egafd.com

Can't the prosection appeal a not-guilty verdict? I am sure they can, and there is the potential to do that with every case. Anyone can appeal anything I would imagine, you can be sent down and your defence team can appeal so why not the prosecution appealing if they think the result was not right?

Great day for her, great day for the pun writers, but a great day for justice? I think not...

max_tranmere wrote:

> The way I described it is how I recall it. I remember hearing
> quite a bit in the late-90s that Murdoch had insisted this of
> Blair, and when Blair agreed the Murdoch papers, particularly
> The Sun, started to very strongly back Blair. The Election was
> in May 1997 (I think it was that month, it was certainly Spring
> 1997 anyway) and The Sun announced "We Back Blair" in huge
> letters on their front page a few months earlier. On Election
> day that year they said "It Should Be You!" (a take on the
> National Lottery slogan of the day, and with a big finger
> pointing to a picture of Blair on their front page). It was
> revealed by the Conservative government around that time that
> Blair had had two secret meetings with Murdoch on his island,
> and Murdoch had paid for Blair's flights there. I know Gordon
> Brown was Chancellor under Blair but he didn't become leader
> and PM for another ten years (2007). I recall that Murdoch's
> backing of Blair in the 1990s had a lot to do with Blair
> promising to not take us into the Euro.

It was in May 1997 (1st to be exact) and yes Blair flew to see KRM and addressed a News Corp event. Yes they got on well (bit too well with WDM) for KRM's liking but it's one of the few things that we have reason to be grateful to Gordon Brown for. Blair was, is and ever will be ready to sell out this country.

No they can't appeal a not guilty verdict. You can appeal a conviction but not a non-conviction.

Why didn't do it with Harry Redknapp?

Why didn't they do it with the killers of Stephen Lawrence?

Why didn't they do it with Ken Dodd?

Why didn't they do it with Bill Roache?

Why didn't they do it with Michael LeVell?

Why didn't they do it with Andrew Lancel?

Why didn't they do it with every high profile case they lose?

That's why the law of double jeopardy was introduced. Until repealed by Blair.

"After this fiasco and the Harry Redknapp affair, is it time to introduce an intelligence test before you're allowed to sit on a jury?"

But what if you took an intelligence test to sit on a jury and failed?

No need to bleat about it. She had very good lawyers who convinced jury members she's an innocent as a virgin.

"Great day for her, great day for the pun writers, but a great day for justice? I think not..."

To be honest R Brooks and her mates on trial are/were very powerful and it surprises me ANY of the people at the top were convicted. The initial police investigation didn't want to prosecute any of the people at the top of the organisation. Something is better than nothing.

cockneygeezer2009 wrote:

> "After this fiasco and the Harry Redknapp affair, is it time to
> introduce an intelligence test before you're allowed to sit on
> a jury?"
>
> But what if you took an intelligence test to sit on a jury and
> failed?
>
Then you'd find Redknapp and Brooks not guilty.

I wasn't aware that the double jeopardy law had been repealed. If that's the case then she can't ever be tried for it again. Bastard!

None of the above provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt that she knew phone hacking was going on.