RunRickyRun Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Haven't read the report in full, nor seen all the evidence presented so can't comment - but yours may have been a hasty conclusion. It's only been reported in the newspapers pratically every day for over a year :? A rather comfortable assumption wouldn't you think? The four said as much (with regards to not signing the report on the basis of this sentence being included) in the press conference earlier today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 So youve read the full report Ricky? Not the editied highlights that you're news provider of choice chose to feed you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 No, but I've not claimed to have read the entire report. I've commented on the conclusion of the report (above). Considering the extensive coverage of the public evidence given to the Committee over the last year, and having watched today's press conference, I think it's pretty reasonable to do so. Not the editied highlights that you're news provider of choice chose to feed you? Even Sky News find it hard to edit a live press conference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Rupert Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company" according to the report by the select committee investigating phone hacking at News International. Former Director of Public Prosecutions, Scotland Yard and the Met also get a well deserved slapping. It's squeeky bum time now for both government and opposition front benches, the dark lord will have to get his revenge in quickly because the Fed's are after him in the US as well. Who knows what muck he'll decide to expose.. Great news all round!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted May 1, 2012 Rupert Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company" according to the report by the select committee investigating phone hacking at News International. Unsurprisingly the four Tory members voted against the findings on the basis of this sentence being included in the report but have declined to produce their own minority report. What was it about a shiver looking for a spine to run up? A rather comfortable assumption wouldn't you think? Nope, a perfectly logical one having read and seen the evidence unfold over the last 2 years Tom Watson's abject hatred for Murdoch has been pretty clear, perhaps the Labour/Lib Dem members have chosen to really put the boot in, rather than the Tories wuss out. And do you know why he hate's him? It's fairly justified. And given that Louise Mensch is one of the wussing out Tory 4, I'd like to know what changed her mind, given that on the actual committee, when Murdoch was being grilled, she was sticking the boot in as much as Tom Watson (as she's been a victim of the press in the not too dim and distant past too). Being as the the parliamentary committee are unanimous on the majority of the report, it's only that one sentence that is the sticking point, it's a fairly bloody obvious conclusion to come to. Haven't read the report in full, nor seen all the evidence presented so can't comment - but yours may have been a hasty conclusion. Or yours could be by your own confession ill informed and meaningless. Is there really a point to commenting on something when you openly admit you know nothing about it as you know of none of the evidence! The fact that 3 of Murdoch's loyal lieutenants have been accused by the committee (unanimously) of "misleading parliament" its fairly bang on that the 4 of them are wussing out for political reason's. The actual phrase "unfit to lead a major international company" has HUGE ramifications for Murdoch, CNBC have done nothing but bang that phrase out all day, his many opponents in the states (and Aus) will have an absolute feeding frenzy with it and I'm sure the feds will take a keen interest in the report too. This isn't some split decision by the committee, it's a split about one phrase because his mates in the Tory party still want him to run the media for them (a sure sign that the daft bastards still don't get this) and that one phrase could cripple him. Oh happy days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 The actual phrase "unfit to lead a major international company" has HUGE ramifications for Murdoch, CNBC have done nothing but bang that phrase out all day, his many opponents in the states (and Aus) will have an absolute feeding frenzy with it and I'm sure the feds will take a keen interest in the report too. This isn't some split decision by the committee, it's a split about one phrase because his mates in the Tory party still want him to run the media for them (a sure sign that the daft bastards still don't get this) and that one phrase could cripple him. There was some discussion in the press a few weeks ago about implications in the US of things like being in breach of their legislation on bribing public officials in other countries. It will be fascinating to see some info about what further implications this report and other things still to happen might have on his business in the US. Don't agree it's one phrase that's so important though, more the great heaving iceberg of accumulating evidence that has gradually become revealed over so many months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Rupert Murdoch "is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company" according to the report by the select committee investigating phone hacking at News International. Unsurprisingly the four Tory members voted against the findings on the basis of this sentence being included in the report but have declined to produce their own minority report. What was it about a shiver looking for a spine to run up? A rather comfortable assumption wouldn't you think? Nope, a perfectly logical one having read and seen the evidence unfold over the last 2 years Tom Watson's abject hatred for Murdoch has been pretty clear, perhaps the Labour/Lib Dem members have chosen to really put the boot in, rather than the Tories wuss out. And do you know why he hate's him? It's fairly justified. And given that Louise Mensch is one of the wussing out Tory 4, I'd like to know what changed her mind, given that on the actual committee, when Murdoch was being grilled, she was sticking the boot in as much as Tom Watson (as she's been a victim of the press in the not too dim and distant past too). Being as the the parliamentary committee are unanimous on the majority of the report, it's only that one sentence that is the sticking point, it's a fairly bloody obvious conclusion to come to. Haven't read the report in full, nor seen all the evidence presented so can't comment - but yours may have been a hasty conclusion. Or yours could be by your own confession ill informed and meaningless. Is there really a point to commenting on something when you openly admit you know nothing about it as you know of none of the evidence! The fact that 3 of Murdoch's loyal lieutenants have been accused by the committee (unanimously) of "misleading parliament" its fairly bang on that the 4 of them are wussing out for political reason's. The actual phrase "unfit to lead a major international company" has HUGE ramifications for Murdoch, CNBC have done nothing but bang that phrase out all day, his many opponents in the states (and Aus) will have an absolute feeding frenzy with it and I'm sure the feds will take a keen interest in the report too. This isn't some split decision by the committee, it's a split about one phrase because his mates in the Tory party still want him to run the media for them (a sure sign that the daft bastards still don't get this) and that one phrase could cripple him. Oh happy days! Excellent post Gareth. Really spot on analysis of the situation IMO. I agree with every word, if not the misplaced use of a couple of apostrophes (or apostrophe's if we follow the above convention) :winkold: Now, where's Brian? ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I think Murdoch could be finished in Britain. News Corp's share price rose yesterday (as it did when they announced they were ditching their BSkyB bid) as the markets think they are likely to sell off their UK interests which are now seen as tainted. Once the Leveson inquiry finishes, I think he will up the drawbridge and retire across the pond. If it happens, good riddance to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Can I just take a moment to say that Louise Wench is a reprehensible human being? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Louise Wench but turns up some interesting images on Google if you turn off safe search (NSFW and not of her i might add seeing as her name isn't Wench :-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 3, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted May 3, 2012 Can I just take a moment to say that Louise Wench is a reprehensible human being? Sure. Absolutely. But... WOULD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Can I just take a moment to say that Louise Wench is a reprehensible human being? Sure. Absolutely. But... WOULD. How childish. Still...Also would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 11, 2012 Author Share Posted May 11, 2012 Brooks: If my memory serves me well... It would appear that she (in common with the Murdochs, Coulson and more) is hoping that her lack of memory will serve her as well as it can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Can I just take a moment to say that Louise Wench is a reprehensible human being? Sure. Absolutely. But... WOULD. WOULD. Would also give Brooks a going over as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 It would appear that she (in common with the Murdochs, Coulson and more) is hoping that her lack of memory will serve her as well as it can. I suspect the common link is high priced lawyers advising them to be forgetful ... that or the threat of ending up like David Kelly in a field somewhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 11, 2012 Author Share Posted May 11, 2012 Would also give Brooks a going over as well. Ross Kemp writes: She'd destroy you. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Would also give Brooks a going over as well. Ross Kemp writes: She'd destroy you. ;-) That would be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2012 Author Share Posted May 15, 2012 The Brookses and four others to be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Rebekah Brooks and her husband, Charlie, are being charged with perverting the course of justice as part of the phone hacking inquiry. Mrs Brooks is facing three charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice while her husband faces two. In a statement, they accused the CPS of "posturing" and said: "We deplore this weak and unjust decision." The charges relate to alleged offences in July last year including concealing documents and computers from police. The couple will become the first suspects to be charged in an inquiry lasting 18 months. Mrs Brooks's PA, Cheryl Carter, her chauffeur, Paul Edwards, security staff member Daryl Jorsling and News International security head Mark Hanna are charged with the same offence. Revealing the charges ahead of a CPS announcement, the couple said: "We have this morning been informed by the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions that we are to be charged with perverting the course of justice." They added: "After the further unprecedented posturing of the CPS we will respond later today after our return from the police station." Announcing the decision to charge the six, director of public prosecutions legal adviser Alison Levitt, QC, said she was making a statement "in the interests of transparency and accountability". Mrs Brooks was arrested on 13 March as part of Operation Weeting. Should they end up being found guilty, they may come to regret the tone and nature of their immediate response ('unprecedented posturing' and 'weak and unjust' decision). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 ^Mega. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 They'd better keep her in custody, or else with a memory like hers, she'll forget to turn up for the trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts