. And manipulator of the meeja, to his own ends

It's not over yet, friends. I see that Mr Murdoch is said to be in London today for interview under caution by the Bow Street Runners regarding further criminality allegations. All a bit worrying for the old chap, I would think!

What a fantastically detailed article, which shows how the justice system can be manipulated by money and privilege.

To me, the most telling point in the article is that RB actually admitted in the Select Committee that she knew her journalists had paid police for information, but that this footage was not made available to the jury because of parliamentary privilege. Even if some of the jurors had been aware of this, they would have been instructed to base their decision only on the evidence presented at court and to disregard anything else they may have seen or read. It seems to me that, had they been able to consider this evidence, the verdict may well have been different.

I am pleased that AC was found guilty but I can't help but think that the frequently used description of him as an "Essex boy done good" - with all its stereotypically "slightly dodgy" connotations - worked against AC, whereas RB's wide-eyed, seemingly genuine manner worked in her favour.

But it makes you wonder just HOW naive our politicians are! Are they fit to govern if they are all so daft?

The good news is that the sleazy and corrupt Murdoch organisation has been caught red-handed in the bright lights of their own publicity, and have had to pay out hundreds of millions in compensation and legal fees in consequence. Not much reason for them and their cronies to feel pleased with themselves then!

Cameron rides Brooks's horse! Brooks comforted by Blair! Cameron's best friend marries Brooks! Cameron's brother is head of the chambers that defends Brooks! Brooks's lover Coulson hired by Cameron! Ad nauseam.

Says it all really.

I agree, a brilliant article.

Brilliant Guardian article which confirms the rottenness at the very heart of our society and the hypocracy and greed of certain parts of the press. Fortunately, this Pandora's box of sleaze and corruption has now been partially exposed to the light of day and action must now be taken to prevent this gross misuse of power and money ever happening again.