Murdoch: Ouf! Is this meltdown?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

...'i did not know' ... this is going to haunt the Murdochs ... as the CEO Chairman Godhead in NI you are supposed to know and have active procedures in place to make sure you are informed ... this will substantially erode his power as the weeks go by ... investors and non execs will not be satisfied and worried about their own liabilities ... it may well deflect the Cttees and the Met but longer term it is potentially devastating ....

'i did not know' is a critical element of the management approach, Rupert, Rebekah Andy C and Wallis all have deserved reputations as bullies who intimidate the hacks in the newsroom with incredible pressure threats and denigration, not knowing how the hacks then produce the stories and get their byline count up is how they gave permission to do anything but get me a story .... [of course they should have known, and no credible journo talking about this admits to their not knowing as being remotely plausible] ... 'not knowing' was part of the management style and culture ...know what i mean? if there is any truth in the claim that 'i did not know' then it is this sense i think ....


'i did not care' seems to me to be the implicit Met position, after all what is the importance of the civil rights of celebs and politicos etc [or civil rights full stop] in the Met of the last ten years or so ? they have villains to catch and terrorists to corner and bless them they do manage to do this ...but it has not seemed to occur to them that civil rights [to privacy, to demonstrate] matter too, and critically so in a democracy [and of course it is tiresome getting warrants and due process to hack all our phones and emails innit] ... alas they can not use this line of defence against the exocet that the Dowler and 7/7 revelations fired into the SW1 village [we had more important things to do doesn't cut it eh] plus the corpocat gravy train was flying along and the top squad were well set ... they did display a notable alacrity to defend her maj and her tribe, but protect civil rights in a democracy? nah we are too busy ....

when some people stand up against a bully or gang and start to prevail one always wonders why it took quite so long to happen... the Arab Spring being a very real example of how long it takes to get to the point of facing down the bullets and standing up to the bullies ..... that our politicians are craven in this respect is no surprise, as a society so are we .... we let the media characterise real opposition as violent hoodlums [assisted by the undercover Met operatives] we buy and read the trash, we faint at celebrities and devour the gossip ...and choose political leaders because they are likeable and smile nicely [go read the evidence]

bless mumsnet they did something and the NI Empire is acrumbling .....


the lie is given to 'i did not know' by the files in the legal officer's and solicitor's safes ....

[eighthobstruction]

From another message board....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFufrqhp0eE

[amateur51]

From another message board....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFufrqhp0eE

:laugh:

[PJPJ]

I have a question. Parliamentary Select Committees can order the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence. Do they have the powers to enable or force people who are signed up to confidentiality clauses and gagging orders to talk?

I suppose it depends whether the clause or order was court ordered, not that one can force anyone to speak if he/she does not wish to. The current problem is PSCs trying to operate during a criminal investigation and not being seen to prejudice a possible and increasingly probable case in the courts. Nor do I think it is helpful some members use these procedures or the House to grandstand their personal vendettas - this just serves to undermine any case they are making.

In addition, I am not convinced politicians are the best people to get to the bottom of all this; frankly, and to repeat an earlier slur, were I hauled before a PSC, I'm damned if I'm going to be cross-examined by members (of any party) with histories of the likes of Mr Vaz.

[amateur51]

This is all moving very swiftly so I apologise in advance if this morsel has already been flagged up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/19/news-corp-police-payments-macdonald?INTCMP=SRCH

What price Mr Hayman's Met pension now? :whistle:

[eighthobstruction]

Yep , good link am51....'threatened'....'paid for by Met'....Hmmmm

Good panel for the ENQUIRY....though I would have liked to see another judicial officer on panel ....to ensure forensic questioning....

[amateur51]

Prime Minister Cameron has announced the panel who will joint Lord Justice Leveson's enquiry:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14218911

I'm sure that many other names could have been put forward but it seems like a nifty panel to me, particularly Elinor Goodman & George Jones, both of whom are respected & experienced journalists and David Currie with his experience at Ofcom.

[Anna]

Calum raised a point about the Met – maybe they saw their priorities to be thwarting terrorism, catching criminals, etc., rather than some phone hacking scandals into which A-list celeb was sleeping with which Z-list reality contestant? Probably this was the view of most of the general public as well, indiscretions may make a good headline and increase newspaper sales but quite frankly, who gives a tinker’s cuss about Hugh Grant’s affairs? The High Court has now ordered The Met to release information relating to Hugh Grant and Jemima Khan, which is a small step I suppose.

Indeed, I think most people didn’t think about the implications of phone hacking, perhaps thinking that these people deserved to have their private indiscretions made public, and haven’t we now come to accept that hacking, blagging, stealing, and invasion of privacy is par for the course these days? Certainly yesterday Louise Mensch MP revealed the extent of use of private detectives in other newspapers, such as The Mail and the Mirror.

The disgraceful Dowler affair has changed public opinion, the fact that (allegedly) her phone was hacked and mails removed which gave her parents false hope that she was still alive is abhorrent to all.

On the other hand, (and this is only one example) the whole expenses scandal was revealed because of an illegally obtained document so reforms must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. How one does that I have no idea nor how to divorce policitians from the press.

[PJPJ]

Anna, I most certainly agree with all you say.

Back in 1989, someone recorded Charles and Camilla, making the very personal contents of their conversation public in 1992 (if I have the dates correct). Some will opine that anything the heir to the throne says or does is in the public interest, and if the material was acquired by hacking, so be it.

As for blagging, where do you draw the line?

[french frank]

Back in 1989, someone recorded Charles and Camilla, making the very personal contents of their conversation public in 1992 (if I have the dates correct). Some will opine that anything the heir to the throne says or does is in the public interest, and if the material was acquired by hacking, so be it.

Well, in terms of pure semantics there's a very clear distinction between 'in the public interest' and 'of interest to the public'. In some cases both may apply but I don't think that revealing intimate conversations between the heir apparent and his paramour come under the heading of 'in the public interest' (it's not as if we get a vote as to whether HRH is 'fit and proper', after all): it comes under selling lots of newspapers.

[Serial_Apologist]

(it's not as if we get a vote as to whether HRH is 'fit and proper', after all)

off-topic I know, but :grr:

[eighthobstruction]

[adopts coarse off-topic tone]....cor, that Pipa Middleton is 'fit and proper'.... (cough ahem....sorry!)

[mercia]

this article has explained to me why Mr Murdoch evoked the name Gallipoli

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14219397

I thought the foam-pie attacker looked a bit suspicious right from the start of the proceedings, fidgeting away in the background

[scottycelt]

I think appointing Vaz as chairman of the committee is almost as eyebrow-raising as Cameron facilitating a plum job at No 10 for his ex- NoTW friend ... :erm:

Having said that, Dave utterly roasted Ed in the Commons today. Ed should have heeded the advice of some colleagues, realised he'd had a very good week, and then wisely decided to push his luck no further.

I have no sympathy for Cameron ... in the aftermath of the absurd Coulson appointment he has only himself to blame .... but in his case it appears increasingly obvious it was cock-up rather than conspiracy.

I fervently hope the same eventually proves to be true in the case of some senior members of the Metropolitan Police ...

[Osborn]

Anyway it'll all blow over in a week or two; MPs are on holiday, the public is going on holiday and the football season starts next month. People don't want to keep reading what they already know - so there's cronyism in high places, so some coppers are bent, so some journalists pay for information, so some people's phones get hacked and dustbins emptied? :yawn: