Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[french frank]

Damn. My fault. One should always let sleeping Grauniad readers lie. That's "lie" as in sleep. Perish the thought that their beloved bible is ever guilty of falsehood or underhand tactics. Or even- can you believe- some sort of political agenda. :doh:

Most of the broadsheets have a political agenda, or a political slant to their stories. As Lat observed a few pages back:"It is interesting to note how the Guardian is to this matter what the Telegraph was to expenses." This is why, particularly on this thread, the Guardian will be regularly quoted, though the Telegraph has been too.

And on political agendas, uncovering the squalid relationships and criminal activity within News International is a far more important contribution to the preservation of some sort of fair and democratic system in this country than uncovering the squalid dishonesty of individual MPs in respect of expenses. And the Telegraph's own squalid campaign to target, by fair means or foul, the leading Liberal Democrats within the coalition was profoundly anti-democratic. So much for political agendas.

This is - to many of us - an important issue. It's still running. And if it's the Guardian getting the stories, so be it.

[amateur51]

Most of the broadsheets have a political agenda, or a political slant to their stories. As Lat observed a few pages back:"It is interesting to note how the Guardian is to this matter what the Telegraph was to expenses." This is why, particularly on this thread, the Guardian will be regularly quoted, though the Telegraph has been too.

And on political agendas, uncovering the squalid relationships and criminal activity within News International is a far more important contribution to the preservation of some sort of fair and democratic system in this country than uncovering the squalid dishonesty of individual MPs in respect of expenses. And the Telegraph's own squalid campaign to target, by fair means or foul, the leading Liberal Democrats within the coalition was profoundly anti-democratic. So much for political agendas.

This is - to many of us - an important issue. It's still running. And if it's the Guardian getting the stories, so be it.

Agreed wholeheartedly, french frank! :ok:

Thankfully, all the old broadsheets and the BBC have risen to the challenge of reporting and commenting on this wide-rangingly pertinent and gob-smackingly sordid affair. The New York Times has been doing some good stuff too, particularly from the business angle, although I suspect that they find the hacking side fascinating too. The end AND the means :smiley:

[amateur51]

I see ... I think.

Well, in the admittedly tiny context of this forum, August 29, 2011 will certainly live in my own memory due to a pair of quite newsworthy events.

Whilst I could never honestly describe that day as either thrilling or one of particular national pride, to witness one valued member quoting from the Book of Common Prayer and another grandly announcing that he would be publicly reading from the Bible, one is forced to concede that things quite extraordinary and wholly unexpected took place on that remarkable day. However, it was duly noted that it was also a Bank Holiday in August ...

And, as for any thrills, we have a hopefully memorable Bruckner 8 to look forward to this evening, Mr Grew. :smiley:

Sorry if you found my announcement to be 'grand', scotty - merely a statement of fact and surely not requiring comment.:erm:

You'd read from Bertrand Russell at a funeral at an old chum's request, wouldn't you? :smiley:

[Globaltruth]

Interesting development

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8730063/Phone-hacking-judge-to-question-Rupert-and-James-Murdoch-under-oath.html

[french frank]

Telegraph seems to be first in with that story :smiley:

[amateur51]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...nder-oath.html

This is very good news :ok:

However I am concerned that aspertions have been cast on Lord Justice Leveson's impartiality and as far as I know, they have not be answered.

Apparently he has attended Murdoch family parties this Summer. Possibly not important, but it may become so if his Inquiry does not come up with what some of us hope. Therefore I have written to my MP making this point but the only reply I have received is a second answer to a different question. I'll let Ms Teather get back into gear & then I'll write again.

Could I suggest that other interested board members should do the same?

For information, the parties are outlined below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8656131/Phone-hacking-inquiry-judge-attended-parties-at-home-of-Rupert-Murdochs-son-in-law.html

I hope that Messrs. Pee and scotty will appreciate my use of non-Guardian sources :smiley:

[Globaltruth]

This is very good news :ok:

However I am concerned that aspertions have been cast on Lord Justice Leveson's impartiality and as far as I know, they have not be answered.

Apparently he has attended Murdoch family parties this Summer. Possibly not important, but it may become so if his Inquiry does not come up with what some of us hope. Therefore I have written to my MP making this point but the only reply I have received is a second answer to a different question. I'll let Ms Teather get back into gear & then I'll write again.

Could I suggest that other interested board members should do the same?

For information, the parties are outlined below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8656131/Phone-hacking-inquiry-judge-attended-parties-at-home-of-Rupert-Murdochs-son-in-law.html

I hope that Messrs. Pee and scotty will appreciate my use of non-Guardian sources :smiley:

Sky News (:biggrin:) believe it will be televised live...

http://www.skynews.com.au/world/article.aspx?id=656094&vId=

[Flosshilde]

Thankfully, all the old broadsheets and the BBC have risen to the challenge of reporting and commenting on this wide-rangingly pertinent and gob-smackingly sordid affair.

Even the London Times started covering the story - albeit rather late in the day, when they realised it couldn't simply be dismissed as anti-Murdoch lefties getting their knickers in a twist.

[scottycelt]

You'd read from Bertrand Russell at a funeral at an old chum's request, wouldn't you? :smiley:

Yes, I'd do almost anything for an old chum, amateur ... possibly even something extraordinarily as eccentric as that .. :winkeye:

[amateur51]

Yes, I'd do almost anything for an old chum, amateur ... possibly even something extraordinarily as eccentric as that .. :winkeye:

:laugh::peacedove:

[french frank]

However I am concerned that aspertions have been cast on Lord Justice Leveson's impartiality and as far as I know, they have not be answered.

Apparently he has attended Murdoch family parties this Summer.

Reverting to Guardian sources: since the Telegraph story was published, it's been announced that Elisabeth Murdoch will not be joining the board of News Corp as she considers it 'inappropriate'. Family she may be, but she has always been at some distance from the main Murdoch empire, having set up a business of her own (albeit swallowed up by News Corp recently). Her husband, Matthew Freud, does not, as far as I know, have any connection with News Corp.

[vinteuil]

... I don't think 'a hand's distance' was what I wanted to say...

"arm's length"? - or perhaps a bargepole is what is needed...

[vinteuil]

Her husband, Matthew Freud, does not, as far as I know, have any connection with News Corp.

Matthew Freud however, (according to wiki) ...

"He has a friendship with several members of the Conservative party including George Osborne and David Cameron. Freud has also invited Cameron to many events and is part of the so-called 'Chipping Norton set' of influential Conservative-linked figures."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Freud

[amateur51]

Reverting to Guardian sources: since the Telegraph story was published, it's been announced that Elisabeth Murdoch will not be joining the board of News Corp as she considers it 'inappropriate'. Family she may be, but she has always been at some distance from the main Murdoch empire, having set up a business of her own (albeit swallowed up by News Corp recently). Her husband, Matthew Freud, does not, as far as I know, have any connection with News Corp.

According to Wiki:

'Elisabeth Murdoch's parents, Anna and Rupert Murdoch, separated in 1998. Anna Murdoch received a settlement of some reported $1.7 billion in assets, to which her own three children were the primary heirs, in addition to whatever share each might eventually receive from Rupert Murdoch's estate.'

Also according to Wiki:

'[Matthew Freud] has a friendship with several members of the Conservative party including George Osborne and David Cameron. Freud has also invited Cameron to many events and is part of the so-called 'Chipping Norton set' of influential Conservative-linked figures.'

Meanwhile according to the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/mar/20/matthew-freud-change4life-healthy-eating

and

'The report also revealed that Freud Communications, the public relations firm run by Matthew Freud, Rupert Murdoch's son-in-law, was paid $202,000 (£122,000) by News Corp in the financial year ended 30 June 2011 for "press and publicity activities" related to Shine Group' [of which Elisabeth Murdoch is CEO]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/18/news-corp-phone-hacking-scandal

[french frank]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, I welcome the fact that he is going to include the BBC and social media in his enquiry. And I'm inviting him to a party at my house.

Isn't it the suitability of his legal record and experience against these (social?) connections with people connected with relatives of R Murdoch and Conservative politicians? Would it be better to have a judge with unknown sympathies, and therefore above suspicion? I read several stories that Ed Miliband was some weeks ago considering these revelations but so far there doesn't seem to have been any official objection from Labour. Or has there?