18 months for Coulson; he’ll be out in nine. The judge’s remarks are worth reading as they provide insight into his thinking. I find some of them questionable. Do you?
R –v- Coulson and others.
Sentencing Remarks
Parliament has decided that it is a criminal offence to access the voicemails of other people without their consent or an order of the court. Parliament has decided that the offence applies to members of the press in the same way as it does to all other citizens. This law provides the same protection to all citizens including those who, for one reason or another, are in the public eye. Parliament set the maximum sentence for the offence of intercepting communications at 2 years imprisonment and Parliament has decided that the same maximum sentence applies to an offence of conspiracy which can cover, as it does in this case, a very large number of individual offences.
View original post 3,675 more words
Mike Sivier's blog 
I didn’t think so. I admired the way he kept the thread of what he had to say so clear.
These are the bits that interest me. To what was he alluding?
“Mr. Coulson was not the only person at the News of the World who knew that this activity extended beyond Goodman. Anyone who read the transcript of the proceedings in front of Gross J would have been put on enquiry that others at the News of the World were involved.
There is no evidence that Mr. Coulson played any part in the cover up that occurred after his resignation.”
and
“There is a certain irony in seeing men who pride themselves on being distinguished investigative journalists, who have shed light in dark corners and forced others to reveal the truth, being unprepared to do the same for their own profession. I accept that that would require great courage but the best investigative journalists have never been short of courage.”