Murdoch hacking scandal latest

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

just telling it as i see it Mr Pee, just like you ....

[french frank]

Is slander permissible on these messageboards? I don't think the occupants of the anti-Murdoch bandwagon do themselves any favours by indulging in such ridiculous name-calling.

Name-calling is not slander. What is not permissible is name-calling of other members because it disrupts sensible discussion.

[Stunsworth]

A bit more about the Sun story regarding his son...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage#block-14

A source 'close' to Brown is quoted as saying...

"Gordon insisted - despite a heavy brow-beating from Rebekah - that he was not willing to let his son's medical condition be the stuff of a Sun exclusive," recalls this source. "So he put out a statement on PA to spike their scoop and make clear that despite his condition, Fraser was fit and healthy. The Sun were utterly furious, and Brown's communications team were told that if Gordon wanted to get into No10, he needed to learn that was not how things were done."

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Asst Comissioner Yates is now live on BBC News before the Commons Committee

megalomaniac - building an empire of personal influence and authority to further the standing and narcissism of the individual beyond the efforts of most ambitious individuals
gangster - manipulating or using others without their consent and to their detriment to achieve one's own ends
malign - detrimental to the well being, good character and order of a social group or persons

[ahinton]

Misnomer dear. From the old French mes- mistake and nommer to name. So what about the "man of the world"? Is there really much "man" in him? And - not off the topic - it would somewhat assist our analysis would it not were we able to discover whether the "Carry On" moving pictures remain quite as tremendously popular in Britain to-day as they once were.

Oh, I don't know so much; yes, "misnomer" is strictly accurate, of coruse, yet "misnoma" does have just the right whiff of something cancerous about it, does not it?...

[Mr Pee]

Name-calling is not slander. What is not permissible is name-calling of other members because it disrupts sensible discussion.

I would have thought that calling somebody a gangster was most definitely slanderous.

[ahinton]

if Murdoch hadn't faced down the unions at Wapping back in 1986, I very much doubt that we'd have any newspapers left in the first place.

And if what you earlier implied - i.e. that other newspapers are as guilty of the same kind of actions as those of the Newscorp stable - and they all eventually get to be dragged throught the mire of their own making - we might not have any soon in any case! Vive la difference?(!)...

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, that was precisely what Will Self meant when he said that this whole imbroglio is epiphenomenal. He thinks that it symbolises the replacing of the press by the internet.

[Chris Newman]

Watching the Police "witnesses" to the Parliamentary Select Committee brought back memories of the wriggling a certain high profile witness as the Iraq War inquiry. Glad to see they've wheeled on Anne Robinson to sum things up.

[Stunsworth]

Hayman was almost hilariously bad as a witness. A quote from the Grauniad...

"Michael Ellis, a Conservative, asks Hayman to confirm that he received hospitality from people he was investigating in relation to a criminal offence. Hayman says that's correct.The MPs on the committee seem to find this surprising. Hayman regards that as normal.

He says it would have been odd if he had cancelled the dinner, he says. Operational matters were not discussed."

[Chris Newman]

Hayman was almost hilariously bad as a witness. A quote from the Grauniad...

"Michael Ellis, a Conservative, asks Hayman to confirm that he received hospitality from people he was investigating in relation to a criminal offence. Hayman says that's correct.The MPs on the committee seem to find this surprising. Hayman regards that as normal.

He says it would have been odd if he had cancelled the dinner, he says. Operational matters were not discussed."

He actually said it would have been "suspicious" if he had cancelled the dinner which brought about communal disbelief from the committee.

[Lateralthinking1]

Other than domestic issues - don't get me started on developments with my l.a this morning, for an hour I was so staggered and appalled I was absolutely speechless, no really - I have been trying to get to grips with some of this shareholder business. News Corp have problems with their shareholders now in the US as has been mentioned. I was looking more at the UK.

Finance is not my strongest area. Is it that Legal and General are a significant shareholder in B Sky B and have been buying up shares? If so, this seems to be presented as a "we're not worried" sort of statement. However, in 2005, it resisted a buy back by News Corp to prevent it getting further control.

Britain's second or third private pension company - USS? This seems to be (have been?) administered by L & G? Since spring it has been beset with opposition from the universities - that is the "U" bit - because of significant changes to the arrangements. Court action mooted. In 2003, USS was very vocal in opposing the appointment of James Murdoch and upset Rupert in the process.

Three big appointments at USS in 2010. At the point when I saw that one was British and had the rare name of Christopher Shale, my mind boggled and just cut out. When you look at the guy's background, he doesn't seem to be one and the same as the aforementioned but it is a funny old world.

By all accounts, the Christopher Shale who died recently once employed Sarah Ferguson. Not just links with the PM then. And there is some interesting stuff too about Cam and Shale and South Africa and, erm, nuclear materials and a famous guy called Kelly. Late 1980s. Paths possibly crossing. However, I am not completely convinced that it is hard evidence by what I have uncovered in my investigations so far.

[Serial_Apologist]

And what short memories we all seem to have- if Murdoch hadn't faced down the unions at Wapping back in 1986, I very much doubt that we'd have any newspapers left in the first place.

If the unions had faced down Murdoch in 1986, today we'd probably still have NEWS papers...

[Frances_iom]

If the unions had faced down Murdoch in 1986, today we'd probably still have NEWS papers...

Murdoch wasn't the first to see the changes that direct input of copy by reporters would make - Eddie Shah had been there before - the technology was developing very quickly as computer systems became cheaper and more powerful in the early 70's (eg one of my colleagues in early 70's was involved with computer controlled linotype casting etc) - the old Linotype operators were doomed and along with them the many 'Spanish' practices of the old print rooms - we see the change today in many areas eg the switch of R3 from the Reithian inform educate + entertain to purely 'mass' entertainment - read the article referenced earlier in debate co-authored by Chomsky who argues that such a move 'down market' to mass appeal at lowest acceptable standard is inherent in an advertising driven newspaper

[Serial_Apologist]

Murdoch wasn't the first to see the changes that direct input of copy by reporters would make - Eddie Shah had been there before - the technology was developing very quickly as computer systems became cheaper and more powerful in the early 70's (eg one of my colleagues in early 70's was involved with computer controlled linotype casting etc) - the old Linotype operators were doomed and along with them the many 'Spanish' practices of the old print rooms - we see the change today in many areas eg the switch of R3 from the Reithian inform educate + entertain to purely 'mass' entertainment - read the article referenced earlier in debate co-authored by Chomsky who argues that such a move 'down market' to mass appeal at lowest acceptable standard is inherent in an advertising driven newspaper

Too true.....