Murdoch's Scum Credentials All In Order I See

[lifetime fan]

The resignation of the Met commissioner. One of the reasons he gave was he didn't think it was right to be in his position while have all this shit going on in the run up to the Olympics.

 

An Olympic sized pool full of bullshit.

 

Arse protection mode till the very end!

[Paul]

Red Ken on BBC saying Stephenson had to go because he was either complicit or not in control of his own senior officers. Also saying other officers need to go.

[Anubis]

Two possible swipes at Cameron in there,

 

1. The reference to despicable practices in the newspaper industry and beyond;

 

2. The reference to Wallis not being under investigation when he was appointed, unlike Andy Coulson.

 

This resignation puts Yates in a difficult position.

 

Incredible how the last two weeks have unfolded.

[Trucker Paddy]

It's really all quite exciting ain't it?

[Paul]

Ken ripping into Boris now saying Ken was invited to one News International meal during his eight years as mayor and yet Boris has been out with them five times since this issue came to light. He questioned whether Boris would accept a dinner invitation from a suspected armed robber in the same way as he's accepted invitations from this lot.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Free press. It's an interesting statement. Free to do what? Having a free press shouldn't mean it's free to do what it likes, it should be free from interference by agents wanting to shape the media reporting to favour them. Whether that's in the form of a politician wanting to gain support for their campaign, or big business wanting to sway public opinion. However, it must also be held to a high standard. Fox News? Not here, thanks. That's not free press, that's propaganda masquerading as news. It should also be free from being a one man mouth piece to persuade the citizens to vote against their best interest.

 

The press must work in favour of the citizens. Getting Sun voters, for example, to vote Conservative is just a massive breech of ethics to me. The sort who buy the Sun are not the sort who are going to benefit from Conservatism. Actually, I don't think they should be allowed to support any party.

 

That's not to say there shouldn't be opinion, of course. There should be a mix of opinions, not just 'vote Labour' or 'Vote Tory'. It's bollocks. Some of the stuff in the Mirror borders on propaganda, too.

 

I back Cameron's call for an Independent regulator, with real teeth. I don't think self-regulation is a viable option any more.

[Paul]

It's really all quite exciting ain't it?

 

It's now starting to look as if - unlike in the cases of the banking and MPs' expenses scandals - genuine justice may well be served. I don't think anyone will be dodging any bullets here, if any are coming their way. Too many serious and independent investigations going on into it all (I'm referring to the likes of the BBC, Channel 4 News and The Guardian as much as the select committee and police investigations).

[Section_31]

He may have resigned so he can't be compelled to cooperate with any non-criminal investigations or MP panel hearings. Could be why fucknuts was arrested today too. Or maybe I just watch too much telly.

[Paul]

Fuck me, these cunts just don't get it, do they? Boris fucking Johnson saying Stephenson hasn't actually done anything wrong and is going for honourable reasons. Why don't they see Britain's most senior police officer accepting a free holiday worth thousands of pounds as being wrong in any way? All these cunts in power think they're above the law, don't they? Or any notion of moral and ethical propriety at least.

[Dougie Do'ins]

He may have resigned so he can't be compelled to cooperate with any non-criminal investigations or MP panel hearings. Could be why fucknuts was arrested today too. Or maybe I just watch too much telly.

Meet me on the grassy knoll opposite the book depository and we can discuss this further. Come alone.

[Anubis]

Apart from anything else, I don't think Stephenson was quite getting the whole 'free £12,000's worth of treatment in a health spa' being a seriously questionable act for a top public servant.

[Paul]

Apart from anything else, I don't think Stephenson was quite getting the whole 'free £12,000's worth of treatment in a health spa' being a seriously questionable act for a top public servant.

 

Exactly. The entire fucking establishment in this country thinks it's bullet proof: the bankers, the gutter media, the private educated career politicians and the fucking Feds. It's a steaming pile of shit and I hope the whole thing comes crashing down on the lot of them.

[Einch]

Exactly. The entire fucking establishment in this country thinks it's bullet proof: the bankers, the gutter media, the private educated career politicians and the fucking Feds. It's a steaming pile of shit and I hope the whole thing comes crashing down on the lot of them.

 

Aye. Bunch of cunts to the last but I just don't see too many of them getting what would be their just desserts for this. I think many of them may well escape when the economy visibly craters later this year and that becomes the leading news story.

[piscinin]

Free press. It's an interesting statement. Free to do what? Having a free press shouldn't mean it's free to do what it likes, it should be free from interference by agents wanting to shape the media reporting to favour them. Whether that's in the form of a politician wanting to gain support for their campaign, or big business wanting to sway public opinion. However, it must also be held to a high standard. Fox News? Not here, thanks. That's not free press, that's propaganda masquerading as news. It should also be free from being a one man mouth piece to persuade the citizens to vote against their best interest.

 

The press must work in favour of the citizens. Getting Sun voters, for example, to vote Conservative is just a massive breech of ethics to me. The sort who buy the Sun are not the sort who are going to benefit from Conservatism. Actually, I don't think they should be allowed to support any party.

 

That's not to say there shouldn't be opinion, of course. There should be a mix of opinions, not just 'vote Labour' or 'Vote Tory'. It's bollocks. Some of the stuff in the Mirror borders on propaganda, too.

 

I back Cameron's call for an Independent regulator, with real teeth. I don't think self-regulation is a viable option any more.

 

To regulate just the press is to miss the point IMO. What needs to be regulated is the relationship between the press, the police and the politicians. Until there is a clear separation, interests will continue to become entangled as they have done for the last decade or so.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

To regulate just the press is to miss the point IMO. What needs to be regulated is the relationship between the press, the police and the politicians. Until there is a clear separation, interests will continue to become entangled as they have done for the last decade or so.

 

That's clearly the intended role of any new, independent regulator. What isn't, and can't be regulated is secret payments to police. It's already against the law. There's very little that can be done. I agree that it's a problem, but it's also a possibility that everything that can be done by a regulator will be done by any new body.

[Section_31]

To regulate just the press is to miss the point IMO. What needs to be regulated is the relationship between the press, the police and the politicians. Until there is a clear separation, interests will continue to become entangled as they have done for the last decade or so.

 

I think it goes deeper than that. It's a class thing too. The political and media class are interwoven and are made up of people from similar backgrounds, educations and world views. It's an extremely powerful and dangerous cabal. The glorification of wealth and power is an issue in itself, that applies to MPs who feel it's okay to fiddle their expense to move up the property ladder, or for senior police officers to accept trips to expensive country retreats.

 

It's a form of fascism in a sense. When people think of fascism they think of boots and military uniforms, when in actual fact the concept is far simpler. Facism in my view is about having insurmountable power concentrated among an elite for the purposes of their own personal gain, and of using that power to seduce the people who can protect it, share in it or expand it at the expense of those who aren't lucky enough to be in their club.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I think it goes deeper than that. It's a class thing too. The political and media class are interwoven and are made up of people from similar backgrounds, educations and world views. It's an extremely powerful and dangerous cabal. The glorification of wealth and power is an issue in itself, that applies to MPs who feel it's okay to fiddle their expense to move up the property ladder, or for senior police officers to accept trips to expensive country retreats.

 

It's a form of fascism in a sense. When people think of fascism they think of boots and military uniforms, when in actual fact the concept is far simpler. Facism in my view is about having insurmountable power concentrated among an elite for the purposes of their own personal gain, and of using that power to seduce the people who can protect it, share in it or expand it at the expense of those who aren't lucky enough to be in their club.

 

And there's only a few ways to break up that elite of power, isn't there. Murdoch might go, but somebody else will step in. Cameron might be forced out, but somebody else will step in with the same connections. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Section_31]

And there's only a few ways to break up that elite of power, isn't there. Murdoch might go, but somebody else will step in. Cameron might be forced out, but somebody else will step in with the same connections. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

I fear you could be right.

 

Britain needs a Caesar.

[Anubis]

Charlie Brooker | Rupert Murdoch: what will MPs do without someone to fear? | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

 

Rupert Murdoch: what will MPs do without someone to fear?

 

Britain's politicians have reacted to Murdoch's troubles like medieval villagers realising that God may not exist

 

You know the liberating feeling when someone unpopular leaves the room and everyone breathes a sigh of relief before openly discussing how much they dislike them? I don't. What's it like? What do people say? I only ever catch the odd whisper as the door shuts behind me. I'd love to hear the full conversation. Fortunately, watching Britain's politicians queue up to denounce Rupert Murdoch has given me a taste of how such talk might play out.

 

A few weeks ago, Murdoch, or rather the more savage tendencies of the press as a whole, represented God. Fear of God isn't always a bad thing in itself, if it keeps you on the straight and narrow – but politicians behaved like medieval villagers who didn't just believe in Him, but quaked at the mere suggestion of a glimmer of a whisper of His name. You must never anger God. God wields immense power. God can hear everything you say. You must worship God, and please Him, or He will destroy you. For God controls the sun, which may shine upon you, or singe you to a Kinnock. Soon he will control the entire sky.

 

Furthermore, like all mere humans, you are weak. And God knows you have sinned. Chances are he even has long-lens photographs to prove it. But even as he chooses to smite you, God is merciful. You can do this the easy way or the hard way. Confess your sins in an exclusive double-page interview, or face the torments of hell. Have you seen what happens in hell? It isn't pretty. Rows of the damned having buckets of molten shit poured over their heads by someone who looks a bit like Kelvin MacKenzie, for eternity.

 

But then suddenly everything changed. The revelations over the hacking of grieving relatives' voicemails were the equivalent of a tornado ripping through an orphanage. "What kind of God would allow such a thing?" asked the villagers, wading through the aftermath. And they started to suspect He didn't exist.

 

They thought about the hours and days they'd spent in church, saying their prayers, rocking on their knees, whipping themselves with knotted rope, or flying round the world to address one of God's conferences, and they grew angry.

 

One by one they stood up to decry God. "He's a sod," said one. "No he's not, he's a monster," said another. Eventually they formed the consensus view that he was a sodmonster.

 

These protests grew so loud, God abandoned his bid to command the sky, issued personal apologies, and even seemed to wither – to physically wither before our very eyes, a bit like Gollum. (Although Gollum was never snapped in the back of a car in a baseball cap and running shorts, cocking his leg slightly in an apparent bid to stop one of his nuts dangling free, which is a crying shame.)

 

The danger now is that the villagers, shorn of their belief in God, might abandon their fear of divine retribution altogether, muzzle the churches, and grow hopelessly decadent. I realise as I type this that I don't fully understand my own metaphor any more. So here's a new one: the ceaseless parade of MPs openly disparaging everything they used to slavishly revere has left recent news coverage resembling the finale of the science-fiction movie They Live, in which a perception-altering alien transmitter is destroyed and humankind suddenly awakens from a decades-long trance. (Mind you, that's nothing: one day an politician will launch an open and sustained assault on the Daily Mail, which will probably culminate in scenes identical to the opening of the ark of the covenant at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark).

 

Likening the saga to an existing movie seems fitting, given the online speculation regarding who'll play who when it inevitably becomes a 180-minute Bafta-winning motion picture – Nicole Kidman as Rebekah Brooks, Nick Frost as Tom Watson, Hugh Grant as himself, Steve Coogan as both himself and Paul McMullan etc, etc.

 

The trickiest role to cast is surely Andy Hayman, the former Metropolitan police assistant commissioner whose appalling delivery of a key line managed to turn the Select Committee hearing into an unconvincing TV movie version of itself while it was actually happening. "Good God! Absolutely not! I can't believe you asked me that!" he spluttered, like a man hell-bent on failing an Emmerdale audition. It was excruciating enough on television. Imagine having to sit there and watching it live. Keith Vaz probably clenched his buttcheeks so hard they tore the fabric off his chair seat.

 

How, precisely, is the actor who eventually plays Hayman supposed to convey the "Good God! Absolutely not!" moment with any degree of authenticity without destroying their career in the process? Emulate it perfectly and the entire audience will assume you're useless.

 

Perhaps it'd be better to discard the movie idea altogether and instead turn the saga into a video game, with Brooks as one of the end-of-level bosses? After all, the phone-hacking pile-on is the equivalent of the moment where the player discovers the conspicuous glowing nodule just under its tail and concentrates his fire on that weak spot. As its life gauge starts to fall, the embattled monster desperately sheds blameless News of the World staff in an attempt to draw fire away from itself, but to no avail. Two-thirds of the way through, the weakened beast flashes red and starts tossing fizzing bombs in your direction – the day the Sun printed the pugilistic BROWN WRONG front page roughly equates to that bit. Finally, it explodes in a shower of scarlet locks. Or resigns and leaves Wapping in a car

[Dougie Do'ins]

And there's only a few ways to break up that elite of power, isn't there. Murdoch might go, but somebody else will step in. Cameron might be forced out, but somebody else will step in with the same connections. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Isnt that one of the real issues this is all about ? The size and the power Murdock has been allowed to grow into over the years. I would hope that when this is all over, lessons will have been learned, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

[piscinin]

That's clearly the intended role of any new, independent regulator. What isn't, and can't be regulated is secret payments to police. It's already against the law. There's very little that can be done. I agree that it's a problem, but it's also a possibility that everything that can be done by a regulator will be done by any new body.

 

Well, I'm not so sure. The problem, in the broader sense, that we have here is one of governance and I don't think you will properly address those concerns if you start with very narrow terms of reference like 'Press Regulation'. Surely, this whole debacle highlights just how important it is to get the initial scope right, or you'll end up with 8 victims instead of 4,000.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Isnt that one of the real issues this is all about ? The size and the power Murdock has been allowed to grow into over the years. I would hope that when this is all over' date=' lessons will have been learned, but I'm not going to hold my breath.[/quote']

 

It's a real issue, but billionaires play by different rules. Once they're in power, they're very hard to get out of power. If I was a billionaire, I'd nigh-on rule the fucking world, Dougie. If a pissant like me could, these people with an army of Harvard and Chicago business graduates can influence just about anything they like. It might take them a while, years maybe, but with that sort of money, almost anything is possible.

 

Every single time one of them falls, somebody will rise up in their place. Just as long as the place is there to be filled. The only way to stop this is to take that place away. Change the system.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Well, I'm not so sure. The problem, in the broader sense, that we have here is one of governance and I don't think you will properly address those concerns if you start with very narrow terms of reference like 'Press Regulation'. Surely, this whole debacle highlights just how important it is to get the initial scope right, or you'll end up with 8 victims instead of 4,000.

 

Piscinin, there's no regulation to sort out what you're talking about. It's a popular revolution that you need. However, official relations with the press can be monitored and regulated. The only thing that can be done is a powerful regulatory body for the press. Outside of that, I think Sec. has it pretty much nailed. It's about an elite ruling superclass of people who are almost untouchable in ordinary circumstances.

[RedKnight]

Why don't they see Britain's most senior police officer accepting a free holiday worth thousands of pounds as being wrong in any way?

 

It was only wrong if he enjoyed it.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Ed Miliband is making a speech tomorrow about the irresponsibility of power and will be suggesting that it's bad for our democracy when too much power is concentrated in one set of hands.