Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[ahinton]

Really? :erm:

Someone did surveys, quantitative and qualitative, of people living in pit villages that showed that, did they? :whistle:

Ah you mean they were issues that were not addressed - I see now :winkeye:

Indeed so! - these are all relatively new considerations and ways to approach a problem that is far more widely perceived to be such than was the case before oil became so political, North Sea gas reserves ran out and people actually began to see coal mining and use as dangerous, filthy and generaly environmentally unfriendly.

[Mr Pee]

for "quix...", read "idi..." as far as i'm concerned.

We are in agreement!

:bubbly::ok:

[Nick Armstrong]

Are you auditioning for the role of Alf Garnett of FoR3, Mr Pee? :yikes:

Cos you can stop now :smiley:

The part is yours :biggrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWKy4RHf5tQ Not the content .... the style :winkeye:

:biggrin:

[ahinton]

Jay? Is that the name of the smarmy git asking the questions?

No, Mr Pee; that is the barrister asking the questions that need to be asked in accordance with the terms of the inquiry and I would remind you that, had he sought persistently to exceed that brief, I have no doubt that Lord Leveson would quite rightly have taken him to one side and given him a warning about having done so before permitting him to proceed. Clearly, you are not taking sufficient notice of what's going on at the inquiry.

I've had better things to do with my life up to now than watch this pantomime 24/7, but I have had a look this morning.

What you do with your life is up to you, of course, but the fact that you declare yourself to be unaware that this inquiry is far from a pantomime proves my point above that you are not taking sufficient notice of what's going on there.

I think Murdoch is handling himself very well.

How well or otherwsise he may handle himself is his responsibility, just as it is that of those listening to and observing the nature of his performance and the content of his responses is theirs.

Of course most people, especially here, have long since made their minds up. which renders the whole thing rather pointless.

Had that really been the case, the inquiry would indeed be - and be seen to be - rather pointless; the fact that it is continuing and is likely to continue indefinitely quite clearly demonstrates to anyone other than those who consider Lord Leveson and others involved in its conduct to be entirely without moral or legal responsibility that it is anything but pointless, just as it demonstrates that few people, here or anyone else, have yet made up ther minds on each and every one of the many thosands of details under review at this inquiry. In any case, whatever people's current opinions might be (and people are entitled to have them, however unfounded they might be or turn out to be), they will have no influence upon the outcomes of the inquiry as this is in the hands of Lord Leveson and others directly involved in its conduct rather than the opinions of the masses, whatever they may be.

[french frank]

Well, that's your prerogative, of course, but I take leave to doubt that it is a majority view. I don't like electricity pylons either - another remnant of the dark ages; for "quix...", read "idi..." as far as i'm concerned.

But if pylons are the dark ages, what are wind turbines?

I think the argument has a parallel with motorways. Much though I feel that a limited number of motorways is necessary, I don't think we need a complicated network. But looking at them from different vantage points, some of them look incredibly beautiful in their isolation, with well designed bridges and admirable feats of engineering. Especially when there isn't any traffic on them :sadface:

(I haven't read back far enough to find out why we're discussing wind turbines :erm:)

[french frank]

Of course most people, especially here, have long since made their minds up. which renders the whole thing rather pointless.

Especially here? I don't think the views expressed on this forum will have much influence on the findings, one way or the other.

[amateur51]

Well, that's your prerogative, of course, but I take leave to doubt that it is a majority view. I don't like electricity pylons either - another remnant of the dark ages; for "quix...", read "idi..." as far as i'm concerned.

I sometimes think here is wasted on you,. ahinton :biggrin:

[amateur51]

Indeed so! - these are all relatively new considerations and ways to approach a problem that is far more widely perceived to be such than was the case before oil became so political, North Sea gas reserves ran out and people actually began to see coal mining and use as dangerous, filthy and generaly environmentally unfriendly.

Just trying to make a relatively straight line out of the usual prolixity, ahinton :smiley:

[MrGongGong]

. I think Murdoch is handling himself very well. Of course most people, especially here, have long since made their minds up. .

I guess that includes you as well then captain ?

:laugh:

[ahinton]

I sometimes think here is wasted on you,. ahinton :biggrin:

Just trying to make a relatively straight line out of the uncharacteristic absence of prolixity of any kind, am51(!); is there a word or three missing from your sentence?

[amateur51]

Harold Evans put us all in his debt in 1984 by publishing his account (Good Times, Bad Times) of Murdoch's dealings behind the scenes with Thatcher over his plans to buy The Times from Lord Thompson. In this article from the Guardian he reviews this account in relation to Murdoch's statement about his never seeking anything from Prime Ministers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/25/harold-evans-comic-rupert-murdoch

:smiley:

[ahinton]

Just trying to make a relatively straight line out of the usual prolixity, ahinton :smiley:

Would you like some help? Considerations of alternative lower-carbon sources of energy as a solution to a problem are of more recent origin tha was the case before (&c., &c. as before). That do for you?

[amateur51]

Just trying to make a relatively straight line out of the uncharacteristic absence of prolixity of any kind, am51(!); is there a word or three missing from your sentence?

Nope, ahinton - it's a deliberate inversion, something I'd have thought would be familiar territory to a composer :winkeye:

[amateur51]

Would you like some help? Considerations of alternative lower-carbon sources of energy as a solution to a problem are of more recent origin tha was the case before (&c., &c. as before). That do for you?

It was your juggernaut style rather than necessarily the content that I was aiming at, ahinton.

:smiley:

[amateur51]

The Murdoch-Salmond links have become a lot clearer too recently - I read a good piece but can't find it just at the mo - will post it when I do :ok:

Here it is :ok:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/26/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch

:smiley: