Don’t Menshn The Coulson Trial

After the end of Andy Coulson’s perjury trial in Edinburgh, where the former Screws editor was acquitted, came the spinners and pundits, although there was precious little to spin, or to pontificate over. The prosecution did not show how anything supposedly untrue that Coulson said in evidence at the earlier trial of Tommy Sheridan was relevant to the verdict in that trial, and so the Judge dismissed the case.

(c) Doc Hackenbush 2014

At first, it seemed that obedient Murdoch excuse generator and (thankfully) former Tory MP Louise Mensch would not be among those pontificating and spinning. But all good things come to an end, and so did her silence, as she trilled “Andy Coulson cleared of perjury as trial collapses. Spare a thought for @peterjukes at this difficult time”. Er, Peter live Tweeted the Hacking Trial. He had nothing to do with this one. Try again.

That honour fell to James Doleman, so off she went again: “.@martin_hickman @jamesdoleman here's a wee hankie to cry into Martin you can pass it to @peterjukes when you're finished”. And she wanted her followers to “look over there”: “the judgement in the #AndyCoulson case is not at all pleasant reading for Tommy Sheridan. See p. 21 … It also seems quite shocking, quite politically motivated that prosecutors would ever have brought such an irrelevant charge”. Was Sheridan on trial? If not, hardly relevant.

This time, no-one was exempt from her persistence: even David Allen Green, aka Jack Of Kent, found himself on the receiving end. “.@JackofKent unfortunate that people have wrongly taken your line ‘not every lie is perjury’ as a suggestion by judge that Coulson did lie”. Er, how can I put this? “Not my line, but a direct quote from the judge”.

Try again, eh? “.@JackofKent work with me here. The judgement - not the failed prosecution - contains no suggestion Coulson did in fact lie. Correct?” But sadly, “correct” was something she was not. “@LouiseMensch Incorrect. The judge clearly said the question was for the jury,not for him.  He did not determine it”. Ms Mensch avoids all the evidence of dishonesty which the defence chose not to address.

Instead, back she went to David Allen Green, demanding to know “Does the judge in his jury dismissal refer to Coulson's ‘alleged lies’ or not?” Why does anyone have to pick the case apart, given that the key point - that the prosecution failed to show the relevance of their evidence - has been discussed at length already? Why the triumphalism at seeing nothing more than due process of law being seen to take place?

Anyone might think that there was some kind of obsessive desire to prove loyalty to anything related to the Murdoch empire, coupled with an excess of time on her hands. It might not have been the ideal time for the Sun to proclaim “Fancy yourself as the next @LouiseMensch? Get your voice heard with our columnist competition http://sunpl.us/6013hmHx”. Another of her? That really is a frightening prospect.

Rupe should get her a berth at Fox News, if only for the unintentional hilarity it would bring.