Murdoch Scum

[jacquesderrida]

.

Should OFCOM decide that Rupe and his lot aren't fit and proper, wouldn't they have to get rid of their 39% and wouldn't James Murdoch have to step down?

Precisely. As I understand it, if the 'fit and proper' ruling is applied to the takeover, it will also impact on News Corp's (or is it News International's) existing holding. In other words, if they are deemed not 'fit and proper' to own the entire company, that ruling, logically, extends to their existing holding.

I'm a bit confused by the whole thing, but wasn't NI's latest move – withdrawing their initial offer to spin off Sky News in return for ownership of BSKyB – an attempt to circumvent OFCOM? Because, it's clear that in the current environment, it would be very hard for them to pass that 'fit' test. The 'fit and proper' test OFCOM rules on?

Instead, now that NI is saying it's going to hold on to Sky News, the whole deal gets passed to the competition commission: i.e the body responsible for ensuring that no company has a monopoly in any given industry.

Ironically, Sky's initial offer to get rid of Sky News was a way of them avoiding the CC: OFCOM is known to be pretty easy going compared to them, I think. But now, Murdoch clearly sees the CC as a better option. It's also a body that takes years to make rulings, I think: so maybe the hope is that we will all forget about what's happened as time goes by.

Is this right? This is how I see it. I admit, my knowledge is a little patchy on all of this.

What I would say is that, clearly, Murdoch is an utterly malign influence. Whether you're a left-winger like I am, or a free-market fan: surely we can all agree that this guy is just in it for himself. He presents himself as an ultra-capitalist, all about the market: but he's not. He's a control freak, a wannabe totalitarian. If reports are true, there will be cross-party consensus tomorrow, backing the Labour motion to censure him, endorsing the idea that he should withdraw his bid for BSkyB. If this happens, it will be interesting to see how he responds. I get the feeling that we'll see the true face then: will he ignore what everyone is telling him? If he does, christ, it'll be interesting to see what happens next...

As a left-winger, if you'll forgive me, I can't help adding: although Gordon Brown was clearly not suited to being a Prime Minister in a modern world, I really hope that some of the stuff we've heard today mellows some folks' opinion of him. He was and is not a bad man. He was targeted and **** over by the Murdoch press, vilified and crucified. You don't have to like him, but he was a man who TRIED to do what he thought was right. (He was **** from the start, because he never looked the part, nor sounded the part: oddly, we always complain that we don't want image-obsessed politicians; when we don't have them, we destroy them...)

And Brown's economic plan for recovery is kind of proving itself to be the right one, no?

[Juju]

As a left-winger, if you'll forgive me, I can't help adding: although Gordon Brown was clearly not suited to being a Prime Minister in a modern world, I really hope that some of the stuff we've heard today mellows some folks' opinion of him. He was and is not a bad man. He was targeted and **** over by the Murdoch press, vilified and crucified. You don't have to like him, but he was a man who TRIED to do what he thought was right. (He was **** from the start, because he never looked the part, nor sounded the part: oddly, we always complain that we don't want image-obsessed politicians; when we don't have them, we destroy them...)

Yes, essentially two fo the most memorable things about Brown in hindsite is that we're supposed to think he's a bully, bot no one ever came forward to make the allegation, and that there were rebust internal reporting methods that the "bullied" person could/should have utilised.

Oh, and that Mrs Bigot from Preston or whatever, was in fact a BIGOT. That he actually said that, and was widely reported. A decent press would have opened up the debate.

Whether you like the man or don't, it was as much the press as anything else that finished him. His handling of the immediate issues of collapse of major banks was reasonably well handled, and theres no one says otherwise.

[bickster]

To quote some young tossers from Liverpool in the 60's "So you say you want a revolution... hey yeah" this IS the revolution. All that has to be done really is keep this in the public consciousness for as long as necessary (2 - 3 years maybe), this won't be forgotten. But when I say this is the revolution, I mean it, this is the breaking of the establishment and the establishment isn't just the politicians, its the organisation who has been controlling the politicians, the blackmailer, the extortioner, VoldeMurdoch, he's been at it since Herr Thatch gave him a quick blow job round the back of number ten and has had us all by the bollocks ever since. This is as revolutionary as Britain gets these days and its about time the people realised they do have the power to make a difference and victory in this one will change the attitude of the rest of the press (if only in the medium term) so at least politicians may be held properly accountable in future.

As much as Murdoch wriggles, right now I can't see Murdoch getting off the hook on this one, he simply will not be allowed to. All three parties have united against him (unprecedented almost) in parliament. I hope this leads the way to an actual free press (I realise its a pipe dream but from small acorns...) and politicians of some substance who are prepared to speak out.

A weeks a long time in politics and **** me has this been a long week but I think certain sections of the public have realised they do have power and that can only be a good thing, those that did something in this campaign will not forget the part they played no matter how small, it'll be something they can tell their grandkids about and be proud, it's been a real tipping point in the UK I think and from here the UK will move on swiftly to be a better place once the Murdoch distraction has been dealt with.

Yes, as long as words are kept and the pressure is sustained, then Murdoch in the UK is rather buggered.

It takes a special kind of man to unite all three major parties in the house,

Bye Digger, I think you're toasted

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

To quote some young tossers from Liverpool in the 60's "So you say you want a revolution... hey yeah" this IS the revolution

It's a sad state of affairs though when you add all the people and organisations together that can now never be trusted again:-

Banks: Thieves and liars who would steal the gold fillings from a dying war hero.

Police: Killers and cover up merchants who live in the pocket of the Tory Government and will take bungs from anyone with a few quid.

Politicians: Will steal as much money from tax payers as is possible while telling us they care. Expenses !! Performance related pay for them IMO.

Papers : Enough already, what was the line in Blade runner ..... "Time to die"

Cameron: Made a deal with the devil, got found out. Employs people who prey on the dead or sick. He knew what was going on at the NOTW but thought it was all over. Has the look of a guy who knows his DNA is on a horrific crime scene and is just waiting for the knock at the door.

Brown: Why add to the fire when you have not got your facts straight ?

The list is almost endless.

Not much left to trust now

:cry:

[tonyh29]

Saw today's Sun headline and assumed we had moved back to discussing the economy ... But turns out that we are still on the hacking thing !!

[bickster]

Saw today's Sun headline and assumed we had moved back to discussing the economy ... But turns out that we are still on the hacking thing !!

That story is both ironically hilarious and typical of that shitrag

Really, if the "source" is true, the story should read. I found out about Brown's Son having Cystic Fibrosis and thought I could make some money out of it, so I contacted the Scum. Now the Scum has to defend this story I get paid again, wow double bubble bonus! Best of all I still get to keep my anonymity because... well... I might not exist yet but I'm sure they'll find someone that fits this bill for a few extra dollars

It actually typifies the Scum's approach, does anyone really buy into all that anymore? thought not!

[Jon]

His handling of the immediate issues of collapse of major banks was reasonably well handled, and theres no one says otherwise.

Calling Tone Loc!

[islingtonclaret]

Either Brown is telling porkies or the Sun is. I know which one I'd go for to be honest.

[Eames]

Saw today's Sun headline and assumed we had moved back to discussing the economy ... But turns out that we are still on the hacking thing !!

That story is both ironically hilarious and typical of that shitrag

Really, if the "source" is true, the story should read. I found out about Brown's Son having Cystic Fibrosis and thought I could make some money out of it, so I contacted the Scum. Now the Scum has to defend this story I get paid again, wow double bubble bonus! Best of all I still get to keep my anonymity because... well... I might not exist yet but I'm sure they'll find someone that fits this bill for a few extra dollars

It actually typifies the Scum's approach, does anyone really buy into all that anymore? thought not!

I heard the "source" speaking on the radio - "I have a son with CF and wanted to bring greater publicity to CF sufferers so blabbed to the Scum"

:bonk:

[PauloBarnesi]

It's a sad state of affairs though when you add all the people and organisations together that can now never be trusted again:-

Banks: Thieves and liars who would steal the gold fillings from a dying war hero.

Police: Killers and cover up merchants who live in the pocket of the Tory Government and will take bungs from anyone with a few quid.

Politicians: Will steal as much money from tax payers as is possible while telling us they care. Expenses !! Performance related pay for them IMO.

Papers : Enough already, what was the line in Blade runner ..... "Time to die"

Cameron: Made a deal with the devil, got found out. Employs people who prey on the dead or sick. He knew what was going on at the NOTW but thought it was all over. Has the look of a guy who knows his DNA is on a horrific crime scene and is just waiting for the knock at the door.

Brown: Why add to the fire when you have not got your facts straight ?

The list is almost endless.

Not much left to trust now

:cry:

The thing is its always been the case; you have good and bad people within any “institution(s)” (Lloyd George for example was supposedly involved in insider dealing and cash for honours. Then look at banks going bust and doing dodgy things from time immemorial). I think you have to be sceptical about why people do these jobs and what motivates them. If you take a cynical point of view, you will be surprised when you find that some of them actually had good motives and do good. Much as might not like someone like Dennis Skinner, you can’t doubt his motivation.

We live in a both a wonderful and terrible place full of wonderful and devious people.

[PauloBarnesi]

What I would say is that, clearly, Murdoch is an utterly malign influence. Whether you're a left-winger like I am, or a free-market fan: surely we can all agree that this guy is just in it for himself.

Can you show me anyone in the media who isn’t?

[mjmooney]

you have good and bad people within any “institution(s)” (Lloyd George for example was supposedly involved in insider dealing and cash for honours).

He was also an ardent admirer of Herr Hitler.

[snowychap]

The thing is its always been the case; you have good and bad people within any “institution(s)”

There are always good and bad people everywhere, it doesn't mean that we ought not to look at addressing the bad things when they occur.

When it gets to the point where it appears to have become the norm rather than the exception (and not just the institutions that Neil lists but in commercial organizations, the NHS, public services, and so on) then it is beyond the point where it might be acceptable to shrug shoulders and consider it part of the tapestry of life.

[PauloBarnesi]

The thing is its always been the case; you have good and bad people within any “institution(s)”

There are always good and bad people everywhere, it doesn't mean that we ought not to look at addressing the bad things when they occur.

When it gets to the point where it appears to have become the norm rather than the exception (and not just the institutions that Neil lists but in commercial organizations, the NHS, public services, and so on) then it is beyond the point where it might be acceptable to shrug shoulders and consider it part of the tapestry of life.

Of course; but its the idea that it was/is a “surprise” that people don’t necessarily do “good” things in public life. Its nothing about shrugging shoulders, its about framing things in context. Historically nothing here is new. Look at Hearst. Look at Capt Bob. Etc. Its also that whilst people may start with “morals”, somehow on the way to the top they lose them to get to that point. One then might argue that is better to play the game in the hope that you might change things on the inside, or to never play the game at all and stand by your principles?

[peterms]

I see Hugh Orde has been round the radio studios this morning defending the superficial nature of the original police inquiries on the basis that decisions had to be made about whether to pursue this, or to save lives by pursuing anti-terrorist activities instead.

He couldn't explain why the officer in charge of terrorism was given this inquiry in the first place, but it raises the question of how we are managing to cope with the vastly increased numbers of police assigned to this. Have they taken people off anti-terrorism duties to quiz unemployed actors blagging bank records? Or could Sir Hugh's defence be a wafer-tin bit of nonsense that no-one above the age of three would take seriously?

[snowychap]

Of course; but its the idea that it was/is a “surprise” that people don’t necessarily do “good” things in public life. Its nothing about shrugging shoulders, its about framing things in context. Historically nothing here is new. Look at Hearst. Look at Capt Bob. Etc. Its also that whilst people may start with “morals”, somehow on the way to the top they lose them to get to that point. One then might argue that is better to play the game in the hope that you might change things on the inside, or to never play the game at all and stand by your principles?

I don't think you are framing things in context by pointing to dodginess in the past.

I think there's much more mileage for framing things in context by not believing that these things only apply in 'public life' but have become, if not standard, tolerated everywhere.

The changing things from the inside argument is, in my view, utter nonsense. It's the standard defence used by people to excuse any unprincipled behaviour. It's a sad state when 'playing the game' becomes synonymous with endemic wrongdoing rather than associated with the cricket fields of Clifton.

[Gringo]

Its the same defence the lying MPs used - it was just the culture of the place, the way things were done, what we were entitled to.

If it's corrupt, if it's bent, if it's damgaing the greater good, then burn it down.

[tonyh29]

He was and is not a bad man. He was targeted and **** over by the Murdoch press, vilified and crucified. You don't have to like him, but he was a man who TRIED to do what he thought was right.

probably the wrong thread but Brown was certifiably bonkers and nothing to do with Murdoch and his press coverage .. I don't doubt he was genuine in his motives and we could do with more people with genuine morals like his ..but to sum him up as deluded and bonkers is being far to kind to him

[tonyh29]

His handling of the immediate issues of collapse of major banks was reasonably well handled, and theres no one says otherwise.

Calling Tone Loc!

How long have you got :winkold:

[PauloBarnesi]

I don't think you are framing things in context by pointing to dodginess in the past.

Well thats an opinion. Personally I think if we took more notice of the past we might not end up doing them again, though often the reality is that we will.

I think there's much more mileage for framing things in context by not believing that these things only apply in 'public life' but have become, if not standard, tolerated everywhere..

As I ve argued nothing here is new. I don’t think what we are seeing is some new human behaviour that can be identified with morality breaking down. As I ve said look at the moral behaviour of say William Randolph Hearst, Northcliffe and Rothermere et al

The changing things from the inside argument is, in my view, utter nonsense. It's the standard defence used by people to excuse any unprincipled behaviour. It's a sad state when 'playing the game' becomes synonymous with endemic wrongdoing rather than associated with the cricket fields of Clifton.

I am not arguing its right; I might not have phased it correctly, but its a question of whether one should be principled, or bend one’s morals to gain power to then hope that one can do a better job of the world. If one enters the game of politics, one it would seem has to accept it is a popularity contest, and one has to win that to get one’s key points across. This isn’t being so corrupted that one has no morals. I think this is called a moral maze.