Murdoch hacking scandal latest

[Mandryka]

she is ,as as now being publically aired, the human shield for James Murdoch - heir apparent and wouldbe destroyer of the BBC - he is the one needs to be hung to dry.

A convincing analysis - but is James Murdoch really up to the task? Everything I've read about him suggests a man with a short temper and very limited brainpower. For a long time, I've been thinking that when RM goes under the floorboards, his empire will not be secure in the hands of his designated heir.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

But will Sunday's loss match that of 23/04/1616?

Ah, I see it now.

[ahinton]

Call me old-fashioned, but I think women have no business being in business. It does not seem at all appropriate; their place has always* been in the home.

*Always: for thousands and thousands of years.

For making a statement such as that, I for one would be inclined to call you "ill-fashioned" rather than merely "old-fashioned". On what grounds does it not seem "at all appropriate" and to whom (besides yourself, that is)? Each woman's should be whatever each woman wishes it to be, although I do accept that many women in the past were regrettably forced against their wills to occupy rôles other than what might have been those of their personal choice; fortunately, such matters are now far more favourably disposed towards women than once they were.

And what of the many women in the poorest areas of the world who have no home?

[arcades]

I found Marina Hyde's piece in The Guardian interesting (because I found it interesting. Not - specifically - because it's in The Guardian. Which sometimes has good stuff in it and sometimes doesn't).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/08/relationship-only-ever-worked-one-way

[hackneyvi]

Call me old-fashioned, but I think women have no business being in business. It does not seem at all appropriate; their place has always* been in the home.

*Always: for thousands and thousands of years.

What a silly piece of ignorance. From which home do you think women in Thanet picked cabbages for your Sunday lunch? From which home do you think they stitched your wife's knickers? From which home do you think they baked and sold you bread and cakes? From which home do you think they nursed servicement like my grandfather when he was gassed and shellshocked? From which home do you think they repaired aircraft and manufactured munitions in the last war? From which home do you think they teach? From which home do you think they staff women's refuges because those women are not safe in the home with the man in? And which of this work would you be taking on and doing better?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

What a silly thing to say.

Some comments are best ignored.

[hackneyvi]

Some comments are best ignored.

I agree with you that ignoring these stupidities is the best general way of dealing with them. I don't usually look at what Grew's written now, once I've seen his name. Mr Grew's earliest communication with me on these boards was a long and wholly unnecessary insult. This inanity about women caught and mildly annoyed me because its particularly displeasing mix of mindlessness and affectation again unnecessarily insults.

I find this Grew peristently foolish but I'll turn a deaf ear to his idiocies from hereon.

[Stunsworth]

5 minutes into the debate with Steve Coogan et al I really wished I'd been recording it.

Available here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV9Sh_R3wB4

I think it's safe to say that Coogan's emotions were genuine.

[amateur51]

Some comments are best ignored.

I completely disagree EA and hackneyvi's response is spot-on and fully justified.

You just can't allow provocative mischief like that to go unanswered. Grew is a pain in the fundament but to ignore him is to agree with him tacitly and I don't believe that this board does agree with him, so well done hackneyvi for speaking out and so passionately!

[Stunsworth]

You just can't allow provocative mischief like that to go unanswered

He's just trolling and being very childish IMHO.

[hackneyvi]

Available here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZV9Sh_R3wB4

I think it's safe to say that Coogan's emotions were genuine.

Paul McMullen. Never heard of him but he's an absolutely shameless fool.

The biggest loss is ... I've always tried to get to write articles in a truthful way and what better source of getting the truth than to listen to people's messages?

What a degraded buffoon.

[Boilk]

But will Sunday's loss match that of 23/04/1616?

Ah, I see it now.

But of course, 23/04/1616 marked the death of that great literary figure ... Miguel de Cervantes

[Sydney Grew]

. . . On what grounds does it not seem "at all appropriate" and to whom . . .?

A curious view it strikes me Mr. H! My mother would never for a moment have considered entering "business", nor either of my grand-mothers, nor any of my great-aunts, nor any of the generations before them, and I am sure they were right and their principles appropriate. Money is simply not a thing for ladies. A maiden aunt admittedly did some "nursing" during the War, but wars are by definition men's time for being nursed are not they. Even Her Majesty did a little lorry driving in those out of kilter days we understand. And of course neither she nor my aunt thought for a moment of money the while.

[arcades]

I completely disagree EA and hackneyvi's response is spot-on and fully justified.

You just can't allow provocative mischief like that to go unanswered. Grew is a pain in the fundament but to ignore him is to agree with him tacitly and I don't believe that this board does agree with him, so well done hackneyvi for speaking out and so passionately!

But it's the perennial problem, isn't it? Something like that comment is posted to get a reaction, and the originator's reaction to that reaction is, inevitably, pained distress that people don't take him (most of the time it's a him, of course) seriously, that he means every word of it (which he may well do), that no mischief is intended (well, quite) and on and on.

Without descending to specifics there are one or two 'characters' (who are often regarded by enough people as characters to have some sort of following) who have been doing this for years, repetitively and wherever they can find somewhere on the internet classical music related that in the interests of gritted teeth "freedom of expression" puts up with it until they stop putting up with it ... to an accompanying howling and puffing and raging from the wounded independent thinker. I sympathise with hackneyvi, but the end result of responding is generally more grist to the initiator's mill.

Just look - I'm doing the very same thing myself.

[amateur51]

But it's the perennial problem, isn't it? Something like that comment is posted to get a reaction, and the originator's reaction to that reaction is, inevitably, pained distress that people don't take him (most of the time it's a him, of course) seriously, that he means every word of it (which he may well do), that no mischief is intended (well, quite) and on and on.

Without descending to specifics there are one or two 'characters' (who are often regarded by enough people as characters to have some sort of following) who have been doing this for years, repetitively and wherever they can find somewhere on the internet classical music related that in the interests of gritted teeth "freedom of expression" puts up with it until they stop putting up with it ... to an accompanying howling and puffing and raging from the wounded independent thinker. I sympathise with hackneyvi, but the end result of responding is generally more grist to the initiator's mill.

Just look - I'm doing the very same thing myself.

Good points arcades. I'd make a distinction between Grew msg 164 which needs a response such as hackneyvi's, and Grew msg 178 which should be witnessed with contempt & treated with silence