Danwichmann Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Just in case you missed it: Was I the only one thinking "Go on Steve, chin him!" The contempt on his slightly snarling face was fully deserved. That guy is even more contemptable than the tits that set up the Randy Out website. I hope he gets hit by a bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted July 9, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 9, 2011 Paul McMullan was quite accurately described later by Will Self as rat-like. He's also on record having told Hugh Grant that there is not a chance in hell that Brooks didn't know what was going and that questionable activities were absolutely rife in the NOTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted July 9, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 9, 2011 Brooks is being backed by Murdoch, because if she goes, then his own son is directly in the line of fire. If his son starts to become the focus, then that's the edifice completely broken through. Curtains for the evil empire. That's why she's being backed against all "normal" logic. Or maybe she and James were accomplices in dirty deeds? She'd only lose Murdoch's support if she can be sacrificed to stop the whole thing in its tracks, and at the current time, that's not likely. Give it a few months, though and she'll be moved regardless - if she isn't caught directly before then herself with some incontrovertible (as opposed to circumstantial) evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Rupert is in the UK to do something, he isn't here as a faciliator. So by the end of the visit we will see a new appointment at one of three important roles: * Chief Exec NewsCorp (current holder James Murdoch) * Chief Exec NewsIntl (current holder Rebekah Brooks) * Chairman of Judicial Inquiry into Media Influence (current holder n/a) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Did the BBC just put on the kids film Holes with Sigourney Weaver starring as the evil flame haired boss who likes to bully people on with a glint in their eye? It did replace the advertised programme at short notice... LMFAO, did they really?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Brooks is being backed by Murdoch, because if she goes, then his own son is directly in the line of fire. If his son starts to become the focus, then that's the edifice completely broken through. Curtains for the evil empire. That's why she's being backed against all "normal" logic. That is a very good point indeed and one I hadn't twigged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Brooks is being backed by Murdoch, because if she goes, then his own son is directly in the line of fire. If his son starts to become the focus, then that's the edifice completely broken through. Curtains for the evil empire. That's why she's being backed against all "normal" logic. That is a very good point indeed and one I hadn't twigged. It's true that she serves a purpose as a lightning conductor, a line of sandbags against the approaching tide, to be abandoned when it suits. However, she can't be much protection against charges being brought against James, though that has been much spoken about. This is an example of his potential culpability where the human shield idea just doesn't work. She also has a more positive value, as a networker and fixer, which by all accounts is where her strength lies - it certainly isn't journalism. Those skills are less useful in the current situation, where things have gone too far for schmoozing to be effective. But see also this account of the wider problems in the family, the tensions, the tussling for power as the old man nears death. King Lear, with nastier characters. What a pity Shakespeare isn't around to write this one up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 A bit more advice that Dave didn't take. Phone hacking: I warned No 10 over Coulson appointment, says Ashdown Lib Dem peer advised that decision would cause 'terrible damage' after being briefed about NoW former editor's past Arrogant, naive, or stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 A bit more advice that Dave didn't take. Phone hacking: I warned No 10 over Coulson appointment, says Ashdown Lib Dem peer advised that decision would cause 'terrible damage' after being briefed about NoW former editor's past Arrogant, naive, or stupid? All of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 A bit more advice that Dave didn't take. Phone hacking: I warned No 10 over Coulson appointment, says Ashdown Lib Dem peer advised that decision would cause 'terrible damage' after being briefed about NoW former editor's past Arrogant, naive, or stupid? I'd say Ashdown was a bit of all 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 A bit more advice that Dave didn't take. Phone hacking: I warned No 10 over Coulson appointment, says Ashdown Lib Dem peer advised that decision would cause 'terrible damage' after being briefed about NoW former editor's past Arrogant, naive, or stupid? Cameron like the vast majority of his party has an arrogance that inevitably leads to making him very, very stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 A bit more advice that Dave didn't take. Phone hacking: I warned No 10 over Coulson appointment, says Ashdown Lib Dem peer advised that decision would cause 'terrible damage' after being briefed about NoW former editor's past Arrogant, naive, or stupid? It certainly appears to be a blend of all three. Probably posted before but just as a reminder.. here is the rotten ginger wench admitting to paying Police officers for information: Come again laddie? How does one legally pay a rozzer for information? Me thinks this will be the stunningly arrogant insight that nails them to the burning cross - hopefully. The only question is how/why was this not fully investigated before? The logical conclusion is that (like our political class) the police, CPS and judiciary don't all work for us. BIAD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 The only question is how/why was this not fully investigated before? The logical conclusion is that (like our political class) the police, CPS and judiciary don't all work for us. BIADThis +1 The politicians policeman has apologised for his incompetence torygraph"]John Yates: I failed victims of News of the World phone hacking The senior police officer who failed fully to investigate phone hacking has issued an unprecedented apology for letting down the victims. For a policeman he seems quite unable to find wrongdoing when the evidence is all around him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I wonder how many cosy chats Blair had with Murdoch before deciding that invading Iraq with monkey boy was actually a really good idea? Oh. :shock: war criminals conspire Cherie Blair has said that her husband's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 was a "close call". So it was – and there is evidence that the final decision was taken only after Murdoch's encouragement was received and his blessing given. Blair talked to the media tycoon three times on the telephone in the 10 days before the US-led invasion. Details obtained under freedom of information show Blair called Murdoch on 11 March, 13 March and 19 March 2003. British and US troops began the invasion on 20 March, with the Times and Sun voicing total support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 A bit more advice that Dave didn't take. Phone hacking: I warned No 10 over Coulson appointment, says Ashdown Lib Dem peer advised that decision would cause 'terrible damage' after being briefed about NoW former editor's past Arrogant, naive, or stupid? Cameron like the vast majority of his party as an arrogance that inevitably leads to making him very, very stupid. I think you can say that both the major political parties look very very stupid. I wonder how many times they have enjoyed Murdoch or Murdoch cronies hospitality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 We of course can’t forget former Labour politician and press baron; Capt Bob... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 We of course can’t forget former Labour politician and press baron; Capt Bob...In part we can actually blame murdoch's presence on Cap'n Bob. wiki"] The newspaper passed into the hands of Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd. in 1969, snatching the paper from Robert Maxwell's Pergamon Press after an acrimonious year-long struggle. Maxwell's foreign origin, combined with his political opinions, provoked a hostile response to his bid from the Carrs and from the editor of the News of the World, Stafford Somerfield, who declared that the paper was—and should remain—as British as roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. News Ltd. arranged to swap shares in some of its minor ventures with the Carrs and by December it controlled 40 percent of the NOTW stock. Maxwell had been supported by the Jackson family (25% shareholders), but Murdoch had gained the support of the Carr family (30%) and then-chairman William Carr. In January 1969, Maxwell's bid was rejected at a shareholders' meeting where half of those present were company staff, temporarily given voting shares. It was Murdoch's first Fleet Street acquisition. Maxwell accused Murdoch of employing "the laws of the jungle" to acquire the paper and said he had "made a fair and bona fide offer... which has been frustrated and defeated after three months of [cynical] manoeuvring." Murdoch denied this, arguing the shareholders of the News of the World Group had "judged [his] record in Australia." Illness removed Sir William Carr from the chairmanship in June 1969, and Murdoch succeeded him. The lovely rupert like a knight on a white horse to save this great old newspaper from some grasping foreigner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 10, 2011 Moderator Share Posted July 10, 2011 So @exNOTWjournalist got bought off and he didn't do his twitter expose. So he's just as bad as the rest of them then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 10, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2011 There's still @ExNOTWjourno2 though... That said they may not have succumbed to the carrot; could be fear of the stick. EDIT: #2 has said that #1 was paid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anthony Posted July 10, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted July 10, 2011 This is becoming dispiritingly predictable. Guess who else they hacked? Can't hotlink so just click. http://twitpic.com/5o9wj1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts