Yes, good news indeed. I think at the time when she said that Coulson (who was also there) interrupted her and tried to pretend that she had said something different because he realised straight away that it was illegal.
I love the way that Brooks is arguing that when she said to the Commons committee
"(NoW) had paid police for information in the past"
It didn't mean that NoW had necessarily paid police for information in the past. And this is because
"My intention was simply to comment generally on the widely-held belief that payments had been made in the past to police officers"
What does that even mean?
Anyway, they're not gonna look to favourably on her after refusing to come back and clarify things are they?
Also, I enjoyed the bit in the Hunt's response to Prescott that
'the merger involved two established reputable media enterprises when they discussed it in November'"
The implicature there being that it doesn't any more. I suppose that the wider issue is that the reputability issue was dealt with then and however disreputable the company becomes it can have no bearing on the plurality discussion which is all that is yet to be decided. That may be the letter of the law but if so it's fucking bollocks.