The Murdoch Scandal - Page 3

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.

Having looked at this, the matter appears completely trivial.


Having watched it for a bit this morning, as is so often the case on the left, they focus a bunch of false rage on minutia instead of a real issue. Do you, as an example, think the layperson is going to be upset about whether the head of News Corp knew whether people on retainer had considered the tax ramifications of payouts?

Try to work up some rage over that.


Did anyone find exactly how these phones were hacked into? Was it SIM cloning? Were they simply dialing up the voicemail and discovering that most laypeople probably aren't smart enough to activate and change their pin away from something like the last four digits of their phone number? I haven't found anything explaining how the hacking was done.

They hacked the voicemail of murder victims in ongoing police enquiries, and deleted messages. They hacked the voicemail of British war dead, 7/7 victims, the Royal Family, and nearly four thousand others.

They paid policemen for information, including telephone cell triangulations.

They lied to a Parliamentary enquiry.

And that's without the allegations of hush money and theft, which are sub judice.

Of course, this is trivial.

If you're a total fucking hypocritical dickhead.

That's a lot of pronouns, especially since you aren't so good with your quantifiers.

Perhaps you should go have a cold shower before you pop a blood vessel or two.

Tell you what.

Ignore the content of my post and concentrate on me, personally.

It might just make your comment about this being "trivial", to which I was responding, a little less embarrassing.

Someone just tried to hurt and/or arrest R. Murdoch...someone in pink, I believe....just happened.....She was fought off. They are in recess for 10 mins.


Update: it was a man who was fought off by Murdoch's wife. He now has some sort of white crap on his face. WTF?

Nice security there UK government. Your hearing trying to establish competence was just blown by the complete lack of having any of your own to demonstrate.

I've been watching part of the replay up to the "incident" on ABCNews. This "phone hacking" is exactly what I thought it happened to be. The female questioner notes that Piers Morgan (now employed by CNN and good luck on them firing him even though he admitted to it) described the process just like I thought it would be.

They called the number of the respondent, and entered the standard pin to access the voicemail box. In almost every case the pin is the last four digits of the phone number and I guess they took advantage of the people who didn't change it.

So I guess that makes it okay that they did it then. Case closed.

I'm not saying it is just fine but it is certainly not out of character for the media in general and I highly doubt News Corp organizations are the first and only ones to do this.

Ever see a news story feature Facebook photos that someone didn't set privacy permissions for? Viewed a news story featuring a photo shot through an open window or in a location presumed to be private but perhaps not due to long distance lenses? How are these any different and I see these often and certainly not from News Corp alone.

Murdoch (and associates) are too well connected, too wealthy and too privileged to be punished by the system within which they have so much influence.

Final Result of the Murdoch Fiasco: A couple of suits in middle management will take the rap for this, end of story. Remember Abu Ghraib, so many years ago? The top people in the NewsCorp chain of command, where the buck should stop, will get off, unscathed.

That's reality, the way of the world, whether we like it or not.

SDW and Trumptman will, no doubt, be smugly satisfied at the future outcome.

If governments did not have the power and control over our lives that they do, people like Murdoch could not have the influence and privilege they do.

Huge multi-national corporations are using government force and coercion to protect their own best interests.

And more breaking news.

Neil Wallis, former deputy editor of the News of the World, was arrested last week in the hacking investigation.

It turns out he was advising David Cameron's Director of Communications before the election.

It also turns out that Yates, the Police commissioner who resigned two days ago, got a job at the Met for Wallis' daughter.

Cameron's in the shit, and Conservative Party are releasing a statement any minute.

Literally attacked from the left.

I wonder if all the wonderful questioners who asked about resignation will resign themselves now for allowing such lax security during their questioning.

The people of on the street can choose whether to watch or read a News Corp property and can choose never to trust it or simple label it as dishonest. When can thy do that with their government?

An excellent analogy drawn by a commentator on BBC news that it doesn't matter that R Murdoch says he didn't have a clue, this was finally getting that war criminal into court even though they are now near to death. Wonderfull stuff! And of course it's no defense.

Did I misunderstand you?

Are you saying Murdoch is a war criminal?

Body language-

"For long periods of time James was definitely in the driver's seat, and this showed in his relaxed muscle tonus and his easy manner of speaking. He was consistently polite, although there were moments when his irritation became apparent.

At least five members of the committee managed to rub him up the wrong way evidenced by the fact that, while looking at each of them, he surreptitiously and briefly pushed out his tongue. This is an infantile gesture of rejection, which owes its origins to the baby's habit of protruding the tongue in order to expel the mother's breast from its mouth. James Murdoch wasn't aware that he was rejecting the committee members in this way, and nor were they."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog...kah-brooks-mps

Probably not.

In Britain, the job of security and policing is not performed by Members of Parliament. We pay "the police" to do that. Sometimes private "security officers" do these jobs, too.

I understand from your fucking stupid question that in America, congressmen and women are responsible for the security arrangements in government inquiries?

You should do what we do in Britain, and give the job to "the Police."


In Britain, we have "elections", when "the people of on the street" can "vote" to "change" the government.

We call it "democracy."

In Britain it is a crime to listen to the voicemail of the families of war dead and murdered children, and then publish news stories based on those messageseven for right wing newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch!

I know.

Oh but Mr. Representitive, don't you believe the buck stops at the top? Aren't you an active and engaged leader who communicates with all your subordinates and their respective branches and doesn't the responsibility ultimately fall to you?

That is the entire premise of this line of questioning that Murdoch spent the day addressing. It isn't as if he personally "hacked" into the voicemail accounts himself.

It's sort of fun watching you turn purple with rage though dealing with the irony. It makes me think of Prince.

I mean this Prince of course.



Not this Prince.




Is it a crime to be the head of an organization where someone commits these offenses, uncovers these offenses or employed someone who engaged in these offenses though?

See, that is where you have a bit of trouble.

Ah, no, you see, Members of Parliament are elected to discuss what we call "legislation" and "the concerns of their constituents" and questions of "governance."

The Police handle what we call "policing" and "security."

Parliament is not a private businesslike, say, a newspaper company, which has a CEO responsible under the legal obligations of what is sometimes called "corporate responsibility", who makes "appointments" for people to "work for him."

Members of Parliament don't appoint policemen. Other policemen do that.

I understand that in America things might be different (unless you are making an extremely foolish point for the sake of it?)

The left-wing comedy show continues. Do you seriously not realize the irony here?

Do you not understand the principles by which Murdoch is being asked to account for the actions of those paid by him?

Do you not understand that MPs and the police are completely separate branches of the state and that MPs do not appoint policemen?

Did you have a problem reading and understanding the post you were replying to?

Do you find it impossible to write anything without the words the left in it?

Why dont you take the day off and look at a view?

He absolutely gets it. He has to live with it. The principles of course are a one way street. Only the movers of the world are held accountable. The needy and thus the truly greedy are never accountable by virtue of their need.

Do you understand that MPs do not appoint the police either?

Do you also not understand that the police and Members of Parliament are separate branches of the state?

MPs do not appoint the police. MPs are not responsible for security in the Houses of Parliaments. Because thats what the police are paid for.

Ill just keep repeating these basic facts for as long as you persist in your stupid crap, and well leave your precious lurkers to make their own minds up about your reading comprehension and your ability to engage with simple facts. No problem for me.

Did Murdoch personally appoint any of the hackers?

Do you think Murdoch personally hired the private detectives, reporters or has personally even spoken the vast majority of of his employees?


Do you not understand that Murdoch owns multiple media organizations in multiple countries and there is no way he can really know what is going on with every person?


Yes but it isn't about who appoints, it is about where the buck stops. Who funds the security? Who regulates and crafts the policy for the security in the House of Parliaments?

Also this isn't some minor lapse. This isn't someone shouting from an audience area, unraveling some sign or attempting to grab someone as they walk through a common and public area. This man walked up right up to Murdoch and the point is he could have done the same to any of the questioning MP's as well. It is a world class fuck up you refuse to even mentally engage. If President Obama were giving a speech and Where's Waldo came wandering in front of the teleprompter with a pie, it would be seen as a big deal. It isn't about how big or small Murdoch happens to be. It is about someone waltzing into the middle of the questioning in a flannel shirt carrying a pie and no one doing anything about it.

This meeting is supposed to be those who protect and make the rules asking someone about broken rules. Only they clearly can't protect and their rules clearly didn't work so really who will they be to judge competence when they are so incompetent themselves.



This is what it sounds like, when doves cry.

I know I've been consistent here. Have you?

BTW, are we certain that the general police are responsible for Parliamentary Security in the UK?

In Canada, that is the responsibility of the Speaker's Office, which answers to the House.

The left needs help.

The above is what I mean by unhinged. No one is questioning how wrong these actions were. What people who are not batshit crazy want to know is who knew what, and when? It is not reasonable to believe that the Murdochs nor executives even several levels below then knew about this, authorized it, etc. There has been no evidence that anyone above mid-level managers and editors knew about this. People who are not hyperventilating like you realize that those who are responsible should be punished, and that this should not be an opportunity for revenge by the government and Murdoch's media competitors.


Punished for what?


Funny how the buck stops at the top only when we're talking about conservatives. I don't see you calling for Obama's resignation at the killing of civilians in Afghanistan, after all.


More sammi jo ad hominem bullshit. I am interested in seeing those who committed and/or authorized and/or covered-up the wrongdoing punished, and nothing more. Given what happened, it's hard to imagine that I'll be "satisfied."


Uh...why?

No punishment here. It's only eight billion or so. Why that's less than out government will print up and borrow this week.

"Rupert Murdoch's NI has been found by a parliamentary committee to have "deliberately" tried to block a Scotland Yard criminal investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World, the Guardian has learned.

The report by MPs from the all-party home affairs committee will be released on Wednesday and its publication has been moved forward in time for today's statement by prime minister David Cameron on the scandal.

The report's central finding comes a day after Rupert and James Murdoch testified before the culture, media and sport committee.

The home affairs committee report marks an official damning judgment on News International's actions.

It finds the company deliberately tried to "thwart" the 2005-6 Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking carried out by the News of the World.

The police investigation came at a time when Andy Coulson was editor. Coulson went on to be chosen by Cameron to be his director of communications, before resigning in January.

The home affairs committee appears to have been convinced by evidence from senior officers who were involved in the case that News International obstructed justice."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...-investigation

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

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.


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.


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.

Uh...why?[/QUOTE]

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?

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?

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.

Thanks for your weird, illogical post.

In Britain, the police and the House of Commons are separate structures of the state. MPs do not appoint policemen.

Maybe it's different in America, and congresspeople appoint policemen and women, and so they always take responsibility for individual examples of police corruption and malfeasance and negligence? I suppose if you get your house burgled, you can sue your congressman?

Well, that doesn't happen in Britain, because MPs and the police are separate branches of the state, and MPs do not appoint policemen. As I've now told you three times.

We can compare to a private business. A newspaper company, say. Where the head might appoint a former editor he considers "the daughter I never had" to the most senior role in a company. If that former editor were then arrested and questioned on charges of Intercepting Communications and Corruption, the state might institute an inquiry and summon that man to ask him questions, especially if he were attempting a takeover of a satellite tv company that would give him 40% of the British media.

Please, keep asking your stupid question. It will give me great pleasure to keep repeating these simple facts and continuing your embarrassment.

Yes, the Parliamentary inquiry has found that News Corp’s British arm News International, headed by Rebekah Brooks, former editor of The News of the World, “deliberately blocked the police investigation.”

This is a serious crime, and prosecution will follow. If they find that James Murdoch instigated this, I expect that he’ll be prosecuted.

Here's the report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/inte...ws-corporation