Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[french frank]

Another domino ...

Curious statement from the BBC story: 'He said in a statement that he did want BSkyB to be undermined by "matters outside this company" '.

:erm:

What a difference a 'not' makes.

[amateur51]

In his statement about his resigning as chairman of BSkyB, young James says:

"I am aware that my role as chairman could become a lightning rod for BSkyB and I believe that my resignation will help to ensure that there is no false conflation with events at a separate organisation."

But dear heart, you're still on the board. Poop smells of poop whether it's under your nose or on your shoe. Poop is poop :yikes:

[handsomefortune]

'newsinternational high skool' (online).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/26/schools-crusade-gove-murdoch

a 'reform' of school education, which mirrors the coalitions nhs 'reform'?

[anotherbob]

The latest PRIVATE EYE tells me that Rupe and James are due before Leveson for cross-examination on 26/27 April.
Not to be missed....
I used to enjoy Harry Corbett & Sooty:biggrin:.

[Ferretfancy]

More like Muffin the Mule, I'd have thought!

[amateur51]

Here we have Sky News, a previously 'unfingered' [sorry! :yikes:] branch if the Murdoch empire, admitting that it is has illegally hacked private e-mail on two occasions, both in the public interest, by which they mean Sky News' interpretation of 'the public interest'.

Surely this is deeply wrong? - you have evidence/suspicions of wrong doing and you pass them on to the police - simples :smiley:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17628600

I wonder what Simon thinks of it :erm:

[anotherbob]

I wonder what Simon thinks of it :erm:

Why would that matter?

[handsomefortune]

Surely this is deeply wrong?

yes tis amatuer51.

Sky News has said it illegally hacked emails belonging to members of the public on two separate occasions.

as if! at a wild guess, these are two cases cherry picked by sky, that they apparently feel are at all 'presentable' or 'excusable'. two cases is surely an under estimation? it would imo be 'in the public interest' to know just how many lives have been intruded upon, via e mail snooping, by sky or ni....ideally. that's what's wrong imo amatuer51.

tbh i don't feel remotely affected by the canoe man's trick, nor his wife's, one way or the other. i certainly don't want rupert's staff pretending any of their offences are done on my, or the publics' behalf. life insurance companies may beg to differ on that though. it doesnt help that 'the guardian' apparently thinks this breach is in the public interest - and don't explain why exactly.

the suspected 'pedo excuse' ............ i suspect wasn't actually proven to be a ni/sky 'pedo scoop' afterall? otherwise, sky and ni would waste no time in patronising us with over blown media mania about a proven sex crime, that they 'heroicly' assisted, by breaking codes of practise. instead, i assume this was just another person's life snooped into, in an attempt to prove something that was actually false, unproveable, or a mistake, possibly to the detriment of that specific person, and family/friends. unlike celebrities, a large dollop of compensation isn't due to 'nobodys'; and life after a nervous breakdown is probably not worth living, having been wrongly accused of sex crimes.

not that anyone in 'the ni empire' would see it this way - they convince themselves of virtually anything they fancy, as revealed in the leveson inquiry.

'He said in a statement that he did want BSkyB to be undermined by "matters outside this company"

barking mad, frenchfrank - maybe a typo, which suggest 'sloppiness', as well as a missed opportunity as far as a beeb gloat goes? or perhaps james was speaking in tongues, and a beeb employee just tried their best to make any/some sense of james's statement?

I wonder if a link between A4E and NewsCorp can be found....

not this far eighth, as posted on 'cheers' thread, (not this one).

[scottycelt]

Why would that matter?

Ams wondering or Simon thinking ... ? :whistle:

[anotherbob]

Ams wondering or Simon thinking ... ? :whistle:

The "that" in my post refers to the "what" in the post to which I was responding.

[MrGongGong]

Simon thinking ... ? :whistle:

No , I've really tried, believe me
but this just isn't "Logical"
maybe I need to enrol at NU for a course with Prof Says ?

[Mr Pee]

No , I've really tried, believe me
but this just isn't "Logical"
maybe I need to enrol at NU for a course with Prof Says ?

When will you and your chums grow up and stop this juvenile name-calling? It really is rather pathetic.:sadface:

[Flosshilde]

When will you and your chums grow up and stop this juvenile name-calling? It really is rather pathetic.:sadface:

It is, isn't it?

... Floozie, ...:whistle:

:whistle:

[MrGongGong]

When will you and your chums grow up and stop this juvenile name-calling? It really is rather pathetic.:sadface:

Wasn't it Rupert that had "chums" so that's a bit of a case of pot and kettle

or as Rupert (NO NOT The one you hold in such high esteem !)
would say

I'll have to take a long, cold shower;
My words still lack the drawing power
Of posing in your underwear
To show the world your arse is bare.

[Mr Pee]

Wasn't it Rupert that had "chums" so that's a bit of a case of pot and kettle

or as Rupert (NO NOT The one you hold in such high esteem !)
would say

I'll have to take a long, cold shower;
My words still lack the drawing power
Of posing in your underwear
To show the world your arse is bare.

Yet again, I have not the faintest idea what you are on about.:sadface:

And Floozie, the first time I addressed you thus, you responded like this:-

:laugh::laugh:

so I thought you appreciated the joke. If you do not, I shall desist. Anyway, such a mildly humorous nickname is not the same thing as the endless, tedious insults and belittlement that you and a couple of other board members routinely hurl in the direction of another contributor.

I really don't know why FF allows it to continue. :erm: