Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Galloway is on topic because he was cited by Oborne as anti Murdoch ... along with Vince and other champions of democratic integrity .... rather than agents of influence and spin and the dark side that always accompanies such dishonesty and concern with appearances

[Mr Pee]

After yesterday's offensive gaffe, I thought you might be steering clear of the personal remarks, Mr Pee

Offensive gaffe? Do you mean this one?

I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing at you :laugh:

I, or any sane person

I'm glad you draw the distinction.

http://www.picgifs.com/smileys/smile...ppy-751965.gif

[Mr Pee]

Galloway is on topic because he was cited by Oborne as anti Murdoch

Yes, that part was on topic. 47 minutes of video about Iraq was not. :steam:

[ahinton]

Yes, that part was on topic. 47 minutes of video about Iraq was not. :steam:

A large quantity of steam seems to be emerging from the Pee ears of late; given the current water shortages in UK, would it not be both sensible and considerate were you to use this to boil a kettle and give yourself a nice cup of tea rather than wasting it?

[John Skelton]

Yes, that part was on topic. 47 minutes of video about Iraq was not. :steam:

You made a reference to George Galloway on Celebrity Big Brother. I posted a link to George Galloway at the Senate sub-committee on investigations in Washington (so not "47 minutes of video about Iraq." Presumably you didn't give it any more than a cursory glance). In case you wanted to revise your view of Galloway's seriousness based on what he had to say there and how he said it.

The key word in all that is link. Not '47 minutes of video embedded and running in the background so no one could avoid it'.

As far as I can tell, your contributions to this thread have mainly consisted of you saying you find the topic makes you :yawn:. Which makes me, at any rate, wonder why you continue to bother with it. :smiley:

[Flosshilde]

Selective amnesia? :whistle:

Rupe gives lessons in it.

[Flosshilde]

As far as I can tell, your contributions to this thread have mainly consisted of you saying you find the topic makes you :yawn:. Which makes me, at any rate, wonder why you continue to bother with it. :smiley:

Because he's St. Rupe's special envoy here, so has to stick up for him (well, somebody has to, don't they?)

[Frances_iom]

Personally, I'd like to see a subject called 'Hating Rupert Murdoch' introduced at primary school level and taught right up to 16+. ..

Two minutes thereof ? + video ?

[ahinton]

Because he's St. Rupe's special envoy here, so has to stick up for him (well, somebody has to, don't they?)

That's pretty unsc-Rupe-ulous, though, wouldn't you say?

PeeSkyPee, anyone?

[ahinton]

What a very odd question, even by your unusually obtuse standards.

Not odd at all; you wrote "I knew that was coming. But I still had to let Mandy know" and my question was why you had to do this and whether you were somehow coerced into doing so. Simples.

At least we can agree on one thing; it would indeed be "unusual" for me to adopt "obtuse standards".

[ahinton]

Personally, I'd like to see a subject called 'Hating Rupert Murdoch' introduced at primary school level and taught right up to 16+. We'd see the benefits to our society pdq.

I'm not at all sure that we would, actually. A disgrace though some of RM's actions and inactions are widely considered to be, the prospect that you mention might all too easily lead to a PhD in the subject becoming available from Nut wood University - and that would never do, now, would it?!...

[Mr Pee]

PeeSkyPee, anyone?

That one has already been done, and it wasn't funny the first time.

[ahinton]

That one has already been done, and it wasn't funny the first time.

I can't say that I'm surprised, but thank you for drawing this fact to my attention. I didn't suggest that it was funny either time, however.

[amateur51]

Perhaps we can ignore The West Sussex Troll and get back on-topic?

"Rupert Murdoch's global media empire is facing a challenge on a new front in the billowing phone-hacking scandal after a powerful US Senate committee opened direct contact with British investigators in an attempt to find out whether News Corporation has broken American laws.

Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate committee on commerce, science and transportation, has written to Lord Justice Leveson, who leads the British judicial inquiry into media ethics, asking if he has uncovered any evidence relating questionable practices in the US"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/02/murdoch-phone-hacking-us-senator

[ahinton]

Perhaps we can ignore The West Sussex Troll and get back on-topic?

"Rupert Murdoch's global media empire is facing a challenge on a new front in the billowing phone-hacking scandal after a powerful US Senate committee opened direct contact with British investigators in an attempt to find out whether News Corporation has broken American laws.

Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate committee on commerce, science and transportation, has written to Lord Justice Leveson, who leads the British judicial inquiry into media ethics, asking if he has uncovered any evidence relating questionable practices in the US"


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012...ing-us-senator

Indeed. And thanks for this. It's such a pity that some people get themselves worked up about BSkyB and the like when there are really serious issues at stake such as this.