or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Murdoch Scandal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Murdoch Scandal - Page 4

post #121 of 164
A few things I want to say.

Murdoch Sr is either too shrewd or too senile by this stage to really give a damn. He's built an empire, and his time is coming to an end. How much did he know? We'll never know. There's always designated fall guys and guys that will fall on their swords for the top brass.

James Murdoch is a more interesting case. He clearly has a massive operation to inherit and run and seems more protective. How he is implicated seems unclear.

Rebekah Brooks and the British staff seem most likely to have done some naughty stuff or knew about naughty stuff being done. They'll be the first to fry.

Cameron being involved along with the Met just undermines the public's trust of the UK's political, media and police establishments. The shitstorm is forming around him... I doubt he will have to resign at this stage unless more "bad news" comes out. But his re-election seems doubtful at this stage, particularly if the UK economy is still in average shape.

These are just my impressions, I don't expect to get into any serious debates because, well, I have quite a lot of work to do before I travel at the end of next month.

As a poster said, the right wing is in a tizzy because it's Murdoch's empire AND the governing right wing of the UK that's been "caught with it's hands dirty" (as Murdoch Sr. says in reference to the hysteria over News Corp).

This will take a while to sort out and as much as "lefties" would love to see the US operations of News Corp damaged in some major way, it seems limited to the UK for now.
post #122 of 164
Wise words too from Mr Jonnie Marbles-

"It's not difficult to find reasons to dislike Rupert Murdoch. His reach is one of the most insidious and toxic forces in global politics today. The phone-hacking scandal, despicable though it is, barely scratches the surface of the damage done by News International. It is a media empire built on deceit and bile, that trades vitriol for debate and thinks nothing of greasing the wheels of power until they turn in its favour. What's more, no matter what the grievances he wreaks on those he has never met, his power and money keep him forever safely out of their reach."

Personally though, I think the steel claw will find the guilty here and they'll lose their untouchable status.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #123 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

It couldn't be worse for J and R Murdoch. The combination of arrogance and ignorance respectively is going to prove devastating to their positions and companies.

I think it's a good wake up call for them and others... But have no doubt about their damage control ability.
post #124 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Wise words too from Mr Jonnie Marbles-

"It's not difficult to find reasons to dislike Rupert Murdoch. His reach is one of the most insidious and toxic forces in global politics today. The phone-hacking scandal, despicable though it is, barely scratches the surface of the damage done by News International. It is a media empire built on deceit and bile, that trades vitriol for debate and thinks nothing of greasing the wheels of power until they turn in its favour. What's more, no matter what the grievances he wreaks on those he has never met, his power and money keep him forever safely out of their reach."

Personally though, I think the steel claw will find the guilty here and they'll lose their untouchable status.

They'll certainly look a bit more vulnerable.

For some though, the most angering part will be that most of that insidiousness and toxicity will continue to be... just on the side of legal, or... redefines legality as it goes along.

Some may well be in their rights to think that the phone hacking is just the tip of the iceberg that you can hack off (wow, unintended pun, really). What lies beneath could not only be hidden but unprosecutable...

I'd like to believe Murdoch Sr when he says "This is the most humbling day of my life"... But in my country of birth I've gotten to know a few of our own tycoons, politicians and celebrities (though of course here in South East Asia their power is on a much smaller scale compared to something massive like Murdoch & News Corp). Just like a middle class person would find it hard to imagine living as a vagrant on the streets, the tycoons, politicians and celebrities (for however short or long) are on a different planet from "regular" folk. Most of the time they are only thinking of snowballing what they have once they break into the elite. "Normal" thought processes seem to come and go.
post #125 of 164
As usual the left is jealous, angry and hollowing over what they don't have but wont work for. Insert bitter leftist conspiracy ladened diatribe here.

Good thing someone hacked a phone or two and riled the masses so the left could extract their pound of flesh and not seem obvious.
post #126 of 164
If only they were this passionate about the innocent people our governments are killing in Libya and elsewhere in immoral, unjust, unconstitutional wars.

To me, that is a more heinous crime than hacking cell phones.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #127 of 164
Sorry for posting this in 2 threads, but it is relevant to both and the conversation could continue in different ways in each thread:

The Climategate Hacking Scandal Link

Quote:
What links Climategate and the News of the World phone hacking scandal? Try Thursday’s arrest of Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the recently defunct UK tabloid, and the man hired by Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson as his “personal media advisor”. The ‘relationship’ is currently the center of a media storm over potential collusion between the press and police. Wallis, however, also happens to be Managing Director of Outside Organisation, the same PR firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), a government-funded research group, tasked with carrying out “covert” activity after the leaked emails scandal broke.

Collusion between press and government?

Unthinkable.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #128 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

As usual the left is jealous, angry and hollowing over what they don't have but wont work for. Insert bitter leftist conspiracy ladened diatribe here.

Good thing someone hacked a phone or two and riled the masses so the left could extract their pound of flesh and not seem obvious.

What you people don't understand is that the whole British Parliament is united on this. This is apparently beyond your comprehension.

Murdoch's papers hacked the voicemail of our war dead, of the families of murder victims in ongoing investigations, of the Royals, and of public figures. They deleted messages belonging to one murdered girl because her voicemail was full, giving her family hope that she was alive.

They paid the police for information.

They lied to a Parliamentary enquiry.

James Murdoch signed off on £1,700,000 hush money to two people.

The theft and corruption charges are still sub judice, so we don't know about those yet.

This is the biggest political scandal in 75 years. The entire Parliament agreed to vote, across the house, against Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB.

This is beyond left and right, and when you try and make lame political points about it, you just expose yourself as being entirely fucking ignorant of the facts.
post #129 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

What you people don't understand is that the whole British Parliament is united on this. This is apparently beyond your comprehension.

Murdoch's papers hacked the voicemail of our war dead, of the families of murder victims in ongoing investigations, of the Royals, and of public figures. They deleted messages belonging to one murdered girl because her voicemail was full, giving her family hope that she was alive.

They paid the police for information.

They lied to a Parliamentary enquiry.

James Murdoch signed off on £1,700,000 hush money to two people.

The theft and corruption charges are still sub judice, so we don't know about those yet.

This is the biggest political scandal in 75 years. The entire Parliament agreed to vote, across the house, against Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB.

This is beyond left and right, and when you try and make lame political points about it, you just expose yourself as being entirely fucking ignorant of the facts.

And yet the left does just that. They hate Murdoch because of his politics and now they have their in.
post #130 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

And yet the left does just that. They hate Murdoch because of his politics and now they have their in.

Yep. Why don't you just completely ignore the substance of my post and concentrate on one single sentence that lets you vent on The Evil Left.

Perfectly standard conservative tactic. Shouldn't have expected you to actually engage in substance.
post #131 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Of course Hoare's death is non-suspicious. Any deaths of people involved in making things a little awkward for people in positions of power, or uncovering crimes in high places is unsuspicious. We all know that... because to suspect otherwise suggests a "conspiracy theory".. and we all know that (a) all conspiracy theories are equated to the notion that Elvis is still alive and is married to an alien from Alpha Centauri, and (b) people in high places NEVER commit crimes



Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

In other words, a full blown investigation is required, to find out who did what, when and where, and how far up the chain of command does the responsibility, and guilt, lay.

A full-blown investigation is happening.

Quote:



Well, the cops on both sides of the Atlantic are sniffing around News Corp. with great interest, so it appears as if criminal activity is involved. It appears that there is more to connect NewsCorp to federal crimes, than Osama bin Laden was connected to the attacks of 9/11. (!). (In that latter case, the FBI said that there was "no hard evidence to connect OBL with 9/11", ... he was never wanted by the FBI for 9/11.... and the DoJ as a result never indicted him for such. The entire OBL-9/11 fiasco was media generated, and we all obediently jumped on it, because (a) we were comfortable with that idea, and (b) it was considered unpatriotic to incorporate reality into the narrative of that event. poke, poke.

You're like a machine! You can literally turn ANYTHING into a 9/11 OBL rant! Order now!

Quote:



Good heavens! Um, no. You're obviously cherry-picking my posts to support that incorrect (absurd) assertion. There is not a SINGLE solitary post that I have made in the last 2.5 ignominious years of the current administration that supports their policy set, either foreign or domestic, even to the tiniest extent. Go look, you wont find anything. Quite the converse in fact. Furthermore, what evidence is there that Obama is a liberal, when, outside of a few token, pathetic, cowardly gestures to his alleged base, he has otherwise put his administration's full weight behind the Orwellian, anti-American, war-mongering, murderous, paranoid, elitist, corporate-government-merging, "fuck the ordinary people" M.O. of the previous BushCorp's 8 years of infamy. ObamaCorp (imho) is even more sinister and dangerous than the previous bunch of wannabe fascists; he has somehow convinced a large section of the doe-eyed, slack-jawed gullible US left that he is on their side. (!!!!) As if! At least with Bush Corp, people knew exactly what he was up to, and what the we the people were up against... it was so 'in ya face' with double speak, duplicity and sheer lies... a 5 year old could have worked that out. With Obama, we're getting the same crap, and more, but masquerading as legitimate, people friendly government. Yeah, right.

So, SDW2001, I'm on the record now as stating baldly that the Obama Administration is taking this nation down a road which has been traveled by humanity on many sad occasions in its history, a bumpy road which always arrives to the same, ugly cul-de-sac of totalitarianism. Why has the US left has become so irrelevant in the US politics? They have become decoupled from their base, spinning like a directionless top in the rarefied air of Washington DC.



Not quite ad hominem, just casual observations of where your posts lead, and what they imply.


I am not claiming you support the Obama Admin, sammi. I am claiming that you were calling for heads to roll when Abu Ghraib happened, over civilians deaths in war, etc. You called Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney war criminals on more than one occasion. But now? Obama is doing even more of what you despise. Where are the calls for his resignation? Bob Gates? The entire cabinet? Through it all, you imply that Murdoch should fry. Surely, you can see the double standard.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Sigh.

Please, get your facts from news sources that supply news. You can't comment on things you don't know about, because I will just be forced to explain to everyone, again, how ignorant you are.



Rebeckah Brooks was the editor of the News of the World when Milly Dowler and the terrorist victims were hacked.

She left and became the CEO of News International.

So she was not a mid level manager, was she?

No, she was in the most senior position it is possible to have, wasn't she?[/quote]

Did Rebeckah Brooks know of the hacking? Was she involved? Did she ignore it? Sanction it? That's what you don't seem to care about.

Quote:

She was followed as Editor by Andy Coulson.

After Andy Coulson's resignation, he went on to the Director of Communications for the Conservative Party and then for David Cameron at 10 Downing Street.

You call this job 'press secretary'.

So you see, it is quite a scandal, isn't it?

Not if she didn't know. If you have some evidence she was involved, please post it.

Quote:

Unfortunately, British law applies to conservatives in senior positions, which is why these two people in important jobs were arrested last week.

I'm sorry that you don't get your news from somewhere they tell you news. Steer clear of the right wing blogs. That's my advice.

How do you know where I get my news?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 164
And...let me just reiterate: IF Rebeckah Brooks knew or authorized this, she should fry. Anyone that condoned this hacking should fry.

Your position, by contrast, seems to be that anyone you think is important at News Corp should fry...regardless. Why? Because this is SO immoral, SO offensive, SO disgusting....just fry them all.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



I am not claiming you support the Obama Admin, sammi. I am claiming that you were calling for heads to roll when Abu Ghraib happened, over civilians deaths in war, etc. You called Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney war criminals on more than one occasion. But now? Obama is doing even more of what you despise. Where are the calls for his resignation? Bob Gates? The entire cabinet? Through it all, you imply that Murdoch should fry. Surely, you can see the double standard.

I get the impression that you don't know how the military operates. I have numerous relatives in the military. If something bad happens that is against military law, it is *always* the lower ranks who take the rap. Lynndie England and her buddies had two choices: EITHER submit to a military hearing, plead not guilty, get found guilty and go to military jail for a very long time, OR accept the offer of a short sentence and a dishonorable discharge, keep quiet, and resume your life. That is the choice offered.

This is not a political issue, its how things work in the services, that is, according to numerous accounts I have heard first hand. And since the military functions on the hierarchical principle of "chain of command"; orders start with higher ranks and are carried out by lower ranks... hence the popular expression amongst the troops: "shit rolls downhill". How often does one see the angelic-behaved senior ranks courtmartialed?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...land-interview

In mid-December, a report by the Senate armed services committee concluded that, contrary to the US government's assertion that a few "bad apples" were to blame for abuses at the prison, responsibility ultimately lay with Bush officials, including the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for policies that "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #134 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I get the impression that you don't know how the military operates. I have numerous relatives in the military. If something bad happens that is against military law, it is *always* the lower ranks who take the rap. Lynndie England and her buddies had two choices: EITHER submit to a military hearing, plead not guilty, get found guilty and go to military jail for a very long time, OR accept the offer of a short sentence and a dishonorable discharge, keep quiet, and resume your life. That is the choice offered.

This is not a political issue, its how things work in the services, that is, according to numerous accounts I have heard first hand. And since the military functions on the hierarchical principle of "chain of command"; orders start with higher ranks and are carried out by lower ranks... hence the popular expression amongst the troops: "shit rolls downhill". How often does one see the angelic-behaved senior ranks courtmartialed?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...land-interview

In mid-December, a report by the Senate armed services committee concluded that, contrary to the US government's assertion that a few "bad apples" were to blame for abuses at the prison, responsibility ultimately lay with Bush officials, including the defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for policies that "conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees".

Sammi, I get the impression that you're full of shit. Did you or did you not state that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney et al should pay for "war crimes?"
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #135 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Yep. Why don't you just completely ignore the substance of my post and concentrate on one single sentence that lets you vent on The Evil Left.

Perfectly standard conservative tactic. Shouldn't have expected you to actually engage in substance.

If there were substances to the left's outrage there would be something worth engaging in. The people of england have cause for outrage but the left it just piling on because they hate Murdoch. If the players were reversed they would have nothing to say.
post #136 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And...let me just reiterate: IF Rebeckah Brooks knew or authorized this, she should fry. Anyone that condoned this hacking should fry.

Your position, by contrast, seems to be that anyone you think is important at News Corp should fry...regardless. Why? Because this is SO immoral, SO offensive, SO disgusting....just fry them all.

SDW is apparently the only person in the world who believes that the editor of a newspaper is ignorant of where the HEADLINE STORY in their newspaper actually comes from, and can be unaware that "institutionalised criminality is occurring in their newsroom, and why payments are being made to police officers, and why £1,700,000 can be paid to TWO people in an out of court settlement that involves the interception of voicemail, and is ignorant of 4,000 people being monitored.

Of course, SDW. Well, they're out on bail after their arrests, they're going to be prosecuted, and I suppose well find out in court.
post #137 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

If there were substances to the left's outrage there would be something worth engaging in. The people of england have cause for outrage but the left it just piling on because they hate Murdoch. If the players were reversed they would have nothing to say.

Sigh.

It is difficult for you to understand, being a batshit partisan, but the outrage in Britain is felt by everyone.

They hacked the voicemail of our war dead.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They hacked the voicemail of murdered children and deleted messages when the box was full.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They hacked the voicemail of grieving people and made news out of it.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They hacked the voicemail of senior politicians including the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the deceased Defence Secretary and their families, including Kathryn Blair.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They hacked the voicemail of nearly 4,000 people.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They made payments to the Metropolitan Police.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They lied to a Parliamentary enquiry.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They "deliberately obstructed" a police investigation.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

They paid £1,700,000 in out-of-court settlements to two individuals in cases involving the interception of voicemail.

Is that "substance" enough for you?

The House of Commons passed a motion that the BSkyB bid was "Contrary to the National Interest" UNOPPOSED, that is, everyone regardless of party voted for it.

So, basically, shut the fuck up with this "left piling on" crap that you saw on Fox News, or read on your favourite right wing blog, because it is bullshit, and we are dealing with the biggest scandal in 75 years that has turned the political establishment of Britain on its head and seen the resignation of the two most senior policemen in the country.
post #138 of 164
nice posting mumbo!

Here's more damaging news for Cameron-

"11.45am: Paul Owen has just been speaking to Andy Inglis, a former civil servant at the Department for International Development, about government vetting procedures. He said he was vetted to the level of "security check", which is the level Andy Coulson was vetted to.

Inglis said: "I was kind of mid-level, but I think that's the point." He said he was "horrified" to read that Coulson had not been subject the higher level of checks, "developed vetting".

I couldn't believe it. Even if they tried to restrict the documents to only 'top secret' unless people were briefed beforehand that he has not got the security clearance, then each meeting was a potential [security] breach.

He said the decisions on at what level a person required developed vetting depended on the department.

Coulson was at No 10 [where] you're dealing with all the issues of each department. I'm shocked. You think going into the centre of government you have to have belt and braces. No 10, with the PM, who is dealing with anything, you have to have that [developed vetting] as a precaution, due diligence."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #139 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

SDW is apparently the only person in the world who believes that the editor of a newspaper is ignorant of where the HEADLINE STORY in their newspaper actually comes from, and can be unaware that "institutionalised criminality is occurring in their newsroom,

That term, whether appropriate or not, does not mean she knew. Thus far there has been zero evidence suggesting she knew. The only thing that has been offered are the screams of crazy batshit partisan wingers like you, who run around telling HOW THE FUCK COULD SHE NOT KNOW!!!!!?????"

Quote:

and why payments are being made to police officers, and why £1,700,000 can be paid to TWO people in an out of court settlement that involves the interception of voicemail, and is ignorant of 4,000 people being monitored.

They settled because wrongdoing occurred. New Corp settling does not mean upper level executives were guilty. As for the number of people monitored, you're really being intellectually dishonest here. 4,000 has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE number, specifically by Murdoch's media competitors. Regardless, the hacking was not simultaneous. You frame this in such a way as to suggest otherwise.

Quote:

Of course, SDW. Well, they're out on bail after their arrests, they're going to be prosecuted, and I suppose well find out in court.

We will find out. If its proven that Brooks knew, she'll go to jail...as she should in that case. Same goes for the Murdochs and other executives. Where I get off the bus is your politically motivated presumption of guilt. You have declared yourself more knowledgable and then adjudicated the case. Anyone who even ATTEMPTS to point out the lack of evidence against specific persons incurs your condescending wrath.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Sorry for posting this in 2 threads, but it is relevant to both and the conversation could continue in different ways in each thread:

The Climategate Hacking Scandal Link



Collusion between press and government?

Unthinkable.

Be nice to know more about this.

I think the CRU needs to explain things. Have they or are they going to?

They were accused and exonerated of any wrong doing and were attacked in a completely unjust way from across the globe on very important issues. It was ferocious and they undoubtedly wished to get their position into the headlines. Still, I'd like to know too what happened.

Do you have any more info?
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #141 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

They settled because wrongdoing occurred. New Corp settling does not mean upper level executives were guilty.

Why don't you learn what you're talking about before you talk to me any more.

James Murdoch signed off those payments. Personally.

So he knew. That is the end of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for the number of people monitored, you're really being intellectually dishonest here. 4,000 has been mentioned as a POSSIBLE number, specifically by Murdoch's media competitors. Regardless, the hacking was not simultaneous. You frame this in such a way as to suggest otherwise.

Whatever. I'm not. Stop talking shit. There are nearly 4,000 names in Glen Mulcaire's notes. That is the whole point. That is the number used in the Parliamentary Enquiry that James Murdoch lied in.

That is the whole point.

But I do agree with you on one thing.

Someone is going to jail for intercepting voicemail and for giving payments to the police, and it doesnt really matter who.
post #142 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Why don't you learn what you're talking about before you talk to me any more.

James Murdoch signed off those payments. Personally.

So he knew. That is the end of that.

The police payments, or the settlements? He knew about the settlements/signed off on them. Why does that matter?

Quote:

Whatever. I'm not. Stop talking shit. There are nearly 4,000 names in Glen Mulcaire's notes. That is the whole point. That is the number used in the Parliamentary Enquiry that James Murdoch lied in.

Ha...wich inquiry was that?

Quote:

That is the whole point.

But I do agree with you on one thing.

Someone is going to jail for intercepting voicemail and for giving payments to the police, and it doesnt really matter who.

Bingo. Unhinged. Any sane person would want to know WHO committed the crimes. He or she wouldn't be out for blood...any blood.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #143 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The police payments, or the settlements? He knew about the settlements/signed off on them. Why does that matter?

James Murdoch signed off on two payments, one of £1,000,000 to the famous PR man Max Clifford and one of £700,000 to Gordon Taylor, President of the PFA.

They were out of court settlements for phone hacking charges with confidentiality clauses.

So when you say that no senior exectuives at News International knew about phone hacking, you are talking out of your fucking arse.

I hope this explaination will do. I will happily repeat this explanation as many times as you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ha...wich inquiry was that?

HAHAHAHAHA lol, yes. The Parliamentary Enquiry in 2006. Hahahahahahah. Yes, 2006. How fucking hilarious.

And you call me unhinged?

Learn some facts, grow the fuck up, stop defending criminals because they're on Team Conservative.
post #144 of 164
And let's not forget the emails that until a few days ago NI refused to release, that showed within 5-10 mins of reading serious crimes, and there are hundreds. They knew, we know and now they MUST pay.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #145 of 164
Ouch!-

"5.12pm: My colleague James Ball gives this run-down of the different levels of government security clearance. Alastair Campbell, press chief under Tony Blair, has confirmed, he was subject not just to "developed vetting" but to "strap", an even higher level.

Strap
Strap is a series of security precautions used for particularly sensitive information, and is sub-divided into three levels of access. Documents requiring this standard have a cover sheet which much be signed each time the document is accessed. Strap sits within developed vetting.

Developed vetting (DV)
Developed vetting is required for any officials with routine or unsupervised access to top secret material. To receive this level of clearance, applicants must complete a 53-page assessment form. This is then verified with a three-hour interview, and references are cross-checked. The process can be expedited to a few weeks, but can take up to six months.

Security check (SC)
This level of security clearance grants routine access to secret material, but only occasional supervised access to top secret documents. Applicants fill out a 29-page form, and are also subject to security and credit reference checks. The process typically takes just a few weeks, but can be completed faster.

Counter-terrorism check (CTC)
This is a basic security check given to people working in close proximity to public figures, or with access to low-level sensitive information. Applicants have their criminal records and other security information checked."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage






And now a letter from the Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary, Ivan Lewis-


"Ivan Lewis, the shadow culture secretary, has written to Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, about Andy Colulson. Among other things, Lewis asks O'Donnell who made the decision not to seek the highest-level security clearance for Coulson and why. Was this discussed with David Cameron? And how does Coulson's security clearance compare with that of his successor, Craig Oliver?

Here's the full text:

21 July 2011

Dear Gus,

Thank you for your letter of the 18th July.

In view of Prime Minister's statement yesterday, the Parliamentary debate and today's reports about Andy Coulson, I have a number of further questions which I would be grateful if you could answer.

1. Did the Deputy Prime Minister raise any concerns about Andy Coulson with you or other officials either before or during his period of employment as Director of Communications to the Prime Minister?

2. Did the Royal Household raise any concerns about Andy Coulson's appointment and role with you or other officials either before or during his period of employment as Director of Communications to the Prime Minister?

3. At anytime during Andy Coulson's employment did the Prime Minister or his special advisers relay any concerns or questions about Andy Coulson's conduct in previous employment to yourself or other officials?

4. Can you specify the steps you will take to ensure all records across government, including emails, that are communications from, to or about Andy Coulson are retained, and can be examined by the Leveson inquiry?

5. Were you, any of your officials or Number 10 special advisers or the PM, informed that the Metropolitan Police intended to begin Operation Weeting in advance of the police's announcement on 26th January 2011?

6. Did you issue any written or informal guidance making it clear that any information or allegations about Andy Coulson should not be relayed to the Prime Minister?

7. Can you confirm whether Neil Wallis or any of his companies have received payments from any Government department for work undertaken and whether Mr Wallis advised Andy Coulson while he was the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister.

In addition who made the decision not to seek highest level security clearance for Andy Coulson and for what reason? Was this discussed with the Prime Minister? How does Mr Coulson's security clearance compare with that of his successor.

Given today's reports it is now a matter of urgency that this information is put into the public domain otherwise it will fuel the belief that there was knowledge about Andy Coulson's involvement in illegal activities before he was employed.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely


Ivan Lewis MP

Shadow Culture, Media and Sport Secretary"
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-live-coverage

And finally the curruption sticks to James M-

"6.47pm: James Murdoch's account to the Commons culture select committee about his involvement in agreeing the out-of-court settlement with Gordon Taylor was mistaken, according to a statement issued by former News of the World editor Colin Myler and former News international legal manager Tom Crone.

The statement says:

Just by way of clarification relating to Tuesday's CMS Select Committee hearing, we would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken.

In fact, we did inform him of the "for Neville" email which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."




James M where are you?-


"John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons select committee, has told my colleague Patrick Wintour that he will be recalling James Murdoch to explain the statement issued tonight by Colin Myler and Tom Crone.

Whittingdale said:

We as a committee regarded the For Neville email as one of the most critical pieces of evidence in the whole inquiry. We will be asking James Murdoch to respond and ask him to clarify."




Just how this effects things I'm not sure, but combined this was a clear lie from James M and therefore leaves him more vulnerable over the other emails held by his lawyers, who he is pointing the finger at, whilst they did his dirty work. Not looking good for James M.

Oh right!

"James Murdoch: Last week—two weeks ago, I guess—the News of the World published its last paper. Mr Crone was very involved with News of the World matters over the years. The company believed and the management of the company believed that it was time to part ways. I was not involved in those direct discussions with Mr Crone, and I cannot comment on their nature or their content; I do not have knowledge of them."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...ull-transcript
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #146 of 164
"12.48pm: Tom Watson (left), the culture committee member who has been a key critic of News international, has been outspoken this morning about Colin Myler and Tom Crone's contradiction of James Murdoch's evidence (see 11.39am).

Watson told the BBC that if Myler and Crone were correct it meant Murdoch had "bought the silence" of Gordon Taylor when it agreed to pay him around £700,000 to settle his litigation.

Watson said of Murdoch:

It shows that he not only failed to report a crime to the police, but because there was a confidentiality clause involved in the settlement, it means that he bought the silence of Gordon Taylor and that could mean that he is facing investigation for perverting the course of justice.

He said Taylor was paid a settlement that was 10 times higher than the previous highest settlement, which was the News of the World's £60,000 payment to Max Moseley over a story about the then-Formula One chief's sex life. Watson went on:

Taylor was the victim of a crime. Far from reporting the crime to the police or putting the matter right within his own company, what Myler's statement shows - if it is true - [is] that James Murdoch knowingly bought the silence of Taylor, thereby covering up a crime. In the UK, that is called conspiring to pervert the course of justice and it is very serious matter, and I think the Metropolitan police now have to look at this as a matter of urgency.
"
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog...-live-coverage



The "For Neville" email showed widespread illegal activity at Notw. J Murdoch paid to cover it all up.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #147 of 164
Looks like James Murdoch may have lied. I thought he'd be smarter than this. Well, they're digging themselves a deeper hole, as some are saying.

Another site about the news Hands posted above:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...testimony.html
post #148 of 164
"Survivors of the 2005 London bombings have asked lawyers to investigate allegations that Scotland Yard "sold" or passed on the confidential contact list of the 7 July victims to reporters working for News International.

Beverli Rhodes, chair of the Survivors' Coalition Foundation, said that a number of 7/7 victims suspected that personal contact details, including mobile phone and ex-directory landline numbers as well as home addresses, were passed by officers to News of the World journalists.

The former security consultant, who specialised in counter-terrorism, said she had been contacted by a number of survivors of the bombings who said they had been approached by News of the World reporters with bogus stories of how they obtained their details, which they believe may have originated with the police.

Their concerns have been discussed with the London law firm McCue and Partners. A spokesman said the survivors were considering their next step, having made requests for the Met to provide answers.

Rhodes said: "Scotland Yard had the full list of survivor contact details. I am pretty sure that is how the News of the World got my home address. I had only moved there maybe three or four weeks before News of the World reporters turned up. The only place where my new details were stored were the post office, bank, doctor and Scotland Yard.

"The suspicion is that the full list was given or sold on to the newspaper or News International or fell into someone's lap when visiting the Yard. One of the survivor's phone numbers is not listed and only known to me and family, but they had addresses to homes, home phone numbers, mobile phones."

She said that after the hacking scandal gathered momentum following the Milly Dowler revelations, several survivors approached her asking if she had provided their personal details to News of the World reporters.

"Two News of the World reporters told them they had got their details from me. They asked: 'Did you give my number to these reporters?', and I said: 'No, never'. These reporters knew an awful lot of specific information and asked very detailed questions."

Rhodes is now demanding that McCue and Partners officially request details from the Metropolitan police to establish if their concerns are substantiated. Scotland Yard has started to contact the relatives of 7/7 victims to warn them they were targeted by the News of the World.

It is understood that bereaved family members may have had their mobile phone messages intercepted by Glenn Mulcaire, a private investigator employed by the paper, in the days following the London bombings.

The Dowler revelations are likely to increase pressure on Andy Coulson, the paper's former editor, and David Cameron, who hired him as his spokesman. Last week recently resigned News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks, in response to questions from Paul Farrelly MP, said she was away when Dowler's phone was hacked and the paper was edited by her deputy, Coulson, or associate editor, Harry Scott. Sources have indicated Coulson was editing the paper then. "It was the Milly Dowler revelations that broke the camel's back," Farrelly said. "Rebekah Brooks has let it be known that she was away at the time, so this brings it all back to Coulson."

Brooks's comments will raise further questions about the cache of emails exchanged between senior editors on the paper which have now been handed to police. There is speculation that they will show who on the paper commissioned the hacking of Dowler's phone.

Although Rhodes has not been contacted by the Met, she has spoken to other survivors. She was one of more than 700 victims of the attacks, which killed 52 people, and was severely injured by the bomb that hit the Piccadilly line tube near King's Cross.

Rhodes, from Ashford, Kent, said the request from reporters involved sensitive details on compensation claims and the nature of injuries. She provided the names of two News of the World reporters who previously had not been connected to the phone-hacking scandal.

A McCue and Partners spokesman said the firm was evaluating the allegations and "considering their position".

Among those known to have been contacted by officers working on Operation Weeting, the Met's investigation into phone hacking, are Graham Foulkes, whose son David was killed at Edgware Road tube station. He said they told him his mobile phone number, ex-directory landline number and address had been found in records made by Mulcaire. Another is Sean Cassidy, father of a victim, and Paul Dadge, famous for helping victims during the attack, who has also been reported to have been emailed by the Met and told his name was in Mulcaire's records.

Last week Scotland Yard was asked to investigate claims that News of the World reporters paid officers to obtain people's locations by tracking their cell phone signals – known as "pinging"."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...ice-news-world
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #149 of 164
Rupert Murdoch's NI launched a campaign of bullying against senior Liberal Democrats in an attempt to force through the company's bid for BSkyB, high-level sources have told the Observer.

Lib Dem insiders say NI officials took their lobbying campaign well beyond acceptable limits and even threatened, last autumn, to persecute the party if Vince Cable, the business secretary, did not advance its case.

According to one account from a senior party figure, a cabinet minister was told that, if the government did not do as NI wanted, the Lib Dems would be "done over" by the Murdoch papers, which included the now defunct News of the World as well as the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times.

The accounts are only now coming to light, say sources, because the minister involved feared the potential for damage to the party, which was already suffering a dramatic slide in popularity after going into coalition with the Tories. They chime with reports from senior figures in the Labour party who say that Murdoch executives issued threats to Ed Miliband's office after the Labour leader turned on NI when the news broke that murdered 13-year-old Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked into by the News of the World.

The revelations will fuel the debate over Cameron's friendship with Rebekah Brooks, the former NI chief executive who was arrested a week ago. Labour MPs placed Cameron under intense pressure to reveal whether he had discussed BSkyB in any of his many meetings with Brooks or other NI executives since becoming prime minister.

Figures from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism showed that almost a quarter of all lunches, dinners and hospitality enjoyed by Downing Street's inner circle came from Murdoch's company.
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...emocrats-bskyb
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #150 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

James Murdoch signed off on two payments, one of £1,000,000 to the famous PR man Max Clifford and one of £700,000 to Gordon Taylor, President of the PFA.

They were out of court settlements for phone hacking charges with confidentiality clauses.

So when you say that no senior exectuives at News International knew about phone hacking, you are talking out of your fucking arse.

I hope this explaination will do. I will happily repeat this explanation as many times as you like.

It's like talking to a wall with this one. It really is. Now, read carefully: JAMES MURDOCH SIGNING OFF ON SETTLEMENTS DOES NOT MEAN HE KNEW ABOUT OR AUTHORIZED THE HACKING IN ANY WAY. It only mean he became aware of it at SOME POINT. Jesus.

Quote:



HAHAHAHAHA lol, yes. The Parliamentary Enquiry in 2006. Hahahahahahah. Yes, 2006. How fucking hilarious.

And you call me unhinged?

Learn some facts, grow the fuck up, stop defending criminals because they're on Team Conservative.

If the above statement is not proof of you being unhinged, I don't know what is. You continue to claim you possess more facts than I. That is false. You continue to claim I am "defending criminals," which is false. You continue to pronounce the Murdochs guilty without any proof. And you continue to claim that I would ignore evidence just because I happen to be a conservative. It doesn't mater how many times I say I want the guilty parties to fry. It doesn't matter how many ways I call the phone hacking itself despicable. None of it matters, because you are the arbiter of all things, and you have made your decision. So it is written, so it is done.

Have fun in your hate-filled, hyper-partisan revenge-seeking bizarro world. The rest of us, conservatives and liberals alike, will way to see what facts actually emerge and will continue to support actions that bring the actual wrongdoers to justice.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #151 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's like talking to a wall with this one. It really is. Now, read carefully: JAMES MURDOCH SIGNING OFF ON SETTLEMENTS DOES NOT MEAN HE KNEW ABOUT OR AUTHORIZED THE HACKING IN ANY WAY. It only mean he became aware of it at SOME POINT. Jesus.

Yes, he was made aware of it, if he wasn't already aware of it.

And then it didn't stop.

People weren't fired. The activity continued.

At best, this proves his incompetence as a manager.

More likely, it points to complicity.
post #152 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, he was made aware of it, if he wasn't already aware of it.

And then it didn't stop.

People weren't fired. The activity continued.

At best, this proves his incompetence as a manager.

More likely, it points to complicity.

This is an outright lie. People were fired, people resigned and there was even a police investigation. If you were a manager and had all that happen and dealt with it, that doesn't mean you would be aware that it got even bigger and more profound with all the new faces.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #153 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

This is an outright lie. People were fired, people resigned and there was even a police investigation. If you were a manager and had all that happen and dealt with it, that doesn't mean you would be aware that it got even bigger and more profound with all the new faces.

Once again, there were people involved who weren't fired and who did not resign, and the activity continued.

The first time it happens, you can be damn sure a competent manager would take steps to make sure it cannot happen again (assuming they have the honest intent to stop the activity in question). There would be explicit policy positions and disciplinary procedures for future misdeeds on file. There weren't any.

Seriously, have you ever managed a staff? Have you ever written company disciplinary policy or been in charge of someone who has? This is not brain surgery. It's kindergarten level as management goes.

By the way, I find it hilarious (if I may use that so very appropriate word once again) that you had the opposite view with regard to Dan Rather and CBS.
post #154 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Once again, there were people involved who weren't fired and who did not resign, and the activity continued.

By the way, I find it hilarious (if I may use that so very appropriate word once again) that you had the opposite view with regard to Dan Rather and CBS.

You've moved the goalposts there tonton. You declared people weren't fired. They were. There was a whole initial round of firings and resignations. There was a police investigation that declared the matter done. Are you suggesting people are idiots for taking the police at their word? How do you make the logical leap that because one knows one instance, one must know all instances? Please explain that.

Quote:
The first time it happens, you can be damn sure a competent manager would take steps to make sure it cannot happen again (assuming they have the honest intent to stop the activity in question). There would be explicit policy positions and disciplinary procedures for future misdeeds on file. There weren't any.

You can pass a law that says don't own guns. Criminals will still own guns. You can pass a law that says not to lie. Liars will still lie. There are limits to laws and policies. This is basically the breakdown between our respective worldviews. I don't believe that because someone passes a law or writes a policy declaring utopia should be here, it will arrive. You do. I have no doubt that every person in this company signed a handbook and the handbook is full of things not to do that some of them obviously still did. You are seriously going to suggest that there were no company policies against this. Take your reasoning a step further. There are laws against this and it still happened, thus the government is incompetent. How can it not be? There were laws and people still broke them. How is that possible? That is was the same point I made earlier in the thread.

Quote:
Seriously, have you ever managed a staff? Have you ever written company disciplinary policy or been in charge of someone who has? This is not brain surgery. It's kindergarten level as management goes.

Pretty much all I do is manage people be it education, landlording, etc. I'd say anyone who believes that a policy is the only thing stopping someone from taking an action is an idiot. Not only do you need policy but the whole system must be organized around achieving a certain result. One of the primary problems with schools for example is how they are organized. They pass and change policies all the time with regard to what teachers and students ought to do. Since it doesn't change the organization of the schools, they are totally ineffective.

Quote:
By the way, I find it hilarious (if I may use that so very appropriate word once again) that you had the opposite view with regard to Dan Rather and CBS.

I'd be happy to see where I declared that the owner of Viacom ought to be arrested, put on trial or was responsible for Dan Rather. Please link away.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #155 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Pretty much all I do is manage people be it education, landlording, etc.

So the answer is 'no,' you've never managed a staff.
post #156 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So the answer is 'no,' you've never managed a staff.

Teachers do manage other teachers. Are you claiming I've never been on a union, school or district committee that makes policy because I assure you I have.

I'll be happy to here your experiences managing staff and by that I don't mean your nether regions.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #157 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

You've moved the goalposts there tonton. You declared people weren't fired. They were. There was a whole initial round of firings and resignations.

Really?

Two people were jailed and one resigned, that's it.

And NI paid huge amounts of money to keep from coming out that hacking and other illegal activities were widespread at Notw. That was signed off on by James Murdoch, who denies being told about the "For Neville" email (which exposed this) even though his top lawyer for 26 years and the editor of the Notw say he knew.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #158 of 164
Tonton, I see your point. But at the same time you have to admit that there seems to be a systemic problem with the press that allows-encourages-fosters an unhealthy, hyper-competitive arena where people (most notably papparazzi, but not exclusively) are regularly breaking the law in order to receive big money payouts for media scoops.

This is happening all over the planet. To pin this exclusively all on a Murdoch because you hate Fox News seems really bizarre to me.

By all means if it can be proven that the father and son knew about the illegal activities and did nothing they should be held accountable. Seriously accountable. But what I'm seeing here is a bunch of people having a mass hate-on for people they disagree with ideologically, and whistling past the truth that the entire system seems to be breaking down.

I don't really want to restrict freedom of the press (even the liberal press) in any way, but clearly the situation is escalating from targeting celebs with telephoto lenses, then getting a British princess killed, to now invading the privacy of even regular folks.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #159 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Really?

Two people were jailed and one resigned, that's it.

And NI paid huge amounts of money to keep from coming out that hacking and other illegal activities were widespread at Notw. That was signed off on by James Murdoch, who denies being told about the "For Neville" email (which exposed this) even though his top lawyer for 26 years and the editor of the Notw say he knew.

That's a bit hard to read Hands, are you typing on something predictive?

Seriously can you see the difference between a smear and a fact?

Do you realize how much of these "news" articles are pure speculation. Let's take a look at that link above.

Here's the part that isn't pure nonsense, instead just speculation.

Quote:
News International had long maintained the eavesdropping was limited to a single rogue reporter and the private investigator he was working with to break into voice mails.

But an email uncovered during Taylor's lawsuit cast doubt on that claim. It contained a transcript of an illegally obtained conversation, drawn up by a junior reporter and marked "for Neville" an apparent reference to the News of the World's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck.

Because it seemed to implicate others in the hacking, the email had the potential to blow a hole through the fiercely held contention that one reporter alone had engaged in hacking. If James Murdoch knew about the email, it would lend weight to the suggestion he approved the payoff in an effort to bury the scandal.

James Murdoch told lawmakers Tuesday he knew nothing at the time, but former legal adviser Tom Crone and ex-editor Colin Myler contradicted him.

"We would like to point out that James Murdoch's recollection of what he was told when agreeing to settle the Gordon Taylor litigation was mistaken," they said. "In fact, we did inform him of the 'for Neville' email, which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor's lawyers."

Facts are underlined. Speculation is bolded with word meant to imply are italicized.

Having potential...lending weight....suggestions....contentions....those are not facts. The email wasn't sent to him. It doesn't claim he read it. It claims he was informed of it's existence.

Seriously, right or wrong, this is weak sauce. It's saying he had hearsay awareness of information never presented to him.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #160 of 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

That's a bit hard to read Hands, are you typing on something predictive?

Seriously can you see the difference between a smear and a fact?

Do you realize how much of these "news" articles are pure speculation. Let's take a look at that link above.

Here's the part that isn't pure nonsense, instead just speculation.



Facts are underlined. Speculation is bolded with word meant to imply are italicized.

Having potential...lending weight....suggestions....contentions....those are not facts. The email wasn't sent to him. It doesn't claim he read it. It claims he was informed of it's existence.

Seriously, right or wrong, this is weak sauce. It's saying he had hearsay awareness of information never presented to him.

Yeah I'm sure James Murdoch would have little interest in such an email.

Seriously, try and be fair and balanced just for once in your life.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Murdoch Scandal