Murdoch hacking scandal latest

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Paul Sherratt

    Fascinating to watch the Murdoch Empire Balloon rapidly deflating.

    ( Whoopee ? )


    Comment

    • Anna

      Did anyone, via the link I posted to the 38 Degrees campaign email their MP re the vote on BSkyB and get a reply?

      I have had two from my MP, the first one basically said (and I paraphrase this) that all newspapers, from his personal experience and that of his friends, are staffed by scumbags whether they are Murdoch or Non-Murdoch and that 38 Degrees are a left of centre organisation who are campaigning against the perceived "right-wing" politics of News Corp plus 38 Degrees were too quick to believe everything written about the MP expenses scandal. And, more in a similar vein and it would depend on the wording as to how he would vote.

      Then, another email swiftly followed saying he had been indundated with emails accusing him of being pro-Murdoch and wanting to clarify his position. He then said he did not believe that the bid should go ahead so he is considering how best to convey this. Again, he says a lot will depend on how the motion is worded which he will find out on Wednesday morning.

      He then says the following:
      Whichever way the vote goes, the bid could still go ahead. The vote on Wednesday has no legal force. I want to reiterate this because some people who have contacted me via the 38 Degrees website are under the impression that the vote could end the bid. IT WILL NOT. However it would send a strong message to News Corp and to the Government about how the public and MPs feel and therefore, depending on the wording, I might well support it. (Again, for the third time he emphasised the wording)

      Then this, which is really the most interesting point:
      The Government will have to proceed with great care if it wishes to block the bid as it will have to remain within the law or face a legal challenge. Some of the calls by the opposition would actually have the effect of putting the Government above the law and therefore leave the door wide open for a challenge in the courts.

      Apologies if this is going a bit off-topic from the sleaze and corruption.

      Comment

      • scottycelt

        Speaking for myself, I consider by far the most disturbing event today was not some of Hayman's 'Jack-the-Lad' retorts, but the normally cautious Peter Clarke 'reminding' the Parliamentary Committee just how powerful News International is, and the 'legal advice' it has at its disposal, as apparently some sort of excuse for dropping any further investigation into that company's conduct ...

        'One Law For The Rich And Another For The Poor' therefore appears to have been at least unofficially endorsed by formerly one of the most senior officers in the Metropolitan Police?

        An astonishing and, frankly, quite stunningly appalling admission ...
        Last edited by Guest; 12-07-11, 18:03.

        Comment

        • PJPJ
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 1461

          Originally posted by Anna View Post
          Then this, which is really the most interesting point:
          The Government will have to proceed with great care if it wishes to block the bid as it will have to remain within the law or face a legal challenge. Some of the calls by the opposition would actually have the effect of putting the Government above the law and therefore leave the door wide open for a challenge in the courts.
          Absolutely - would play straight into NI hands.

          Before Miliband, Brown and Balls explode in self-righteousness, they would do well to remember McBride. Some of the press and some of the politicians deserve one another.

          I didn't use your link but did use avaaz.org - who send a message to relevant quarters on your behalf, I understand a very large number to Mr Hunt the other day, and I hope another before the vote tomorrow.

          I have got to the age where I have too little to do other than fret impotently about the mess inside and outside the country.

          Comment

          • PJPJ
            Full Member
            • Nov 2010
            • 1461

            Originally posted by scottycelt View Post
            Speaking for myself, I consider by far the most disturbing event today was not some of Hayman's 'Jack-the-Lad' retorts, but the normally cautious Peter Clarke 'reminding' the Parliamentary Committee just how powerful News International is, and the 'legal advice' it has at its disposal, as apparently some sort of excuse for dropping any further investigation into that company's conduct ...

            'One Law For The Rich And Another For The Poor' therefore appears to have been at least unofficially endorsed by formerly one of the most senior officers in the Metropolitan Police?

            An astonishing and, frankly, quite stunningly appalling admission ...
            Earlier today I read that with such disbelief I had to reread......

            Comment

            • Anna

              Oh, and somewhere I read something really funny along the lines of: The parliamentary committee questioning Andy Hayman, John Yates and Peter Clarke seems a parody of irreverence with Keith Vaz the chairman who has been investigated and probed more times than a cheap prostitute over his political and business dealings Sorry to lower the tone!

              Comment

              • johnb
                Full Member
                • Mar 2007
                • 2903

                Originally posted by Anna View Post
                Then this, which is really the most interesting point:
                The Government will have to proceed with great care if it wishes to block the bid as it will have to remain within the law or face a legal challenge. Some of the calls by the opposition would actually have the effect of putting the Government above the law and therefore leave the door wide open for a challenge in the courts.
                I think it was Mingus Campbell who proposed, as a last ditch, the government could block the deal and "challenge" Murdoch to seek a judicial review, bearing in mind the avalanche of public opprobrium such a move by Murdoch would create.

                Comment

                • johnb
                  Full Member
                  • Mar 2007
                  • 2903

                  Originally posted by Anna View Post
                  Oh, and somewhere I read something really funny along the lines of: The parliamentary committee questioning Andy Hayman, John Yates and Peter Clarke seems a parody of irreverence with Keith Vaz the chairman who has been investigated and probed more times than a cheap prostitute over his political and business dealings Sorry to lower the tone!
                  I can't help but think that the main purpose of these 'events' is to provide an opportunity for the MPs to grand-stand. Each of the MPs wants to get their 2p of limelight and there is usually little or no coordinated incisive questioning.

                  Comment

                  • Mandryka

                    I think you're right about Parliament not really having the power - I think the advertisers/shareholders have a far stronger chance of sinking Rupe's bid.

                    Comment

                    • french frank
                      Administrator/Moderator
                      • Feb 2007
                      • 30526

                      Originally posted by Mandryka View Post
                      I think you're right about Parliament not really having the power - I think the advertisers/shareholders have a far stronger chance of sinking Rupe's bid.
                      The shareholders haven't really been mentioned, have they? I wonder who they are and what they think?

                      And what was this earlier today about Murdoch launching a £5bn buy-back - what does that mean?
                      It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                      Comment

                      • scottycelt

                        Originally posted by Anna View Post
                        Oh, and somewhere I read something really funny along the lines of: The parliamentary committee questioning Andy Hayman, John Yates and Peter Clarke seems a parody of irreverence with Keith Vaz the chairman who has been investigated and probed more times than a cheap prostitute over his political and business dealings Sorry to lower the tone!
                        Indeed, I'm sure that very fact has struck many by now over-bewildered and utterly confused members of the public, including myself ...

                        There is a lot of sheer hypocrisy present here, but possible police corruption is ultimately the most serious issue, as how can a civilised society possibly operate unless there is no fear or favour afforded to anyone, rich or poor, by law enforcers?

                        Maybe I'm just old-fashioned ... traditional ... what the heck ...

                        Comment

                        • amateur51

                          Originally posted by Mr Pee View Post
                          I would have thought that calling somebody a gangster was most definitely slanderous.
                          If anything, in the context of the Internet, it might be libellous but not slanderous?

                          Comment

                          • johnb
                            Full Member
                            • Mar 2007
                            • 2903

                            There is something odd about the replies the John Yates gave to the committee. He came across as either a fool or a knave, but perhaps that isn't the whole story.

                            I would have liked to have known:

                            - What was the brief he was given when asked to review the NotW hacking and who gave him that brief.

                            - It has been reported that he only spent nine hours 'examining' the evidence. Bearing in mind the vast amount of paperwork to trawl through - was he given any timescale within which to arrive at a conclusion and, if he was, who by. (It seems to me that unless he was given the resource and time (i.e. months) any review would be totally depend on the answers given by the previous investigating team.)

                            Comment

                            • Lateralthinking1

                              This from 2005 which I alluded to earlier gives information about share buy back:

                              1.45pm: BSkyB said today it would not repeat its controversial share buyback scheme next year, in response to shareholder concerns that it will allow Rupert Murdoch's News Corp to gain 'creeping control' of the company. By Chris Tryhorn.

                              Comment

                              • french frank
                                Administrator/Moderator
                                • Feb 2007
                                • 30526

                                Originally posted by johnb View Post
                                There is something odd about the replies the John Yates gave to the committee. He came across as either a fool or a knave, but perhaps that isn't the whole story.
                                I've just listened to his 2009 statement (about 4 mins long) and his decision appeared to be based solely on the fact that there was 'no new evidence'. Admittedly, it wouldn't take very long to establish that. So he also appeared to be taking it as read, or on trust, that the initial investigation was full and efficiently carried out. I sort of understand that. I wouldn't have thought it was normal procedure to double check all the evidence, just in case something had been missed especially a case in which there was such a quantity of evidence to sift through. Against that view is Yates's own response that his decision not to reopen the enquiry was "crap".

                                In terms of dependability, I liked Clarke, Yates a bit iffy, Hayman ... (not, of course, that that makes him a villain).
                                It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X