Jump to content

Murdoch Scum


snowychap

Recommended Posts

Nice Sun front page today.

Bit of hate, bit of football, bit of common touch for them that goes camping, world news reduced to a para, and most importantly, 90% of the page taken up by some random nonsense aimed at distracting attention from anything more important.

Nice one, Rupe! Oh, but your sub-eds can't punctuate a 6-word sentence. Hmmm.

IMG_20140728_232537_zpswceje7qm.jpg

 

That's not the mark of the Devil, that's the mark of Public Enemey! That kid is cool a ****! Yeah boiiiiiiiiiiiiii! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Luck boy, Andy. Nice trip up to Scotland in his first month inside:

link

The former No 10 spin doctor Andy Coulson was served on Monday with an indictment relating to a charge of alleged perjury at the trial of Tommy Sheridan.

The former News of the World editor will appear at a preliminary hearing on 6 August, the Crown Office, Scotland's prosecution authority, confirmed.

The charge of perjury relates to evidence the former News of the World editor gave during Sheridan's own trial for perjury in December 2010.

Coulson originally appeared in court in relation to Sheridan, a Scottish socialist politcian, in June last year.

Coulson had given evidence over two days as a defence witness during Tommy Sheridan's perjury trial at the high court in Glasgow. Coulson was closely questioned by Sheridan, who conducted his own defence.

 

Well, well, well.

Seems like one enormous cock-up (or perhaps something more dodgy for those conspiratorially inclined).

Coulson's trial collapsed on Monday not because he had or hadn't lied under oath but because he had no case to answer on the charges of perjury as the evidence given in the Sheridan trial was not proven to be sufficiently relevant by the crown (it would appear that they didn't try that hard).

 

The Andy Coulson trial: Why the truth didn't matter

Former News of the World editor and government communications chief Andy Coulson has walked free from the High Court in Edinburgh after the perjury trial against him collapsed.

The case had twisted and turned across several weeks, with Lord Burns finally ruling that Mr Coulson had no case to answer on the charge brought by the Crown.

This was Scotland's first perjury trial for five years - the first since the Tommy Sheridan trial in 2010, which was where the allegations against Mr Coulson originated.

The 47-year-old was accused of committing perjury when he denied knowing about phone hacking at the paper prior to the arrest of his royal editor Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator, in August 2006.

But when it came down to the issue which decided his trial, it didn't matter what Mr Coulson knew and when; it didn't even matter whether he had really broken his sworn oath to tell "the truth and nothing but the truth" or not.

It was the definition of perjury itself which saw the case thrown out.

...

At the end of the day, the case rested on a combination of the legal definition of perjury and details of Tommy Sheridan's trial for that same offence.

In order to constitute perjury, false testimony has to be relevant to the case at hand; in essence, the lies told have to matter to the jury.

Thus, while the prosecution set out to prove that Mr Coulson had known about phone hacking at his paper far earlier than he had claimed under oath, the defence simply set out to prove that it didn't matter either way.

And in this regard, it seemed the defence team had stolen a march.

The onus is on the Crown to prove the relevance of the supposedly false evidence, Murdo MacLeod QC told Lord Burns. In his submission, the prosecution had done no such thing.

They could have called the Advocate Depute from the 2010 trial; they could even have called Mr Sheridan himself, he suggested.

They had not.

All they had done was hear extracts from Mr Coulson's testimony, before moving on to hear details about phone hacking from a trio of former News of the World journalists, all convicted phone hackers themselves.

With the jury out of the room as the no case to answer submission was heard - they were told a "legal matter" was being debated - the present Advocate Depute, Richard Goddard, hit back.

He argued that Mr Coulson's evidence had in fact been relevant to the case; perhaps not all of it, on the issue of phone hacking, but he had said enough of importance to the jury that any other lies he might tell could impact on his credibility.

...

When Lord Burns returned his written judgement on Monday, it was the death knell for the Crown case. He said he had not been convinced by the Crown that Mr Coulson's testimony had been relevant, and as such whether it could constitute perjury.

...

But at the end of the day, the court ruled that whether that was true or not, it just didn't matter.

As Mr MacLeod underlined repeatedly in his legal submission, this trial had been about perjury, not phone hacking; and it was that which the Crown had failed to prove.

Questions will now be asked about how much the case cost, and why it came to court in the form it did in the first place.

So if/when Coulson uses the collapse of the trial to justify himself and claim that it proves he wasn't lying, don't believe him. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was just about to post on the very subject of your last line

 

clip played on BBC Radio 4 Coulson says it shows he didn't lie

 

NO, it means whether he lied or not was irrelevant

 

slimy liar hack scum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 7 months later...
Quote

 

An email that it is claimed shows a senior Sun executive asking a former News of the World journalist to hack the voicemail of Heather Mills’s sister Fiona is part of new evidence presented by alleged phone-hacking victims in a bid to launch civil claims against the Sun.

The claimants, who do not include Fiona or Heather Mills, allege that the 2006 email shows the Sun executive editor Geoff Webster approving phone hacking.

It has been provided by the convicted phone hacker and former News of the World news editor Greg Miskiw in support of an application to include the Sun in a tranche of phone-hacking claims against News Group Newspapers, the owner of the Sun and the now-defunct News of the World.

 

Grauniad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

the thing i don't get is that phil thompson and jamie carragher work for him(souness showed what he was when he sold his story of heart surgery to the sun in the early 90's).how can you be a true scouse red and take murdochs 13 pieces of silver.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Former Liverpool FC midfielder David Thompson has quit talkSPORT after the station was taken over by the owners of The S*n.

The ex-Reds player issued a statement from his Twitter and Instagram social media accounts announcing his intention to stand down.

The 38-year-old, who hails from Birkenhead, said: “After covering lots of fixtures last season for talkSPORT in the studios I have decided to withdraw my availability immediately due to the recent change of ownership and their close links with The Sun newspaper.

“It would be hypocritical of me to do otherwise."

Liverpool Echo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

 People got in to quite a state a week or two ago when the sun had a split front page. One part was a moralising editorial about Ched Evans saying he might be innocent of rape but he’s still a scumbag for treating women as objects. Next to that, a picture of a woman naked but with her arms placed to conceal tits and genitals and a headline that invited you to check her out on pages 3 & 4.
I had presumed it was a spoof, but sadly it was a real front page.
Can’t really blame somebody for seeing an easy profit to be made from mouth breathers.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 People got in to quite a state a week or two ago when the sun had a split front page. One part was a moralising editorial about Ched Evans saying he might be innocent of rape but he’s still a scumbag for treating women as objects. Next to that, a picture of a woman naked but with her arms placed to conceal tits and genitals and a headline that invited you to check her out on pages 3 & 4.
I had presumed it was a spoof, but sadly it was a real front page.
Can’t really blame somebody for seeing an easy profit to be made from mouth breathers.

 

It reminded me of the Billy Bragg lyric from, 'It Says Here':

"They offer up a feature on stockings and suspenders, next to calls for stiffer penalties for sex offenders."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perfect from News Thump:

Quote

 

“The BBC is supposed to be impartial, so Lineker should keep his opinions to himself,” insisted the nation’s favourite tabloid.

“If he can’t keep his opinions to himself then he should have the decency to make up some new ones that our readers agree with.

“Much like Jeremy Clarkson used to do for us on a weekly basis when he presented Top Gear, on the BBC.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

 People got in to quite a state a week or two ago when the sun had a split front page. One part was a moralising editorial about Ched Evans saying he might be innocent of rape but he’s still a scumbag for treating women as objects. Next to that, a picture of a woman naked but with her arms placed to conceal tits and genitals and a headline that invited you to check her out on pages 3 & 4.
I had presumed it was a spoof, but sadly it was a real front page.
Can’t really blame somebody for seeing an easy profit to be made from mouth breathers.

 

3449.jpg?w=1920&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&

Not Murdoch, obviously, but further evidence of the same problem. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but not sure how a dental check is unethical/intrusive. Open your mouth, ok no wisdom teeth on you go....

If the deal is to bring in kids you would expect some sort of check/verification on those that look like they are in their 40's but apparently asking someone to verify their age now makes you a racist

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â