Murdoch Scum

[maqroll]

I do hope the Police end up finding evidence of dodgyness related to Piers Morgan in the course of their work. Every bit as odius as that ginger slapper Brooks.

Yep, and we get to see his smug mug on TV every night now...clearing in the woods

[The_Rev]

I do hope the Police end up finding evidence of dodgyness related to Piers Morgan in the course of their work. Every bit as odius as that ginger slapper Brooks.

Yep, and we get to see his smug mug on TV every night now...clearing in the woods

Guns are legal in America right? Why don't you just, you know...

[peterms]

Brilliant comment from Alistair Campbell this afternoon, to paraphrase - 'this morning's PM statement on giving Coulson a second chance sounded more like a parole officer than a PM'.

Labours desperate attempts to criticise the Tories for their dealings with NI whilst also playing down how it taints them too would be hilarious were it not so tedious. Harmann just claimed on Newsnight, with a straight face somehow, that the Tories cosied up to Murdoch while Labour were monstered by and fearful of him.

There are some issues where it's misleading to speak of "Labour" as one entity. This is one.

Your point absolutely applies to the Blair coterie, those conniving self-promoting arse-licking careerists who curtsied around Murdoch and his ilk while shitting on the people who put them in their positions of power.

It can't be fairly applied to a good section of the party, who always regarded him as on the same moral level as Thatcher and Reagan.

Many politicians, in all parties, were fearful of him. They still are. That's why it is important to make what gains we can before their timidity reasserts itself.

[peterms]

This is very good. Written with feeling.

Say what you like, this does finally give meaning to David Cameron's "we're all in this together" catchphrase. Whether the members of Britain's necrotic establishment are wading in it, or are up to their necks in it, will be a matter for you to call. But what an irony that Murdoch tabloids, infrequently righteous in their crusades, have finally been shown what major corruption looks like. It's not a couple of swingers daring to live an unconventional lifestyle in a Wilmslow terrace – it was in the mirror all along.

Yet the solemn announcement that the News of the World is dead (long live the Sun on Sunday!) does not indicate the Murdoch-controlled culture that has debased this septic isle for decades has been dismantled. This week, people have beheld MPs saying what they actually think about Britain's most obscenely powerful unelected foreign tax exile, and marvelled as if they had seen unicorns. That gives you some idea of the scale of the clean-up, and unless all manner of establishment drones get brave and stay brave, revulsion over the corruption of public life by Murdoch and his soldiers will go the same way as that pertaining to bankers or MPs' expenses.

People are right to be revolted. It is revolting. Indeed, there are so many threads that we should don rubber gloves and follow merely one of them for a flavour of the whole. So, do open your textbooks at "war".

Rupert Murdoch was the only figure powerful enough to be able to state explicitly, without consequence, that he was backing war on Iraq to bring down the price of oil. So his "free press" all cheer-led for said war, and began commodifying their version of it, even confecting their own military award ceremonies as though the medal system were inadequate.

The whitewashing report into the death of a scientist who questioned the basis for that war was mysteriously leaked to Murdoch's papers – another WORLD EXCLUSIVE – while others in his pay hacked the phones and emails of those casualties of war being repatriated in bodybags, to be monetised as stories all over again. Any complaint about this must be taken before an industry court presided over not by the kangaroo of Rupert's native Australia, but an even less engaged selection of backscratching editors, including his own.

What a country we do live in. My apologies for repeating sentiments voiced in this column many times – as a recovering Murdoch employee, my sponsor insists I share thrice-weekly – but this is a land where a change in prime ministers constitutes the mere shuffling of Rupert's junior personnel. Anyone in doubt as to exactly how dirty a little secret Murdoch has always been is reminded that despite Margaret Thatcher being so close that they repeatedly Christmassed together at Chequers, she does not once even mention him in her memoirs. Not once!

Like Voldemort, he must not be named. And such yuletide bunk-ups continued down the years, via the Blairs, all the way to the PM's festive supper with Rebekah Brooks barely six months ago.

Perhaps Cameron will now de-BFF the News International boss. He certainly ought to. My friend Matthew is fond of quoting the legendary Manchester Guardian critic Neville Cardus, who never took tea with the notional enemy because "to do so would be to dilute the purity of my hatred". Clearly, we can't all be haters, and a certain amount of friendliness between press and parliament is necessary and beneficial.

But you can't really kitchen sup with long spoons, and Britain would be a better place if politicians and journalists picked a lane and stuck to it, instead of pursuing the furtive, corrosive form of backscratching realpolitik which has got us where we are today.

Until then, historians assessing this period will find even cabinet papers infinitely less revealing than guest lists. Within the placements of cosy parties in the Cotswolds lie many unpalatable answers. Perhaps they will ask themselves why tragedy-stricken Gordon Brown felt he had to invite a clutch of tabloid editors to the funeral of his baby daughter. If they find that conundrum too ghastly to contemplate, they might question quite why Brown asked the then Sun columnist Richard Littlejohn to his wedding. Fear, presumably. It certainly isn't Richard's charm.

Yet did it save Brown from the inevitable Sun evisceration? Of course not. This is a relationship that has only ever worked one way. Forget America – Murdoch's empire is the one with which this country has long nurtured its most "special relationship", which has thus far always ended in tears for the prime minister of the day, and by extension for the country.

So the outcry finally inspired by Nick Davies's heroic pursuit of the truth is a heart-soaring start, but it is still only a start. Turning it into a new dawn will take a courage which none of the main party leaders have shown before this very week, when not doing so would have been political suicide. As it seeks to power through the BSkyB purchase, News Corp will, by hook or by crook, attempt to begin collecting on the complex implicit deals it made with them and others.

Beware: many sounding off now will betray us with a kiss (and not tell).

[Awol]

Brilliant comment from Alistair Campbell this afternoon, to paraphrase - 'this morning's PM statement on giving Coulson a second chance sounded more like a parole officer than a PM'.

Labours desperate attempts to criticise the Tories for their dealings with NI whilst also playing down how it taints them too would be hilarious were it not so tedious. Harmann just claimed on Newsnight, with a straight face somehow, that the Tories cosied up to Murdoch while Labour were monstered by and fearful of him.

There are some issues where it's misleading to speak of "Labour" as one entity. This is one.

Labour voters, maybe. The PLP? Nah.

Gordon Brown spoke to Rupert Murdoch after misspelling row - PM's official spokesman attempts to play down significance of call, saying the two men were in regular communication

Gordon Brown has "the most enormous personal regard" for media magnate Rupert Murdoch, Downing Street said today amid reports that the prime minister telephoned him directly to complain about the Sun's criticism of his government's handling of the war in Afghanistan.

The pair spoke on Tuesday at the height of a row over Brown's misspelling of a dead soldier's name in a handwritten letter of condolence to the victim's grieving mother Jacqui Janes, published by the newspaper alongside her accusations of disrespect.

Rupert Murdoch insisted earlier this week that he regrets the way his papers have turned against Brown – but believes they are right to do so.

In September, the Sun switched its allegiance from Labour to the Conservatives after 12 years, choosing the night of Brown's keynote speech to his party conference to announce its decision.

Lord Mandelson accused the Sun yesterday of "bad taste and crude politicking" as relations with the best-selling daily, already strained by the newspaper's decision to ditch Labour, boiled over publicly.

No 10 refused to discuss the conversation between Brown and Murdoch, revealed in the Financial Times, and attempted to play down the significance of the call, saying the two were in regular communication.

"He has regular communications with Rupert Murdoch, as you would imagine, and he has the most enormous personal regard for Rupert Murdoch," the prime minister's official spokesman said.

"I am not going to give any further information about the conversation. I am commenting as much as I think I can about a personal conversation. There is nothing unusual in the prime minister talking to Rupert Murdoch."

You get the idea. 'Tis a story of unrequited love and probably brought a tear to that watery, crazed eye, but the people at the top of Labour protected Murdoch without qualification on their watch.

[markavfc40]

I blame Thatcher.

So does David Mellor it seems.

The evils of Murdoch's empire are exposed – what now?

It's thanks to some brave newspapers, not the useless police and politicians, that this wrongdoing has come to light

David Mellor

guardian.co.uk, Saturday 9 July 2011 07.00 BST

Article history

A ruthless businessman makes loadsamoney out of an enterprise whose success turns out to be largely based on criminal activity. The police don't want to know, and the wheels of illegality are oiled by payments to corrupt officers. The politicians fawn over our ruthless friend because they are too scared to take him on. Al Capone's Chicago or Rupert Murdoch's London? Hard to tell, isn't it?

Margaret Thatcher sold her soul to Murdoch because he was willing to back her unequivocally when other media moguls weren't. She let this Australian turned American (for business reasons of course), who's never had much buy-in to British society, take over 40% of our media, leaving a legacy to all her successors that required them to conduct most of their business with him from their knees.

The Murdoch empire hasn't been all bad for Britain. Sky was a brave entrepreneurial gamble that nearly broke the bank, and has brought huge benefits to a wider community as well as massive profits for him.

But for the print media Murdoch has been a disaster, coarsening everything he touches.

Now the evils of his empire are apparent to all, what's to be done? Lots of people will want to put the press in the dock, but there are others more worthy of a good seeing to than the papers, some of whom, especially this one, have provided an invaluable public service picking up on all the wrongdoing ignored by the police, and ensuring that it can't go on being swept under the carpet.

Which, if it was left to the police, it would have been. It's hard to know how much further the Metropolitan police can sink in public esteem, but this has been another appalling week for them. And only a rigorous public inquiry will suffice to find out why they failed to investigate these obvious evils five years ago, and the full extent of the corrupt payments made to officers apparently only too happy, for cash, to assist the News of The World with their inquiries.

The politicians too come out of this badly. Why has David Cameron become a fringe member of Rebekah Brooks's social circle? Hasn't he got better things to do with his time? He better had from now on, methinks.

Cameron should screw his courage to the sticking place, and put in a call to Uncle Rupert in the States, and tell him he expects him not to further embarrass himself, or Cameron, by pursuing his bid to own 100% of Sky. It's inconceivable, after what was clearly institutionalised, and not merely isolated, criminality at the News of The World, that Murdoch's reward should be even more control over the British media.

Years ago, as national heritage secretary, I said the press was drinking in the last chance saloon – it turned out it was me having my final round at the bar. I was a timely reminder to other politicians not to get above themselves.

Personally I am not for draconian press regulation. But I do think we can't go on with an organisation as inert and ineffective as the Press Complaints Commission. Regulation should be independent of the industry, but anyone who thinks there is an easy escape route out of these difficulties through the regulators should think again.

It would be nice if a neat distinction could be drawn between what is in the public interest, and what is merely what is of interest to the public. But it won't be easily achieved.

What we must avoid at all costs is the French situation where sexually primitive chaud-lapins like Dominique Strauss-Kahn can use their powerful positions to abuse women with impunity, knowing that by law the press cannot report what they do.

And as Jacques Chirac proves, it's a short step from being a sexual chaud-lapin to more pernicious acts of financial corruption.

I reiterate, we have to remember that it's thanks to some brave newspapers, and not to London's spectacularly useless bunch of plods, that all this wrongdoing is out there now, and can't be jammed back in without a lot of further bloodletting.

The criminal courts will, I hope, be very busy in the months and years ahead.

Evil Witch Sold Her Soul

[RunRickyRun]

Phil hall (ex screws editor) on BBC breakfast defending both Brooks and Coulson, saying that Brooks has stayed because she must have a position worth defending and Coulson derserved a second chance.

Then he started to defend the PCC and I threw the remote at the telly.

[Awol]

Brooks has stayed because she must have a position worth defending

As the daily mash said, whatever dirt she has on them is weapons grade

(maybe it was 'the Sun wot done it' in a Parisian underpass? ). She's probably in quite a lot of personal danger now, particularly if plod go after her and can make something stick. She might just squeal to save her own bacon and that would be very bad for Mr Murdoch.

Whatever the truth, Dr Evil is coming over to set everyone straight:

Murdoch Heads For UK As Third Man Arrested

It's a golden opportunity to clean the filth out public life in the UK, from the media, Westminster and the frankly corrupt Metropolitan Police. It would be truly fantastic if it happened.

[Gringo]

You get the idea. 'Tis a story of unrequited love and probably brought a tear to that watery, crazed eye, but the people at the top of Labour protected Murdoch without qualification on their watch.

Can't be true as I heard jack straw this morning saying that news corp didn't decide labour policy. Oh and he said news corp editors had their own independent opinions. So instead of sticking the boot in, punch is busy defending it's own skin.

[RunRickyRun]

Harperson doing the same now on Breakfast News.

[peterms]

There are some issues where it's misleading to speak of "Labour" as one entity. This is one.

Labour voters, maybe. The PLP? Nah... 'Tis a story of unrequited love and probably brought a tear to that watery, crazed eye, but the people at the top of Labour protected Murdoch without qualification on their watch.

Many members of the PLP would be amused to hear you speak of that group as one entity, or that you think of the PLP as the people at the top of Labour.

The people at the top of the PLP cultivated Murdoch. For some that was realpolitik. For others it was because their views and his were not as far removed as you might imagine. Mandelson managed to combine both of these reasons. For Blair, it was like Mandy, but overlaid with the usual doe-eyed fawning to the rich and powerful that is one of his most laughable traits.

Many others loathed Murdoch and what he stood for. A few were prepared to speak out against him, even in the face of some of the explicit threats made against them which we are now hearing a little more about. Not an easy thing to do, when you think that even your own party leader won't support you.

[Awol]

Harperson doing the same now on Breakfast News.

The incredible thing is that some people will either believe her, or at least swear that she's telling the truth.

I wonder how many cosy chats Blair had with Murdoch before deciding that invading Iraq with monkey boy was actually a really good idea?

[Awol]

Many members of the PLP would be amused to hear you speak of that group as one entity, or that you think of the PLP as the people at the top of Labour.

Few on here qualify their remarks like that when discussing "the Tories" who (as you describe the PLP to be) are quite a disperate bunch.

[peterms]

You get the idea. 'Tis a story of unrequited love and probably brought a tear to that watery, crazed eye, but the people at the top of Labour protected Murdoch without qualification on their watch.

Can't be true as I heard jack straw this morning saying that news corp didn't decide labour policy. Oh and he said news corp editors had their own independent opinions. So instead of sticking the boot in, punch is busy defending it's own skin.

Jack Straw was full of shit even when he was at the NUS, and he's no better now.

A more accurate view from a spin doctor, quoted two years ago, comments made a while before that.

While most Labour MPs are taking delight from the hacking story – because it puts David Cameron in a difficult position – one person is taking a more nuanced position: the prime minister.

Early today, a Downing Street spokesman made clear that Gordon Brown would not comment on the issue because he was focussed on big global issues at the G8 summit in Italy. In the afternoon Mr Brown said it “raises issues that are serious and will obviously have to be answered.”

But is it conceivable that he would have preferred to have stayed out of a debate which involves some of New Labour’s key allies?

Close relations with the Murdoch business empire seem to be a prerequisite of any successful UK government of recent years. Peter Oborne, in his excellent book “The Triumph of the Political Class” reminds us that Tony Blair twice flew across the globe to address the annual conference of News Corporation executives.

Meanwhile Lance Price, the former Downing Street press office, once claimed that Mr Murdoch had been the “24th member of the Cabinet”.

“His presence was always felt. No big decision could ever be made inside Number 10 without taking account of the likely reaction of three men – Gordon Brown, John Prescott and Rupert Murdoch. On all the really big decisions, anybody else could be safely ignored.”

Early in his premiership, Blair raised the subject of Murdoch during a conversation with Romano Prodi, then Italian PM. He asked about Murdoch’s multi-billion pound bid for Mediaset, the media group. Blair then passed the reply – Prodi would prefer Italian buyer – back to Murdoch.

Here is another direct quote from a Lance Price article in the Guardian in 2006:

“I was reminded just how touchy Downing Street is about Mr Murdoch when I submitted the manuscript of my book, The Spin Doctor’s Diary, to the Cabinet Office.

The government requested some changes, as is its right. When the first batch came through, it was no surprise that Tony Blair’s staff were deeply unhappy. The real surprise was that no fewer than a third of their objections related to one man – not Tony Blair or even Gordon Brown, as I might have expected, but Rupert Murdoch.

“In my first few weeks as Alastair Campbell’s deputy, I was told by somebody who would know that we had assured Mr Murdoch we wouldn’t change policy on Europe without talking to him first. The Cabinet Office insisted that I couldn’t say in my book that such a promise had been made because I did not know it for a fact. With some reluctance I turned the sentence around so that it read: “Apparently News International are under the impression we won’t make any changes without asking them.” Every other request relating to Murdoch was rejected.”

[peterms]

Many members of the PLP would be amused to hear you speak of that group as one entity, or that you think of the PLP as the people at the top of Labour.

Few on here qualify their remarks like that when discussing "the Tories" who (as you describe the PLP to be) are quite a desperate bunch.

Corrected for spelling.

[Awol]

Many members of the PLP would be amused to hear you speak of that group as one entity, or that you think of the PLP as the people at the top of Labour.

Few on here qualify their remarks like that when discussing "the Tories" who (as you describe the PLP to be) are quite a desperate bunch.

Corrected for spelling.

I knew that was coming as I posted it but was expecting Mr Mooney to do the honours. He must be having a lie in.

Still, it's a fair point and Labour politicians giving it "Ooh, not us guv" is laughable. The issue of Murdoch transcends party politics (red and blue are equally dirty in this respect) but I suspect both have made the calaculation that his empire will survive, so they can't afford to alienate him by going balls out in an effort to limit his influence now.

The best solution is a small piece of lead about 7.62mm's in diameter.

[blandy]

Many members of the PLP would be amused to hear you speak of that group as one entity, or that you think of the PLP as the people at the top of Labour.

Few on here qualify their remarks like that when discussing "the Tories" who (as you describe the PLP to be) are quite a disperate bunch.

Agreed. It seems to me that both Labour and the Tories were much the same on this. There are a number of the "lower order" in both parties who dislike/revile Murdoch and his web of influence, but either way, those at the top, whether holding their noses or not, suckled the watery milk from his teat.

In some ways it's worse that Labour did, if as PMS says (and I agree) many of the PLP would rather have had nothing to do with him. Doing something you believe to be wrong is worse than doing something you didn't think was wrong. Either way the end effect is the same on the victim - us lot.

[Anthony]

You know what? I'm really optimistic that Murdoch and his grubby Empire is about to fall. I'm feeling that this is our Arab Spring; when the cowed and oppressed rise up to throw off the shackles of an oppressive dictator. Brings a whole new meaning to 'British Summer'.

[peterms]

The issue of Murdoch transcends party politics (red and blue are equally dirty in this respect) but I suspect both have made the calaculation that his empire will survive, so they can't afford to alienate him by going balls out in an effort to limit his influence now.

The best solution is a small piece of lead about 7.62mm's in diameter.

Saw something yesterday, can't find it now in the sea of stories about all this, that NI view Miliband as having taken a hostile position and that the gloves are off.

If he has alienated them already, then what's to lose? There's a danger in being seen to pursue a vendetta rather than act in a balanced way, but the scale of criminality is such that no-one could sensibly level that criticism.

There may be a cross-party consensus that now is the right time to rein back the massively damaging power of the media. In that situation, there's protection for all in moving together, and being out of step with that popular mood, as Cameron so clearly has been, is actually more damaging.

[peterms]

... suckled the watery milk from his teat.

I really wish I didn't now have that image in my head. Can you tone it down a bit next time, please?