purejuice: (Default)
[personal profile] purejuice
Rebekah Brooks, the flame-haired editrix, basically said she was shocked, shocked to discover her managing editor was paying detectives to hack phones.

I didn't catch her testimony, only the parting shot, in which she asked the committee to invite her back when the charges against her have been settled. This sounds like extortion to me.
Brooks is asked if she has anything to add.

She wants to make a request to the committee that, when she is free from the legal constraints that she says she is under today, they will invite her back to answer "in a more fulsome way".

The answer from committee chairman John Whittingdale is yes. Her appearance in front of the committee is over now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/rebekah-brooks-phone-hacking-payments

Again, why would a reponsible executive promote to the highest reaches of the company someone who claims not to know what the managing editor of her paper was doing, and threatens to expose others the minute she has stopped defending herself against hacking and police bribery charges, implying she is singing like a bird to the police?

Profile

purejuice: (Default)
purejuice

January 2012

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 17th, 2017 01:42 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios