|
Hong XiuQuan posted:So he's still on the committee? No, but he's not leaving because of the frontbench.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:No, but he's not leaving because of the frontbench.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
Zephro posted:So why is he leaving, do we know? Not yet, I've been told nothing apart from the Guardian article being wrong about the frontbench thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Not yet, I've been told nothing apart from the Guardian article being wrong about the frontbench thing. I can't believe he would have been booted off, but maybe I'm missing smoething.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
He's getting Jeremy Hunt's job. Clearly. He's been awarded one (1) internet and is off to claim it. He's off to an island with a duck on it. In that duck's egg is Rupert Murdoch's heart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 13:01
|
|
|
More on the earlier arrest, it includes a Sun journalistquote:Operation Elveden: Sun journalists and policeman held
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
In case you missed it in the last thread Derek Haslem, the undercover officer who worked at Southern Investigations, claiming Southern Investigations targeted "MPs, ministers, the Home Secretary" for blackmail and "influence"quote:Hurst - The point is that MPs, ministers, the Home Secretary, they were targets, and that information was communicated to your handlers. Now am I mad, or does that seem like quite a big deal? Because no-one is bloody reading it on my blog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:02
|
|
|
Why does Ian Hurst know so much about this? He was a army and MI5 man wasn't he not police?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:18
|
|
|
It seems like a massive deal to me, especially considering how difficult and long it has been to have anything like a proper investigation into Murdoch's activities. None of the TV news stations are coming anywhere near the angle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
madey posted:Why does Ian Hurst know so much about this? He was a army and MI5 man wasn't he not police? I get the feeling he's extremely good at what he does. One should avoid loving with a spy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
That's what I was saying about 'sweep it under the rug'. When things seem too horribly, cartoonishly big, people don't believe it. Republish it with a Sun style headline. "BLACK BAG BAGS WHITE BOXES" or something. Warcabbit fucked around with this message at 14:57 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:That's what I was saying about 'sweep it under the rug'. When things seem to horribly, cartoonishly big, people don't believe it. Working bit of Moses Magic on it as we speak, finger crossing time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Think someone meant to DM this Here's his followers
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
I recognise that name, he does photography for Eye Spy magazine (which is a great read)
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
On the court case issue I linked earlier, apparently there are still 2 cases going through the system in the USA, one in NYC and one in Delaware (in parallel, since the New York case cites Exchange Act illegalities). Neither has so far been thrown out, so potentially there are still 2 possibilities that a bunch of News Corp shareholders could have the board (R, J and C Murdoch) found culpable in devaluing the company by negligence over the phone hacking scandal. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?id=57147&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+'ANV' Do any of our American legal types have any further insight into this ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
More interesting stuff from iTraceUKquote:The Police have known since March 2011 that I have direct access - It was me that first confronted SOCA Re: OP Millipede Cont.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:In case you missed it in the last thread Derek Haslem, the undercover officer who worked at Southern Investigations, claiming Southern Investigations targeted "MPs, ministers, the Home Secretary" for blackmail and "influence" It bloody scares me silly to be perfectly honest. The thought of Murdoch quietly amassing a wealth of blackmail and influence in the shadows like CIA PTY LTD makes be deeply concerned for what he has done in Australia where he controls 70% of newspapers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
Ofcom have ruled that Sky is "fit and proper" despite pretty much every possible indication that they're not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 08:57
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:Ofcom have ruled that Sky is "fit and proper" despite pretty much every possible indication that they're not. It's a bit of a cop-out, but I think there's a warning in it: 'we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences.' Seems to me if more poo poo attaches to Sky this may change. *edit* the entire document is embedded in this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...es-Murdoch.html You can probably find it elsewhere. I had a quick read through it and it seems fairly reasonable. Ofcom basically saying that while JM and RM behaviour is relevant to whether or not they are fit and proper there are four obstacles: 1) Not enough evidence of direct involvement; 2) Not enough evidence of direct involvement affecting Sky; 3) While JM has influence over the board as a Director and Shareholder, there are other Directors as well which could have a moderating influence; and 4) Sky has a fairly clean regulatory sheet and has been successful for the last decade. Hong XiuQuan fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Sep 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
Apparently Tom Watson was saying that on the radio this morning with a nudge, heavily implicating that clause would soon be taken up due to the monstrous new revelations about Murdoch's outfits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 09:23
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:It's a bit of a cop-out, but I think there's a warning in it: 'we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences.' Ofcom did bring into question James Murdoch's leadership and mentioned that he's "repeatedly fallen short of the standard to be expected". But they made the right decision since there's no point punishing them for something not relevant to that sector (And possibly costing jobs). If the scandal had extended to Sky News, we would probably be reading a very different report.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 09:31
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:It's a bit of a cop-out, but I think there's a warning in it: 'we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences.' Yeah, the fit and proper thing would only come up if the NI takeover rears its head again (or the Murdochs increase their personal shareholdings in BSkyB). Sky is only part-owned by NI and there's no evidence (yet) that they've been involved in any of this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 09:37
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:If the scandal had extended to Sky News, we would probably be reading a very different report. But it did extend to sky news? There was a link in the last thread that contained email statements and reports from inside sky news admitting to hacking people's emails, and to "clean up" their expense reports.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 09:44
|
|
|
Tom Watson tweeted thisquote:On the day Ofcom publish their report, I understand an arrest has been made of a 30 year old journalist relating to a theft inquiry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 10:17
|
|
|
The Supreme Court posted:Apparently Tom Watson was saying that on the radio this morning with a nudge, heavily implicating that clause would soon be taken up due to the monstrous new revelations about Murdoch's outfits. He's on here at 2:25
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 10:34
|
|
|
Oh my poo poo if Sky News is implicated that's massive
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 11:04
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Yes, that's probably the best way of putting it. Think of me a Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams, and my blog being the baseball diamond he builds. The Supreme Court posted:Ofcom have ruled that Sky is "fit and proper" despite pretty much every possible indication that they're not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 11:09
|
|
|
Yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 11:11
|
|
|
I've heard nothing about Sky News, not sure if he's means they were directly involved in stuff or not, or it's a general News Corp thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 11:12
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I've heard nothing about Sky News, not sure if he's means they were directly involved in stuff or not, or it's a general News Corp thing. Really doubt any action will be taken against BSkyB in any case (by OfCom). I'm hoping shareholder action could be taken against the Murdochs - hit them hard in the US. Has Fox News been covering the story around this report?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 11:25
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:Really doubt any action will be taken against BSkyB in any case (by OfCom). I'm hoping shareholder action could be taken against the Murdochs - hit them hard in the US. Has Fox News been covering the story around this report? US shareholders are currently making an attempt to sue the Murdoch's for "Putting personal interests ahead of the company" Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:US shareholders are currently making an attempt to sue the Murdoch's for "Putting personal interests ahead of the company" Do shareholder lawsuits ever amount to anything? (Serious question; not being snarky.) VVV Sorry. 
prefect fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Sep 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 14:19
|
|
|
prefect posted:Do shareholder lawsuits ever amount to anything? (Serious question; not being snarky.) I may possibly have become invisible, because I posted about this twice already  however .. there is some recent precedent ..http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/Can_Strine_and_Castel_resolve_forum_fight_in_BofA_derivative_deal_/
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
I'm reading this as a bit of a "gently caress you" to Ofcomquote:James Murdoch set for key News Corp role, reports say More big Hackgate 2 developments are on the way for next week, so keep an eye out for those.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
What are the chances that he fucks up Foxnews in a way that leads to destruction of the american side of the business? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
Cao Ni Ma posted:What are the chances that he fucks up Foxnews in a way that leads to destruction of the american side of the business? As long as Aisles is in charge and given autonomy, that won't happen. But, Aisles is apparently retiring soon, irc...
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Apparently Louise Mensch has an article in The Times today; she literally has no shame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
She's horrible. Surprised she has time to write when juggling the heavy loads of being a submissive wife and failing at social media. (saying submissive here not as a misogynistic insult but because her rear end husband clearly gave her a choice brtween marriage and her political career)
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Hong XiuQuan posted:(saying submissive here not as a misogynistic insult but because her rear end husband clearly gave her a choice brtween marriage and her political career) That's quite the leap to make there. There were plenty of reasons for her to quit her seat, not least the looming prospect of her constituents sacking her first chance they get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
^^ Quite, she probably looked at Piers Morgan's career in the US and thought gently caress, if he can do it, no problem for me. Attractive, British accent, and ex political figure, she could get the talking head gig on all the news show circuit without much effort.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2012 09:05
|
|