Ah, this is the story we weren’t allowed to tell anyone

The two tabloid editors at the centre of the phone hacking trial had a secret six-year affair at the end of which Rebekah Brooks wrote to Andy Coulson: “I love you … You are my very best friend … I tell you everything,” the Old Bailey heard.

15 thoughts on “Ah, this is the story we weren’t allowed to tell anyone”

  1. Two very public spirited people here. By falling in love with each other they’ve avoided the possibility of two innocent victims having to suffer.

  2. MB – they’re charged with conspiracy offences, the inference is that they are more likely to have conspired or at least known what each other was (allegedly) up to if they were in a relationship.

  3. MB: “I think I’m too dense to understand why this detail is interesting”

    “Wife of TV hunk Ross Kemp two times him with sleazebag Sun journo!!!”

    As your self-appointed careers adviser, can I suggest you don’t try for tabloid journalism?

  4. Aah, but it’s sweet. They were very much in love.

    The Meissen Bison

    Perhaps you’re too smart or too decent to find it interesting. In which case; you have my approval, now go read something else. And feel free to believe that others shouldn’t read it and that editors shouldn’t publish it.

    What you (and me) can’t do, however, is try to stop publication. The presumption should always be in favour of publication. The ‘public interest’ argument should only be considered to justify the prevention of publication; it shouldn’t be necessary for a publisher ever to justify publication.

  5. Thanks to all for your help, career advice and good marks for my negative prurience quotient.

    I’ve perhaps not been following this case as assiduously as I should have.

    I had rather formed the impression that loads of journalists and their editors, not to mention lawyers and insurers, were up to this kind of thing (bonking or bugging) all the time making it something of a commonplace.

    In this instance it seems to have been bonking AND bugging which doesn’t seem that novel a departure. And why would they discuss something as, for them, routine as bugging at all? It’s as interesting as me telling the wife I’ve replaced the toner in the copying machine.

    Now tales of a three-in-a-bed romp with Piers Morgan: that would be slightly interesting!

  6. Hypothetically speaking, Man A says to Woman B, ‘How did you get that story?’

    Woman B says, ‘We hacked the phone.’

    She may not have admitted this to someone she wasn’t in a relationship with.

    Equally, once the cops are involved, they conspire to destroy evidence, it being easier and safer and more comfortable to conspire with one with whom you’ve shared bodily fluids..

  7. @ the great redacto

    “Interesting jury in this case – people who can take a few months off at the drop of a hat.”

    They’ve got no choice, the poor buggers. Firms have to give you the time off for jury duty, but if you’re self employed then you have to take the financial hit. You get one deferment, then you have to show up or you can get done for contempt.

    I’ve got this to look forward to next year. Got my fingers crossed that I don’t get lumbered with something interminable like this.

  8. Yeah. looks like this show trial is going to be about personal smearing rather than evidence.

    It is of little or no importance to the charges whether they were supportive work colleagues or occasional friends with benefits.

  9. @Dan

    All true. One might equally obtain a wildcard jury, capable of anything, or nothing, were one to select from certain segments of the pool of jurors available. It would be interesting to know what the various defendants’ legal teams had in mind if/when they made objections to any of the proposed jurors. I don’t think I can safely say any more.

  10. This trial is all about the claim that Brooks and Coulson, while not themselves prying, condoned the practice of reporters prying into the semi-privacy of third parties by listening to some of their telephone conversations and the first thing that the persecuting (of course I mean “prosecuting”, don’t I) lawyer does is to pry, on a spurious pretext, into their privacy.
    I say semi-privacy because the design of mobiles means that everyone in the room or carriage can hear what you are saying.
    Welcome to the Stalinist world of show trials.

  11. John 77

    They are accused of conspiracy. I reckon how well they know each other is relevant.

    Out of interest, was this a secret to the press, or a variation of the fast bowlers’ union?

  12. @ Luke
    I never had the least sexual attraction to (and I assume for) the folks I knew best before I met my wife (girlfriends of my friends were off-limits and certain others kept me carefully at arm’s length). Conspirators need to share a common end, not to be friends (e.g. Octavian and Antony). So while how well they knew each other *may* be relevant, how far is it relevant: are you claiming that was Cleopatra was an active conspirator in the first triumvirate with Caesar, Pompey and Crassus or the second with Octavian Antony and Lepidus?
    I gather that the Fast Bowlers Union rule applied as Guido Fawkes fairly blatantly hinted at it some months ago but kept out of jail by not naming names when the rest of the media kept completely silent.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *