Quantcast
Murdoch's Scum Credentials All In Order I See - Page 43 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Anubis

Murdoch's Scum Credentials All In Order I See

Recommended Posts

Someone fucking put it to Brooks properly.

 

If the Dowler story was so big, and you were involved, and deputy editors were involved, and journalists were involved, and the lawyers checked the sources of the information, are you seriously.... .....I mean, SERIOUSLY telling this committee that either a) you did not know about the hacking, or b) the lawyers didn't bring it to your attention? SERIOUSLY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jon Snow
You got negged for being a dribbling fucking spastic.

 

See brave internet warrior love it.Tho you look like you just won spelling bee contest !

 

Any ways wanna talk to me do it in my message board you wet fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost all faith in select committees being able to deal with anyone who's not a civil servant & therefore frightened of them.

 

Time for Lulz Sec to release Sun emails proving that they're also up to their necks in it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lost all faith in select committees being able to deal with anyone who's not a civil servant & therefore frightened of them.

 

Time for Lulz Sec to release Sun emails proving that they're also up to their necks in it

 

I questioned the postman on his denials about having no elastic bands tougher when I was a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brooks has a lot of hair!

 

I'd smash her.

 

Also, regarding the custard pie being thrown at Rupert Murdoch on live tv. Apparently, the clown prosecution service will be investigating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest davelfc
I'd smash her.

 

Also, regarding the custard pie being thrown at Rupert Murdoch on live tv. Apparently, the clown prosecution service will be investigating.

 

Loved the freudian slip when the sky presenter called it 'shaming foam'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr clown pie has got a blog: Anarch*ish*

 

How to win at kettling – a guide for non-policemen

During the second half of 2010 an exciting and physically challenging new urban sport broke out of the sub-cultures and into the big time. Kettling, once the preserve of climate activists, anarchists and anti-fascists, took the student world by storm throughout the winter, and is now set to hit the mainstream in 2011 with trade-unionists, benefit claimants, evictees, the disabled and anyone else who gives a flying fuck about their fellow human beings all set to get involved. The first match of the year is scheduled for Saturday, 29th of January, and both TSG and protesters are limbering up ahead of the big game.

 

But how, exactly, do you play kettling? Well, first you'll need to split into two teams – attackers and defenders. Team A, the defenders, will be formed of disparate groups of individuals with broadly similar but occasionally conflicting aims. So as to best identify themselves, they should wear hoodies, masks and an expression of determined optimism. For Team A the aim of the game is to remain free and at liberty for as long as possible while expressing their opposition to the status quo.

 

The offensive team, Team B, will be smaller in number, better armed, and dressed like angry glowsticks. The aim of the game for Team B is to trap Team A in as small a space as possible and stop them from leaving, thereby eliminating their right to free expression.

 

So far, Team A has suffered from a lack of training and equipment, as well as the fact that the rules were written by Team B, and breaches of even these rules are frequently ignored by the Federation International de Kettling Association, or “IPCC” as it is commonly known. For example, whilst Queensbury rules state that a sterile cordon can only be created in response to violence or breaches of public order, it is now routine for Team B to justify kettling in response to the perceived or imagined threats that these things may occur. This unsportsmanlike innovation means that some tactics previously used by Team A – such as not breaking the law – are unlikely to prevent Team B from kettling them anyway.

 

One thing that does play in Team A's favor is sheer numerical superiority. At it’s core, kettling is a struggle between a small, well equipped force trying to surround a much larger group. The principle is one which has been used throughout history, most notably by Hannibal at the battle of Cannae. By encircling his enemies within as tight a space as possible, Hannibal was able to create a front line where he actually outnumbered his opponents, despite their greater numbers, whilst simultaneously creating panic within their trapped ranks.

 

This is precisely the situation Team A wants to avoid. To do so, they should make good use of one simple concept that any GCSE biologists reading will be familiar with – surface area to volume ratio. The larger the space Team A occupies, the harder it will be for them to be kettled. At the beginning of a march this could mean starting at multiple rally points, or splitting up soon after setting off. It also means moving quickly, as a fast moving, albeit chaotic group covers more ground and occupies more space than a slow and orderly one. In fact, it makes sense to move unpredictably as this makes it harder for team B to spring an ambush, and also spreads the message to people who would not normally get to see dissent on their streets. In France, where this tactic has been popular for some time, it is sometimes called a “wild protest”

 

Team A might ultimately want to make their voice heard in a place of geographical significance – parliament square or Millbank for example. When this happens, Team A will probably get kettled. This may divide Team A into two groups, one inside and one outside of the kettle. Try to set up a secondary or tertiary rally point for groups outside of the kettle to converge at – this will prove useful later.

 

To best defend against the coming kettle, Team A should spread out as widely as possible within their rally space. This will both thin Team B's lines and create a more comfortable atmosphere for all involved. Depending on the situation, particularly on the number of people in Team A, Team B will either kettle geographically or physically. The former is the nicer kind of kettle, where there will be probably be lots of free space and individuals may even be allowed to leave freely, though not as a group. The latter tactic – sometimes known as “hyper-kettling” involves Team B crushing Team A into as tight a space as possible, using violence to squeeze people into an abnormally, sometimes dangerously cramped space. This is horrible.

 

To prevent hyper-kettling occurring, Team A should keep an eye on the body language and positions of Team B. Unlike Team A, who are free to do as they wish, Team B can only act under orders from one of their team captains, so if you see them moving in a group, putting on helmets, changing their stance or otherwise altering their behaviour, that means an order's been given. Try and ask yourself: what was that order? Was it part of a strategy? What will they do next?

 

If members of Team A see a kettle forming, the best thing to do is get beyond Team B's lines as quickly as possible. At the start of a kettle's formation these lines are usually weak and can be darted through. Shouting about the kettle is a good idea. Waiting for others to react to it isn't – the best way to convince others to leave is to lead by example. In any case, you will be more use outside than inside, as kettles are easier to break from the back of the line. Once out of the danger zone, use social media like Twitter and the new sukey.org website to inform your teammates of what’s going on.

 

For those left inside the kettle, it is imperative Team A fills as much space as possible, quickly. Getting those around you to join in is vital. Grab onto people and link arms tightly to form chains and encourage others to do likewise. You could also sit down, though this makes it harder to push back against police lines, and it will be easy for the police to tighten their cordon should you at any point be forced to stand up. Indeed, Team B may be happy to kettle a crowd sat on freezing concrete for as long as that crowd is willing to stay sat still. Still, at least you'll have some space.

 

Whether you are in a physical or geographical kettle, Team A pros will only have one thing on their mind: breaking out. Breaking out is one of the most challenging and rewarding parts of kettling, and freeing your teammates from an illegal and inhumane open prison is one of the most empowering things you can do as a player. To break out successfully, Team A must choose a weak spot in Team B's offense, pick the right moment, and then concentrate as much force as possible in that location. Good spots to target are places where the lines are only one or two glowsticks deep, or where more inexperienced members of Team B are playing. In London an organization called the Territorial Support Group are Team B's “A-Team”, to use a deliberately confusing metaphor. As well as the usual giveaways of riot shields and helmets, TSG members have a letter U on their lapels – this stands for “Utter fucking bellends”. The TSG is limited in size and for big games large numbers of other players – normal bobbies without riot training - will be brought off the subs bench. Keep an eye on who knows what their doing and who doesn't.

 

A good play from Team A will see them focusing their energy on a point where opposition players have the least direct access to their teammates – in a geographical kettle this might mean the edge of a line beside a wall or van, in a physical kettle it is simply the point furthest from reinforcements.

 

Timing is crucial. While it is generally best to wait until you can apply the maximum possible force to a weak point before rushing in, sometimes opportunities appear that are likely to be short lived. Acting swiftly and decisively in these situations can break the kettle.

 

The aim of focusing energy on one point is to create a gap in the line which can then be opened as wide as possible. One good way of doing this is to form a wedge or triangle shape, with the player at the front opening the space and allowing a fan of other players to spread it as they follow behind them. This is easier in geographic kettles than physical one, but in either case the structure will be more effective if players link arms and build momentum before reaching Team B's lines. Keep a look out for groups with home made shields, helmets and padding – they are likely to be looking for ways to break the kettle. You can help these Team A pros by allowing them to move through the crowd, then sticking close behind them.

 

If Team A has become split it can be very effective for those outside the kettle to push into Team B's lines from the outside whilst those within the kettle do the same from within. If a small group has escaped just as the kettle was forming they have the opportunity to put pressure on the kettle from the outside just when it is at its weakest. Keep in contact via phones, SMS, Twitter, Sukey etc. Also, use your eyes and ears – they may be old technology, but they’re surprisingly effective.

 

If all has gone according to plan, you will hopefully spend this Saturday breaking in and out of kettles across London. However, it’s not impossible that the day will end in a disheartening stalemate, with protesters being slowly dripped out of a kettle over many hours. Remember, in these situations the police do not have the right to take your details – not even your name – unless there has been a “Section 50” introduced. Officers WILL attempt to blag it. This includes straight out lying to you about their powers and threatening you with illegal arrest. Look around for a legal observer – these guys are awesome and will put the police in their place.

 

Finally, though kettling is a fun and addictive sport, it does have its dangers. Anarchish recommends you always wear the proper equipment while playing – knee and shoulder pads are recommended, and ideally a helmet as well. Carpet or foam can be used to provide extra padding underneath your clothes, which should be warm and comfy. Bring lots of food and water – I recommend “Mr. Tom” bars for food as they are cheap, lightweight, high in energy and fucking buff. Also, you can get them from most newsagents. Bringing extra food, water and hot drinks is a recipe for instant popularity.

 

Remember: kettling is not ultimately about stopping violence or disorder. It is about discouraging protest, about punishing people for having the audacity to stand up against the state. Do not give in to it. Be brave, be bold, be prepared - and play to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Watson pinned down son and dad today and they just stonewalled him with Rupert seemingly relying on the Altheizmers defence and James claiming to not know what was going on within Notw. Lots of false humility but like most witnesses refusing to name names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politically murkier and murkier:

 

Neil Wallis advised Andy Coulson before election

Conservative party sources say advice had nothing to do with phone-hacking inquiry

 

Daniel Boffey, policy editor

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 18.42 BST

 

Neil Wallis, a former News of the World executive, was employed by the Metropolitan police as a communications adviser despite the phone-hacking allegations.

 

The former News of the World deputy editor arrested last week over allegations of phone hacking was an adviser to the Conservative party before the election.

 

Neil Wallis helped the prime minister's director of communications, Andy Coulson, in 2009, as they prepared for the general election campaign.

 

A source said Wallis worked on a "short term project" believed to have lasted around a week although he did not receive payment.

 

It is understood Wallis, who was Coulson's deputy when he edited the News of the World, was advising on how best to get coverage in tabloid newspapers on a "specific" policy proposal.

 

It is not known whether Wallis attended Conservative party central headquarters and the party would not disclose details about the issue on which he worked. A party source insisted, however, that it had nothing to do with phone hacking. "It was uncontroversial", he added.

 

A Tory party spokesman said Wallis's involvement emerged over the weekend when the party was asked by a journalist whether the former tabloid executive had ever been paid for work by the party.

 

He added that the prime minister was only made aware of Wallis's work in recent days.

 

The spokesman said: "It has been drawn to our attention that he [Wallis] may have provided Andy Coulson with some informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election. We are currently finding out the exact nature of any advice.

 

"We can confirm that apart from Andy Coulson, neither David Cameron nor any senior member of the campaign team were aware of this until this week."

 

The shadow culture secretary, Ivan Lewis, said: "This revelation raises further serious concerns about David Cameron's judgment in appointing Andy Coulson.

 

"He must now come clean about Neil Wallis's role and activities in supporting Andy Coulson, both in his capacity as director of communications for the Tory party, and then the prime minister."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone hacking: emails show Cameron aide 'stopped' briefing

John Yates names Downing Street chief of staff as official who told Met 'not to compromise' PM by raising phone hacking

 

Hélène Mulholland and Matthew Taylor

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 17.41 BST

 

Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff, has been named in the phone-hacking hearing as the official who asked the Met not to compromise the PM.

 

David Cameron's chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, stopped Scotland Yard briefing the prime minister on the phone-hacking scandal in September 2010, a senior police officer has told a panel of MPs.

 

John Yates, the Met assistant commissioner who was in charge of the review of evidence into phone hacking in 2009 and who quit on Monday, told MPs that Cameron's chief of staff told him it was not appropriate for him to brief the prime minister on the hacking investigation, adding: "And I'd be grateful if it wasn't raised".

 

The revelation came in a day of high drama as two select committees held separate evidence sessions on the phone-hacking scandal that has engulfed the media, the police and Westminster over the past two weeks.

 

The claim was made after it emerged last week that Llewellyn also failed to pass on Guardian warnings to Cameron about the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson over hacking and his connections to Jonathan Rees, a private detective then facing charges for conspiracy to murder.

 

Despite the warnings Llewellyn took the judgment that the information was already substantially contained in news reports in the public domain.

 

Downing Street released copies of the email exchange between Llewellyn and Yates on Tuesday. Yates, referring to the hacking scandal, offered "to have a conversation in the margins around the other matters" that had caught his attention that week.

 

Llewellyn replied: "On the other matters that have caught your attention this week, assuming we are thinking of the same thing, I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject."

 

Cameron's chief of staff added: "I don't think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No 10, to discuss this issue with you, and would be grateful if it were not raised please."

 

Sir Paul Stephenson, the outgoing Metropolitan police commissioner and the first witness of the day, told MPs that he had been advised by a senior Downing Street official not to risk "compromising" the prime minister by disclosing to his office information related to the phone-hacking scandal, but was unable to name him.

 

Stephenson made the claim as he sought to explain one of the reasons he would not have notified No 10 about the part-time Met police contract awarded to Neil Wallis, the former deputy director of the News of the World who worked at the paper when former No 10 communications chief Andy Coulson edited it.

 

The outgoing commissioner said he regretted the fact Wallis was hired by the Met. He also said he had not told the prime minister that Wallis worked for the Met as a PR consultant before Wallis's name had become linked with phone hacking because he had "no reason to".

 

"I had no reason to connect Wallis with phone hacking. I had no reason to doubt his impropriety. Nothing had come to my attention," said Stephenson.

 

However, he said that once Wallis's name did come up, it seemed "eminently sensible not to impugn the character of the prime minister but to actually consider: is it right to allow anyone to ask any questions later because I'd given him operational information that someone could suggest that, because of his relationship with Coulson and Coulson's relationship with Wallis, that somehow that could open up some charge of impropriety."

 

He added: "Actually a senior official at No 10 guided us that actually we should not compromise the prime minister, and it seems to me to be entirely sensible."

 

Pressed by chair Keith Vaz to name the official, Stephenson said during a 90-minute grilling that Yates should be able to name the official.

 

Later giving evidence to the panel of MPs for a second time in eight days, Yates said when asked to name any official who had said the prime minister and home secretary should be protected from information relating to the phone-hacking scandal, that officials are "always trying to protect their principles from these things."

 

In a session which overlapped with a star billing of Rupert and James Murdoch over at the culture committee, he said there were "very rare occasions" when the prime minister would be briefed on policing operational matters and these usually related to national security or counter-terrorism matters.

 

Pressed on whether there was a "decision" not to tell the prime minister about matters relating to the phone-hacking scandal, Yates said: "There was an offer in the early part of September 2010 for me to put into context some of the nuances around police language in terms of what a scoping is, what an assessment is, what launching an investigation is. [it] was an offer to a senior official within number 10 to say should that be desirable I'm prepared to do it."

 

It was at this point that Yates said under questioning that the official in question was Cameron's chief of staff. "It was simply an offer to explain what scoping meant and what it could lead to."

 

Asked how the offer was received, Yates said the offer was "understandably and properly rejected".

 

He insisted he would not have disclosed "any operational matters" relating to the case. "It was an offer to explain police protocol, " he said.

 

Pressed further by Labour's Bridget Phillipson on whether he gave any reason for declining the offer, Yates said the email exchange with Llewellyn had been brief. "Ed, for whatever reason and I think I understand it, didn't think it was appropriate for him, the prime minister or anyone else in Number 10 to discuss this issue with you and I would be grateful it if wasn't raised."

 

The email exchange between John Yates and Ed Llewellyn 10 September 2010:

 

Ed,

 

Hope all well.

 

I am coming over to see the PM at 12.30 today regarding [redacted: national security] matters. I am very happy to have a conversation in the margins around the other matters that have caught my attention this week if you thought it would be useful.

 

Best wishes,

 

John

 

Response:

 

10 September 2010: Ed Llewellyn to John Yates

 

John -

 

Thanks - all well.

 

On the other matters that have caught your attention this week, assuming we are thinking of the same thing, I am sure you will understand that we will want to be able to be entirely clear, for your sake and ours, that we have not been in contact with you about this subject.

 

So I don't think it would really be appropriate for the PM, or anyone else at No 10, to discuss this issue with you, and would be grateful if it were not raised please.

 

But the PM looks forward to seeing you, with Peter Ricketts and Jonathan Evans, purely on [redacted: national security] matters at 1230.

 

With best wishes,

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jon Snow
Hey u negged me u prat. dont to it again.

 

I did but you was the last one i did before I am changing my policy.When I recharge I rep you.No More hate coming from this mouse unless its really deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×