Bitch-slapping Rebekah.
The political debate moved out of parliament several decades ago, into the judicial arena in a wave of enthusiasm for ‘judicial review’ – now it is being played out in the criminal courts. The Old Bailey has become the equivalent of the Jeremy Kyle show for the political wonks inhabiting the Westminster bubble.
Labour had no problem with Silvio Berlusconi controlling the entire Italian media; not a peep was heard from them about the dangers of ‘media moguls’. Nor was there a hint of criticism of Rupert Murdoch when his vast empire was supporting Labour policies. There was no talk of ‘press regulation’ as Blair’s ‘babes’ were proudly paraded on every front page. Newspapers published stories of royal antics to the delight of anti-monarchists with never a whisper of complaint as to how those stories were acquired. Nor a hint of the ‘power’ wielded by ‘celebrities’ against vulnerable young girls when those same celebrities were trooping in and out of Downing Street at the invitation of Labour politicians. The stars of Labour adored Rebekah Brooks, then married to one of Labour prime fund raisers, Ross Kemp – she stayed for ‘sleepovers’ with Sarah Brown, counted Cherie Blair amongst her close friends, but most of all, it was her long standing friendship with Alastair Campbell, an ex tabloid editor himself, which saw her courted by Labour’s hierarchy.
Is it really so sinister that she should also be friends with Cameron? Her husband went to school with him, they were neighbours; it would have been odd if they weren’t friends – the school connection and the neighbourliness are surely more pertinent here than Cameron’s political allegiance. I’m more suspicious of her friendship with Gordon Brown, who lived the other end of the country. Much was made of the fact that Cameron rode a horse belonging to the Met Police. A sign of the ‘power’ wielded by Murdoch again? Yet Rebekah’s husband is a race-horse trainer, despite the media’s attempts to label him as a ‘sex-toy mail order’ merchant – he maintains a yard full of horses. Exactly the sort of person who would be offering a home to a retired horse. If my husband’s friend happened to be Prime Minister, I guess I’d be offering him the safest horse in the yard to ride when he wanted to, rather than a highly temperamental race horse…
Come a change of government, and the criminal courts are full of characters who ‘should have been arrested years ago’. Historic sex crimes, historic hacking crimes, historic invasions of privacy, historic inquires into historic inquiries. A mass historic hysteria.
One of the most unpleasant aspects of all this, is that our political future is being decided by the avowedly unelected. The lawyers and judges. At a cost of many millions to the tax payer. Guilt is being determined by allegation – and if the jury of ordinary citizens refuse to play ball and insist on returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict – then the media and the CPS is on hand to reinforce the slurs.
I find it impossible not to feel sympathy for Rebekah Brooks. Even following her acquittal, the media was keen to emphasise who precisely they could name that she had slept with – sub text: ‘she’s just a slapper’ – that she lived in the same county as ‘royal princes’ (probably for the same reason they chose the area – near to London and some very pleasant houses which she could afford); that her Father was a ‘tug boat crewman’ – Sub text: ‘she’s just trailer trash, slept her way to the top’; that her main ‘relationship’ was with Rupert Murdoch – sub text: ‘she probably slept with him as well’; and most hurtful of all; her daughter was born via surrogacy – sub text: ‘she’s not even a proper woman’.
That the media was able to print all this was because of the decision by the CPS to bring her sexual relationships, her daughter’s origins, her background, into evidence. Rebekah has always been noticeably reticent about her private life. She has preferred to be judged on her ability to do her job in the testosterone charged atmosphere of the tabloids.
There may be some point to the ritual humiliation of Max Clifford in a historic sex abuse trial; the comments regarding the size of his penis could be said to be relevant to whether the witness had ever even seen his penis. Was there any point to revealing the contents of a late night, drink fuelled, emotive e-mail between Rebekah and Andy Coulson? It was said to show evidence of their ‘closeness’ and thus of the imperative of believing that such closeness obviously extended to a shared deliberate conspiracy to ‘hack’ phones.
To me, it smacked more of the same callousness that led police to search the cot of her new daughter at 4.30 in the morning – a desire to humiliate, to punish, irrespective of the ultimate jury decision. It is as though guilt is being decided at the moment of allegation, and the jury’s eventual decision is all but irrelevant.
That the allegations are inevitably against the BBC, against journalists and ageing celebrities, and the constant harping on about the wrong doing of ‘Tory toffs’, speaks more of political point scoring by an ideology that finds itself out of power and distrusts the electorate to vote it back into power without serious ‘re-education’.
Rebekah’s trial was not really about phone hacking. That was just a vehicle to hit back at Rupert Murdoch for having ceased to support left wing ideology. Like the USA and Russia, the real protagonists are to afraid to fight each other openly; they use proxies in the judicial courts.
The unelected lawyers have reportedly hoovered up close on £100 million both defending and prosecuting – and humiliating – a woman who should be lauded for her ability to to have done her job so well that she rose from junior secretary on the old ‘Post’ to Chief Executive of a multi million pound corporation. If anybody believes that Rupert Murdoch gave her that job because of her prowess in bed, they want their head seeing to.
He gave her the job because she could do the job better than any of the drink sozzled candidates lurking in the news room. She proved it too – turning in record profits year after year – the sure fire way to Rupert’s heart. No wonder he was so fond of her. No wonder the rest of the news rooms are so keen to see her portrayed as an old slapper…
We are paying for this Jeremy Kyle style electioneering.
- Ho Hum
June 26, 2014 at 10:24 am -
We’re just fortunate that, so far, and no matter how hard their sponsors have tried to eliminate such niceties, the Chekist Persecution Sorority still has to contend with trials and juries
- James Sykes
June 26, 2014 at 10:54 am -
Ho Hum, For now they do ,until they are abolished as unnecessary or inconvenient more likely,like returning not guilty verdicts.
- Carol42
June 26, 2014 at 10:56 am -
Her treatment was a disgrace and is for so many others kept in limbo for months without charge. I was sorry that Andy Coulson was found guilty for something I am sure was/is common in all newspapers and always was albeit by different means. I despair at what our police and justice system has become.
- Ho Hum
June 26, 2014 at 11:24 am -
There was a report I remember reading during the middle of the Leveson process, which for the life of me I can’t now find – maybe it’s one of those which our free and open press decided later to ‘lose sight of’, something more readily done in the post print era – where someone said that a now very prominent editor of a national tabloid had by his desk, at a time when he was working his way up through the ranks, a complete national set of BT engineers directories, the kind which included all normal ex directory numbers.
Not something that, I understood the article to say, might readily be had. Who knows, maybe even at that time that might have been an illegal acquisition? Certainly not unduly different in principle, if that is to be encapsulated in ‘doing whatever it takes to get a story’. The only real difference is in the type of technology available
The latter day protestations of a past and heritage that was pure and innocent, and that, anyway, the means justifies the end, tends to show that if these people ever got to the end of Ethics 101, they certainly didn’t take any of it in
- Frankie
June 26, 2014 at 6:20 pm -
I genuinely disagree.
How could anyone reasonably explain the extremely odd behaviour in hiding and retrieving laptops, disguised in Pizza boxes, and the like?
How is it possible that one half of the secret lover’s tryst was found guilty, but his paramour not guilty. It just don’t make sense.
I think that she, along with all the other defendants had a case to answer. Fortunately, for her, a jury of her peers found her and her husband not guilty, to a criminal burden of proof, so I read from that the jury did not find any of these cloak and dagger operations in the least bid odd, nor did they think that her admissions to the Parliamentary committee – that police officers were routinely approached to give the newspapers material, in exchange for money was evidence of criminal behaviour either.
Baffled!
- Olivia
August 17, 2016 at 2:37 pm -
Baffled here too.
- Olivia
- Ho Hum
- English Pensioner
June 26, 2014 at 11:23 am -
I cannot understand why that the judge allowed so much, apparently irrelevant, information to be introduced into the trial. I cannot see what relevance her upbringing, family and career has to do with the issue of whether she was party to phone hacking. There does seem to be an increasing tendency for the police/prosecutors these days to “stir up all the dirt” so that if they don’t get the accused one way (a guilty verdict), they get him/her another way (wrecking their lives).
The recent tendency for the police to arrest someone and then release them on police bail for a year or more is completely unacceptable. The only reason for such action, in my view, is if they believe the person concerned is an on-going danger or that their freedom will allow them to destroy evidence, which, in either case, surely means that they should not be let out on bail.- Jonathan Mason
June 26, 2014 at 3:22 pm -
I cannot understand why that the judge allowed so much, apparently irrelevant, information to be introduced into the trial. I cannot see what relevance her upbringing, family and career has to do with the issue of whether she was party to phone hacking.
That seems to be a modern trend in British justice. We see the same thing in a number of celebrity sex trials where witnesses are called simply to sling mud that has no relevance to the actual charges or regarding events that occurred outside the jurisdiction of the court.
In case of Brooks they threw a lot of mud because they had very little direct evidence that Brooks knew about the cell phone message interceptions, even though it is pretty obvious that she could not have not known (in my opinion). However the jury was not sympathetic to the prosecution and decided to send a message. Evidence that would have been more useful would have been elucidating what exactly was the scope of Brook’s job and to what extent she was hands-on in administering the operations side of the business, hiring and firing, and so on.
My impression is that phone “hacking” of messages unprotected by passwords was so widespread at the time (when cell phones were still relatively new–the world’s first GSM network opened in 1991 and it of course the prominent and the wealthy had cell phones before they became a mass phenomena in the mid 90’s) that it wasn’t regarded as criminal activity by the newspapers.
After all, no one was ever prosecuted over “Camillagate” and all of us older folks had grown to mature adulthood without cell phones, Internet, etc.
- Jonathan Mason
- Ho Hum
June 26, 2014 at 11:33 am -
Ah, but it all points to the flaws in their character, and helps to ‘build’ the case. Goes a bit like this:
First Her, daughter of a docker, learnt the hard way she had to be a ruthless hussy
Second Her, went to a comprehensive, wasn’t taught how not to be a ruthless hussy
Third Her, went to grammar school, learnt from others there how to be a ruthless hussy
Fourth Her, went to, say, for example,Roedean or the like, was born to be a ruthless hussySee how it’s done? They’re out to get them all one way or another
- Ho Hum
June 26, 2014 at 11:34 am -
/deepsigh. That was a reply to the English Pensioner
- Ho Hum
- Den
June 26, 2014 at 12:06 pm -
Don’t mean to be rude but I find this all a little naive. As a Working Class East Ender from the 40s/50s I am amazed at how out of touch people can be. As a youngster we all accepted that the law was bent and the police and criminals just chose which role to play – they all came from the same streets. Our aim was not to come to the attention of the police or other authority including councils etc. They were all corrupt and anti the common herd. I see no change in society in this regard other than that now we are better informed as to how things come to pass. I just smiled when, recently, government and the political class were supposedly surprised at the amount of police corruption being made known to the public. They are all involved together and merely feign surprise, Plus ca change………………….
- GildasTheMonk
June 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm -
Cynical, jaundiced, world weary comment, Den. And right on the money. Fancy a pint in the Snug sometime…?
- Den
June 26, 2014 at 3:38 pm -
Thanks G, Make mine Best bitter.
- Den
- GildasTheMonk
- DtP
June 26, 2014 at 12:12 pm -
This has been what’s been desired by everyone – civil servant, politician, judges and perhaps even punters/voters. Everyone ducks responsibility these days – everyone needs an escape plan before even opening their mouths. With globalisation has come a procession to the lowest common denominator, the base, vulgar, popular acceptance that all standards are shite. Why would a politician work on principle when they’ll get killed by their own party? The rot started long before Blair – maybe sometime about when Heath was pilloried, or maybe Wilson being portrayed as a total twat. I don’t think it’s tabloids that are responsible – they were merely a conduit to brief and debrief rather than any meritocracy inherent in the party structure. Now we get ugly babies running the show – Cameron’s less offensive than David Davis, Miliband less than his brother, Clegg less ugly than Ming.
No one gives a flying fuck about phone hacking and yet they’ve spent, as detailed in your previous thread, a frikking fortune – because no one in power either had the balls, inclination or squeeky clean background to be able to say ‘shut up – get out of my office’. There’s a malaise in British politics that no amount of judicail reviews can ever ameliorate. I dunno – as Mr Ishmael may say, it’s just another step on Ruin’s highway but when there’s genuine shit to be getting on with and they’re fannying about on crap like this, well, no – just no – I disrespectfully refuse. It ain’t politics anymore – it’s just an amorphous cohort of spivs and shysters playing to their own audiences but no one’s listening anymore.
