News of the World hacking case Page 97

  • Page

    of 105 First / Last

  • darkmorgado 31 May 2012 16:34:54 15,598 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I voted for him last time, as it happens. A move I have come to regret.
    An incredible lapse of judgment from MD there.

    RESIGN!

    RESIGN!

    SHAME!

    /disenfranchises women

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • Deleted user 31 May 2012 16:35:35
    MetalDog wrote:
    I voted for him last time, as it happens. A move I have come to regret.
    Why don't you list here the reasons why not and we can all look at them objectively before you go in?
  • LeoliansBro 31 May 2012 16:43:12 44,956 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Then ask him why he didn't do the things he'd promised you he was going to do.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 31 May 2012 16:47:38 23,920 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    He's Paul Burstow and while I would like to take him to task over the NHS reforms he supported, I really want to focus on the Winsor Report II this time around without going off on an armwaving rant.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • X201 31 May 2012 16:56:50 15,743 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    But, but, but... his website has a photo of him with nurses, he must be nice :confused:
  • spamdangled 31 May 2012 17:15:09 27,444 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    He's Paul Burstow and while I would like to take him to task over the NHS reforms he supported, I really want to focus on the Winsor Report II this time around without going off on an armwaving rant.
    Urgh. I was part of a webchat with Burstow recently. He ducked and dived around answering any question directly.

    Slippery fucker.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • MightyMouse 31 May 2012 17:50:35 1,144 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    So Cameron's decided it doesn't actually matter if Hunt broke the ministerial code. Well obviously, it would be terrible if he actually had to take responsibility for his actions.
  • desirous 31 May 2012 17:51:12 85 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I'm talking to my MP on Saturday about this and that.
    Any tips or tricks for how I should quell my inner negativity? I know that going in there calling him a bullshitter is /not/ the way to approach the issue and I'm sure some of you are more trained or naturally diplomatic than I am - how do you shut that inner bullshit-caller up?
    Do not make him squirm in the first few questions. Ask him things he's firmly on ground about. This is the only thing you can possibly do before you ask more serious questions and get anything out of them. And even then it is unlikely you could even touch him as he's more a trained slick human being than you.
  • spamdangled 31 May 2012 18:03:23 27,444 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    MightyMouse wrote:
    So Cameron's decided it doesn't actually matter if Hunt broke the ministerial code. Well obviously, it would be terrible if he actually had to take responsibility for his actions.
    It really defeats the point in bringing in the ministerial code if you then refuse to adhere to it.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 31 May 2012 18:50:07
    Dale is the reason I don't hate automatically hate politicians like everyone else.
  • Twin_snakes 31 May 2012 19:48:44 2,191 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    darkmorgado wrote:
    MightyMouse wrote:
    It's hardly Cameron's first failure of judgment, until he's actually charged with a crime or polling shows that the Tories would be certain to lose with him as leader, he'll stick around.
    Well Labour are already well ahead in the polls (shudder). Though that's par for the course when it comes to being in opposition during a government's first term.
    O'RLY? How about Labours first term in 1997....
    It took about 10 years for the Tories to gain any sort of lead in the polls.
  • lucky_jim 31 May 2012 20:15:14 5,350 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @MetalDog

    Politicians are ridiculously susceptible to flattery, in my experience. You can get away with calling them a prick, but only if you tell them they're a prick who's been shockingly overlooked for higher office/ is destined for No 10 (depending on where their career is).
  • MetalDog 31 May 2012 20:34:34 23,920 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well, my business isn't to call him a prick, however reflex that instinct may be, but to try to persuade him there's an issue he should be looking into and shouting about a bit.
    I'm not very good at buttering people up, but I will desperately try to leave the verbal acid at home.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Deleted user 31 May 2012 20:40:49
    Why not just try and explain why you think he should and be open to why he may argue differently?

    People, even politicians, tend to take well to reasoned arguments.

    Edited by mowgli at 20:41:26 31-05-2012
  • MetalDog 31 May 2012 20:50:04 23,920 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    That's sort of the plan, mowgli, but being totally open to the political class is easier said than done, given their awful track record with honesty. I'm going to try writing down what he has to say (or at least the bullet points thereof) and reflect on it at leisure later, so I can decide if I've been given anything more than soft soap.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • desirous 31 May 2012 20:50:18 85 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Why not just try and explain why you think he should and be open to why he may argue differently?

    People, even politicians, tend to take well to reasoned arguments.
    Because they have made a living out of filtering truth and fiction. On the whole they aren't out right liars, but are you so niave to have never seen an episode of Question time? Sorry to be blunt, but they twist everything to suit them. It's just the politcal system we have. There are the odd honest one but they far and few between.
  • Deleted user 31 May 2012 21:13:17
    Because the lib dems have the voting presence and determination of a shrivelled grape.
  • spamdangled 31 May 2012 21:13:56 27,444 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Because Nick Clegg has the presence and determination of a shrivelled grape.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 31 May 2012 21:15:32
    And the rest are doing so much to show their disagreement. They're all as bad as him.
  • Bremenacht 1 Jun 2012 01:23:31 19,663 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I really want to focus on the Winsor Report II this time around without going off on an armwaving rant.
    Then do so. Make the one point well, rather than risk burying it under waffle or ranting.

    You can go back to see him again to rant over something else. : )
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 13:28:21 27,444 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    So, two days in a row, witnesses have flatly contradicted what Murdoch said under oath to Leveson.

    I really, really hope the old fucker gets what's coming to him.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 13:39:50 11,265 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Which is? And how do you know itís him that's lying? There is a lot of denial of just about everything going on and the more politicians see other politicians denying things the more they will think they can get away with it too.

    I am not on anyone's side on this I just don't know how you can totally believe one side over the other when they are all people who have a dubious attitude to the truth.

    And seriously just what on earth do you think is going to happen to Murdoch as a result of all this? It's not a legal trial. Nothing is going to happen to him.

    Edited by glaeken at 13:40:32 12-06-2012
  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 13:49:12 5,644 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    Which is? And how do you know itís him that's lying? There is a lot of denial of just about everything going on and the more politicians see other politicians denying things the more they will think they can get away with it too.

    I am not on anyone's side on this I just don't know how you can totally believe one side over the other when they are all people who have a dubious attitude to the truth.

    And seriously just what on earth do you think is going to happen to Murdoch as a result of all this? It's not a legal trial. Nothing is going to happen to him.
    NI, NG and NC have all been found by their own admission to have been in the wrong about hacking and for Murdoch not to have known about it he'd have had to have been massively incompetent and that is one thing I don't believe he is. I believe there are lies on both sides.

    You are of course right, it will all come to nothing, for Murdoch personally anyway. Highly unlikely, but I suppose there's a chance the inquiry could say something something about not being fit and proper, but the chances are pretty slim.
  • TheSaint 12 Jun 2012 13:49:58 14,829 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    I am not on anyone's side on this I just don't know how you can totally believe one side over the other when they are all people who have a dubious attitude to the truth.
    This. I haven't really taken a massive interest but the updates I hear each day driving home seem to include a massive amount of hear say and anecdotal evidence for what is apparently a legitimate legal enquiry.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 13:52:08 27,444 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    It's not a trial, but lying under oath is Perjury and it's still a criminal offence.

    I'm not exactly the biggest fan in the world of politicians, and they frequently bullshit - but to have so many people consistently contradicting what he's said (and after the whole thing about misleading Parliament), I'm more inclined to believe that one person is bullshitting than a whole load of people are all conspiring. Particularly when Murdoch hasn't been able to produce evidence to back up what he was coming out with, but evidence has been provided to back up what the others are saying.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 14:11:38 11,265 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I actually do question if Murdoch would have known about phone hacking. That would imply a level of micromanagement I am just not sure about given how diverse his media holdings are. It just seems it would have been going on at a lower level than I would have expected him to involve himself in. Once it became a big issue I am sure he will have been privy to all sort of dodgy things between the various news corp executives but I would actually be surprised if he really knew about it before it started to become a big story. Not that I think he would have cared if he had known it was going on I just find the idea that the head of such a large organisation would have known what was going on at all the lower levels unlikely.

    Itís not even like there was a proper legal stance on phone hacking for a long time so at most when they were initially doing it I guess it would have been seen as slightly dubious but then is it more dubious than taking photos of celebís using high power telephoto lenses? Itís an industry that as part of normal operations operates in morally dubious ways. Phone hacking was just a newer method until itís legal stance was clarified as illegal.

    /dons his Murdoch is innocent T-shirt.

    Edited by glaeken at 14:19:11 12-06-2012
  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 14:24:16 5,644 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @glaeken

    I can accept that he might not have known about it initially, but once the royal reporter, who I can't remember the name of, was convicted, or even prosecuted for that matter, surely it would have come to his attention.

    And anyway, if he's incapable of managing the organisation he already has, that seems a pretty strong argument against letting him expand it.

    I accept I can be a bit rabid about Murdoch, in the same way that others are about Thatcher, but with a couple of exceptions I think he's been a pretty malign influence on the UK and latterly the world.

    Edited by gang_of_bitches at 14:24:34 12-06-2012
  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 14:35:07 11,265 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I am sure he would have become aware of it once the first conviction occurred but I would expect him to have then relied on his executives to fill him in and who knows how honest they were with him. If you have fucked up you tend to try and keep that sort of thing from the boss if you can.

    I guess having worked for lots of large corporations I find the idea the guy at the very top has much of clue what goes on in the organisation apart from what his direct reports tells him unlikely. Itís just not possible once organisationís get above a certain size. The fact we expect Murdoch to be able to know everything about every level of his company just seems unrealistic. If you factor in the fact of how old he actually is now I would personally have expected him to be taking a bit of back seat on things anyway.

    I am not unaware of the influence Murdoch has had in his time on the UK but I find the current inquiry a little desperate to try and attack him based on something that I really donít think is that big a deal overall. It really feels like a lot of people have been waiting to have a shot at Murdoch and they are seeing this as their opportunity.

    I mean come on he is just a lovable old scamp really :-P
  • Page

    of 105 First / Last

Log in or register to reply