Murdoch protegee Brooks cleared in case that shook British establishment

Comments (16)
WestFlorida wrote:

But she was perfectly happy to use the data and information that obviously was illegally obtained. Publishing details about the learning disabled family member of the Prime Minister was below even scum. Love the hair.

Jun 24, 2014 8:21am EDT  --  Report as abuse
QuietThinker wrote:

Another underling takes the fall for the boss. No doubt that this scheme goes back to not only Rebekah Brooks but also Rupert Murdoch himself. Rupert wants secrets so he can control politicians – any use by the papers themselves is a sideline.

It is certainly difficult to prove criminal cases against those giving the orders.

Jun 24, 2014 8:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CMEBARK wrote:

She maybe cleared of some charges, but never of the bad hair charge.

Jun 24, 2014 9:02am EDT  --  Report as abuse
divinargant wrote:

I get a real charge out of that head of hair.

Jun 24, 2014 9:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gkam wrote:

You can’t fight the money and powerful interests of billionaires.

They OWN us.

Jun 24, 2014 10:29am EDT  --  Report as abuse
njglea wrote:

What a charming group of people. Does anyone actually believe any so-called news that is produced by Rupert Murdoch’s empire? He has used his inherited money to ruin many fine publications like the Wall Street Journal,London Times and Sun and organizations like Dow Jones and 20th Century. He is responsible for much of the violent content we get in television and movies. It is scandalous that this corrupt human being was/is allowed to control so much of the world’s media and entertainment. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation#Newspapers

Jun 24, 2014 11:13am EDT  --  Report as abuse
digressor wrote:

How much did this cost Murdoch? if there was ever a man named Corruption, this is him.

Jun 24, 2014 12:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

Being “a close friend of the last three British prime ministers”, and being defended by a legal defense team provided by multi-Billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, …. can buy you a whole lot of “justice.”

Looks like Murdoch and his News Corp are the real winners, AGAIN. And the United Kingdom and every other country in the world fouled by Murdoch’s sordid yellow journalism business enterprises are AGAIN the losers.

Our world would be a much better place, without amoral parasite’s like Murdoch in it.

Jun 24, 2014 2:10pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
jennili970 wrote:

Phew! I was afraid a well-connected rich person might actually go to prison for what they did. What a relief!

Jun 24, 2014 2:29pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Mandoist wrote:

Don’t care much for snitches… but if she gave Murdoch up for immunity, good for her!!

Jun 24, 2014 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Pllc15 wrote:

Odd that NSA is allowed to hack into our phone lines and computers but not our press. A chilling thought about our government’s overreach that should be limited as well.

Jun 24, 2014 2:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bfstk wrote:

She wasn’t “Cleared” she was found not guilty because the evidence was insufficient for the jury to convict. Quite a difference.

Jun 24, 2014 2:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JoeSchmoe123 wrote:

She never once asked where the information was coming from right? Baloney.

Jun 24, 2014 3:07pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Liar liar, ginger panties on fire. She’s a terrorist.

Jun 24, 2014 3:13pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:

I don’t want to objectify this woman or trivialize her wrongdoing. But I just love her hair. Somebody gotta say it.

Jun 24, 2014 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Bfstk wrote:

Finding her not guilty doesn’t mean she was “cleared” of the charges. What is clear is she was there and should have or would have know about he spying even if it couldn’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Lets just see Rebecca is very clever while her boyfriend was not. She is very bit as slimy as Rupert Murdoch and who gang that perpetrated this horrible invasion of privacy and decency.

Jun 24, 2014 5:49pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.