- GildasTheMonk
June 26, 2014 at 2:13 pm -
“I find it impossible not to feel sympathy for Rebekah Brooks. Even following her acquittal, the media was keen to emphasise who precisely they could name that she had slept with – sub text: ‘she’s just a slapper’ – that she lived in the same county as ‘royal princes’ (probably for the same reason they chose the area – near to London and some very pleasant houses which she could afford); that her Father was a ‘tug boat crewman’ – Sub text: ‘she’s just trailer trash, slept her way to the top’; that her main ‘relationship’ was with Rupert Murdoch – sub text: ‘she probably slept with him as well’; and most hurtful of all; her daughter was born via surrogacy – sub text: ‘she’s not even a proper woman’.
That the media was able to print all this was because of the decision by the CPS to bring her sexual relationships, her daughter’s origins, her background, into evidence. Rebekah has always been noticeably reticent about her private life. She has preferred to be judged on her ability to do her job in the testosterone charged atmosphere of the tabloids.”
Agreed
“To me, it smacked more of the same callousness that led police to search the cot of her new daughter at 4.30 in the morning – a desire to humiliate, to punish, irrespective of the ultimate jury decision. It is as though guilt is being decided at the moment of allegation, and the jury’s eventual decision is all but irrelevant.”
Agreed. I can’t help but feel that the Police like a bit of unnecessary dram.
I expect we will both be invited round at Brook’s Towers for dinner soon, at this rate! Must dust off my riding kit…
- GildasTheMonk
June 26, 2014 at 2:46 pm -
Brooks’ Towers even – I know how sharp eyed the readers can be…
- Mr Wray
June 26, 2014 at 4:37 pm -
The Police, bless ’em, will always search a cot. It’s a common hiding place for people who think the Police wouldn’t have the audacity to look there. Granted Brooks is less likely to be putting her stash under Junior but what if she had and they hadn’t searched for fear of being pilloried. As ever they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
- GildasTheMonk
- suffolkgirl
June 26, 2014 at 4:06 pm -
Where the Met prioritised anti terrorism over investigating phone hacking the outcry was huge and it was in all media. We’ve got what we asked for and I can’t quite buy the lefty conspiracy angle. Prosecuting white collar crime is always expensive and often fails which is why it is relatively rare that the police knock on middle class doors at six am. The tabloids know the reality of the arrest process perfectly well,but that’s never stopped them hounding the suspects. Unlike many Rebekah had access to a brilliant legal team and she’s been acquitted. Good luck to her but I’ll save my tears.
- Henry the Horse
June 26, 2014 at 4:07 pm -
I find it hard to get outraged by judges rather than politicians making important decisions. Leaving it up to MPs just seems to equate to doing whatever the tabloids scream next for (eg Sexual Offences Act 2003). It would be great if representative democracy led to justice or even good lawmaking but it doesn’t. The House of Lords has seen a vastly superior level of debate and scrutiny of legislation over the last two decades than the House of Commons. On the whole, judges have also done a lot better in judicial review than MPs with their rushed and ill thought through legislation.
- Mr Wray
June 26, 2014 at 4:45 pm -
What seems to have been forgotten in all this is that the hacking story was a means to an end. It was designed to scupper the purchase of the rest of BSyB by Sky and it did. The (mis)use of Milly Dowler by the Guardian using deliberate lies at a time when sympathy for her was high (her killer had just been sentenced) is one of the vilest things I have ever had the misfortune to read in a newspaper. But they did it because, along with the BBC, they didn’t want a FOX news-esque station in the UK. The fall out and the opportunity to damage past friends (in order to encourage the new not to be so disloyal) was just a secondary win.
As ever its all about politics and who can scupper who. A few tawdry celebs having their cupidity splashed in public is not the issue.
- Ian Reid
June 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm -
> Rebekah has always been noticeably reticent about her private life.
What goes around comes around. Her whole business was raking muck on others. That being said this was more about retribution and revenge than justice, and is a sad indictment of the judicial system in this country and those who direct it. Still my sympathy is in shorter supply than our hsots on this ocassion.
P.S. Skimming http://savilereport.leedsth.nhs.uk//40482-LIBRA-main-accessible-v0.3.pdf
- Frankie
June 26, 2014 at 6:23 pm -
I entirely endorse your sentiments. Sow the wind, reap a whirlwind… she bought a lot of this on herself.
- Johnny Monroe
June 27, 2014 at 5:19 pm -
I can’t say Brooks appeared to show much sympathy for the innocent people who resembled the gallery of rogues she ‘named and shamed’ and were consequently attacked by the lynchmob she encouraged to take to the streets in the wake of the Sarah Payne case. What she herself has been through of late can’t have been pleasant by anybody’s standards, but…oh, there’s an overused saying applicable that I’ll refrain from using. And, anyway, she’s still got all her hair, which makes some happy (from what I can gather!).
- binao
June 27, 2014 at 7:56 pm -
I understand the view of ‘just deserts’ for this woman.
I even wait with some lip licking to see Mr Blair go through something similar.
But in this instance, the jury said ‘not guilty’. I have to accept that, and it seems this judgement was reached despite every effort to get a contrary result. Yes, I know as a bloke I’m a poor judge; Pre Raph. hair ‘n all that.
Nobody I’ve met has got far in their career without being tougher, more opportunistic, and more resilient than the other frogs in the bucket. I haven’t noticed cleverness helping much.
None of this makes them make them bad people, but it can certainly make them hard to like.
So I do feel some empathy.
My guess though is that the lady is well able to cope.
- Johnny Monroe
- Frankie
- The OSC
June 27, 2014 at 12:29 am -
Not one of your better analyses, Anna,
But, that is OK
The OSC
- IlovetheBBC
June 27, 2014 at 7:23 pm -
Around half of all those hacked were NOT celebrities. I feel that needs saying.
- AdrianS
June 27, 2014 at 9:35 pm -
Seems a lot of public money wasted on what is not really that serious a charge. No one got killed injured, yet a vast amount of time, money and police resource spent on this. If as an ordinary bloke I went to the police and said xyz had hacked my phone they would do nothing. They go for soft targets. It’s not justice it’s just politically motivated prosecutions . I’m not a great fan of Rebek Brookes but they tried to nail her for very little, yet Blair waltzes away from the Iraq war with out the blink of an eye. A lot of our lads died for nothing as well as even more poor Iraqis
- Fat Steve
June 28, 2014 at 9:37 am -
hit back at Rupert Murdoch for having ceased to support left wing ideology. I reckon Gildas you are right save its support for Nu Labour rather than any ideology for i am far from sure Nu Labour has any ideology beyond notions of power for the sake of power
- Moor larkin
July 6, 2014 at 9:55 am -
I remain puzzled that Ross Kemp has never come out with his story, especially since he was notoriously bitch-slapped himself, according to news reports of the times. For such a tough SAS cookie as Grant Mitchell, there must be a very good reason for his refusal to give any moor than name, rank and number… Anyone on Eastenders been up before the beak yet btw? I don’t always keep up with the Soap Opera that is the English legal system just now.
- Moor larkin
July 6, 2014 at 10:04 am -
Oh yes. Just remembered. One of the first was wasn’t he. Andrew Lancel – acquitted in 29 minutes….. Been downhill ever since…
- Moor larkin
- Olivia
August 17, 2016 at 3:05 pm -
That the media was able to print all this was because of the decision by the CPS to bring her sexual relationships, her daughter’s origins, her background, into evidence. Rebekah has always been noticeably reticent about her private life. She has preferred to be judged on her ability to do her job in the testosterone charged atmosphere of the tabloids.
That is HILARIOUS
- Olivia
August 17, 2016 at 3:09 pm -
How many stories did the NOTW and the Sun publish about deeply personal, embarassing actions of people who weren’t even in positions of power (therefore no public interest)?? I can think of two stories where the person in question being reported about committed suicide. Gordon Brown’s 4 month old son was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis…why did we have to know about that? And weren’t she and Sarah meant to be friends? But lets all cry a river for Rebekah because all of her dirty laundry was aired? No, I’m sorry, but there isn’t an ounce in me that feels nothing but disgust for her. Textbook karma, and I hope it fucking stung.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }