Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[amateur51]

Latest round of arrests from Operation Elveden over alleged illegal payments to public officials by journalists includes a former member of the armed forces and a 36-year-old man, believed to be Duncan Larcombe, the Sun's royal editor, arrested at his home in Kent on suspicion of conspiracy to corrupt and conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/19/police-arrest-three-alleged-illegal-payments

Scotland Yard said in a statement: "Today's operation is the result of information provided to police by News Corporation's management standards committee.

"It relates to suspected payments to a public official and is not about seeking journalists to reveal confidential sources in relation to information that has been obtained legitimately."

[handsomefortune]

thanks amatuer51, perhaps 'the sun' will have to close too?

News Corporation's management standards committee.

it's presumably that man (darn it, what's his name, i meant to remember specifically)? who murdoch employs to shaft ni employees, and lead murdoch's committee, in order to protect the family themselves from ANY blame? he was apparently sitting behind mr & mrs murdoch in the inquiry, when the comedy pie thrower arrived, and mrs m threw a punch. he apparently wishes to remain invisible, so i hope he is forced to appear in public - minimum. (since he doesn't allow others the luxury of privacy, why should he be allowed to remain faceless)? i'll be interested to see what develops in this particular context. ni staff were 'only obeying orders', as instructed by their managers. half witted and amoral though this might seem, by 'normal standards'....if anyone remembers what they are exactly, and whether they actually apply in the media industry...............or bank robberies?

yours,

pommy whining.

[Serial_Apologist]

ni staff were 'only obeying orders', as instructed by their managers. half witted and amoral though this might seem, by 'normal standards'

I keep meaning to ask about this: don't the NUJ have any clout when it comes to defending journalists "required" to carry out unprincipled activities??

[amateur51]

I keep meaning to ask about this: don't the NUJ have any clout when it comes to defending journalists "required" to carry out unprincipled activities??

Why does the conjunction of 'Rupert Murdoch' and 'unions' cause me to have the habdabs? :yikes:

[aeolium]

Extracts from Tom Watson's Dial M for Murdoch. Could it be made into a film?:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm88184832/tt0046912
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article...MENT/111029953

(sorry - can't be bothered with image uploads)

[french frank]

I keep meaning to ask about this: don't the NUJ have any clout when it comes to defending journalists "required" to carry out unprincipled activities??

When I joined a newspaper in 1989 (my first job in newspapers), the editor told me it was not a closed shop, I was not required to join the NUJ. BUT ... the vast majority of staff were union members and paid their union dues to ensure that there was a flourishing chapel which represented our rights and negotiated our pay rises. People who chose not to join might be regarded as - I can't remember the term he used, let's say 'freeloaders' (it wasn't such a 'loaded' word - I wasn't pressurised). Of course, I joined the NUJ.

That editor left a few months later, and by the time I left in 1992, the unions in that company were out in the cold. Everyone on personal contracts, so no union negotiated settlements. Unions official were (as I saw it) bullied and discriminated against. I'd be interested to know whether that was the case elsewhere.

[amateur51]

This could be IT, guys and gals ....

Murdoch's News Corp facing growing legal threat in US. Lawyer Mark Lewis reveals at press conference he has taken on fourth case of alleged phone hacking on American soil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/19/murdoch-news-corp-lawyers-us

:smiley:

[amateur51]

Meanwhile, back in the UK ....

"The number of new civil claims for damages over alleged News of the World phone hacking faced by Rupert Murdoch's News International has reached nearly 50, including Sir John Major's former daughter-in-law Emma Noble, the high court has heard.

Others seeking damages for alleged invasion of privacy from News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that published the now-closed Sunday tabloid, include former Conservative cabinet minister and chief whip Lord Blencathra and former Fire Brigades Union general secretary Andy Gilchrist."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/20/phone-hacking-news-international-claims

:smiley:

[handsomefortune]

:ok: well done captain amatuer51 - for keeping us all updated this far.

i suppose it's doubtful that the murdoch's can survive the fbi, and whatever lawyer mark lewis produces as evidence of misconduct on US soil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Rachel_Nickell

the victims of these specific police 'errors', and media predators is absolutely grotesque imo.

[eighthobstruction]

Slightly off the Murdoch trail....but with the demise of both Yates and Stephenson due to hacking and N.I.....we know that life does not end there in the world of real politik....more jobs for the boys ....

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ants-1-4455535

and earlier results

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nsultants.html

[Mahlerei]

What a lamentable performance by James Murdoch today. Talk about selective amnesia. Rather more difficult to avoid were all those emails from Jeremy Hunt, who was clearly rooting for the Murdochs in the BSkyB takeover. Bet he's out of a job by the weekend.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep good day for JAY .... BIG ONE TOMORROW!

[ahinton]

As some of my past posts will have made clear, I do not at all subscribe to the Mr Pee view of this entire débâcle that its importance has been and remain grossly over-inflated, but I do wonder what any eventual outcome could possibly be in terms of fundamental change to the ways in which the media function. The extent to which individual thrusts of the inquiry continue to generate fresh ones for investigation is increasingly such that the possibility that it might come to outlast Leveson himself (even were it to contiune thereafter with his name still attached thereto) is becoming ever more of a probability and there seems less and less likelihood of an end to it; the inquiry has already uncovered far more questionable activities and relationships in far more places than was at first envisaged and it is perhaps noteworthy that the terms of its general remit have hardly needed to be widened to enable this. A few more years of this with no possible end in sight and the general public view that the media, police and politicians can no more be trusted than can the relationships between them will, I believe, have established itself to the point of permanent unshakeability; might the risk nevertheless be that of general public acceptance of the fact of inherent and inevitable corrupt practice on the part of the media, police and politicians to the point of a kind of tacit assumption that members of these professions will almost always act in ways that were once thought to be untenable, unacceptable and immoral? In other words, if you're in communications / media, lawmaking / enforcement, politics and such, you must be corrupt and wholly untrustworthy?

[amateur51]

As some of my past posts will have made clear, I do not at all subscribe to the Mr Pee view of this entire débâcle that its importance has been and remain grossly over-inflated, but I do wonder what any eventual outcome could possibly be in terms of fundamental change to the ways in which the media function. The extent to which individual thrusts of the inquiry continue to generate fresh ones for investigation is increasingly such that the possibility that it might come to outlast Leveson himself (even were it to contiune thereafter with his name still attached thereto) is becoming ever more of a probability and there seems less and less likelihoos of an end to it; the inquiry has already uncovered far more questionable activities and relationships in far more places than was at first envisaged and it is perhaps noteworthy that the terms of its general remit have hardly needed to be widened to enable this. A few more years of this with no possible end in sight and the general public view that the media, police and politicians can no more be trusted than can the relationships between them will, I believe, have established itself to the point of permanent unshakeability; might the risk nevertheless be that of general public acceptance of the fact of inherent and inevitable corrupt practice on the part of the media, police and politicians to the point of a kind of tacit assumption that members of these professions will almost always act in ways that were once thought to be untenable, unacceptable and immoral? In other words, if you're in communications / media, lawmaking / enforcement, politics and such, you must be corrupt and wholly untrustworthy?

Is it possible to submit this post to the Plain English Campaign for a pithy precis, I wonder? :erm:

[Frances_iom]

Is it possible to submit this post to the Plain English Campaign for a pithy precis, I wonder? :erm:

Lord Acton "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts abosolutely" -
Blair (no doubt in another missive from God (pre retirement ?) and remembering the "Sun wot did it" allowed the Murdochs to dominate in all media - since then few had dared deny them anything. In regard to the Police etc here we see the little fleas with their lesser fleas in operation.- goverments like fish rot from the head downwards though I doubt if that bothers a few posh boys already ignorant of the price of milk tho I suspect most lesser mortals had smelt the corruption some time ago.