News of the World hacking case Page 98

  • Page

    of 105 First / Last

  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 14:43:58 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I know exactly where you're coming from on the high ups knowing nothing front. I worked for EUK part of Woolworths group in the run up to their collapse and was always staggered by how little insight those even a couple of levels above me had about what was going on. But that can't be an excuse. If you create a corporate culture where those below you are too afraid to let you know what's actually going on that's your propblem. Ditto with the age thing, of you can't cope, retire!

    Also you've got to keep in mind that The Sun and NOTW are pretty much where it all began for him , so I'd expect him to be rather more clued up on them (especially as his son was running them) than some other parts of his business.

    Edited by gang_of_bitches at 14:44:19 12-06-2012
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 14:49:26 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Also you've got to keep in mind that The Sun and NOTW are pretty much where it all began for him
    Not quite true - he had a bit of a media empire in Australia long before he came to our shores.

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

  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 14:55:01 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Also you've got to keep in mind that The Sun and NOTW are pretty much where it all began for him
    Not quite true - he had a bit of a media empire in Australia long before he came to our shores.
    With the emphasis on "a bit". He was pretty small time until The Sun. and if I recall correctly wasn't the Australian business largely built up by his dad?
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:00:20 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    He inherited a paper from his dad, but quickly set off on expanding the business and buying a shitload of other papers, including in NZ.

    He owns around 150 newspapers in Australia, which is pretty fucking scary.

    And we think we have issues with him having a controlling position over the media here!

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

  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:02:57 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @glaeken

    He's actually notorious for being a huge micro-manager of his papers. I find it incredibly hard to believe, given his history and reputation, that he did not know anything about it. I don't think the argument of "he couldn't possibly have known what they were doing because his company is so big" holds much water given his history in that regard.

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

  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 15:03:21 40,735 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    All those shrimps on babies and baby eating dingos won't report themselves.
  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 15:03:35 40,735 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Meh.
  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 15:04:50 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @darkmorgado

    Ah. Didn't realise he'd done quite so much over there, thanks for the education.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:09:22 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    All those shrimps on babies
    Is this some new variation on surf and turf?

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

  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 15:09:29 11,171 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @gang_of_bitches Is not up to us to remove the heads of large corporations though is? That is up to their own internal management and shareholders. If they are happy with Murdoch as leader and he wants to stay I am sure he will. I donít see what politicians or the general public may want in this has much relevance as itís not something that is within their power to achieve.

    At the end of the day a corporationís goals may not be what government or the general public want. They may not have shared interests. Unless we want to allow government the ability to fuck around in private businesses based on what they think will make them popular itís all a moot point.
  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 15:16:06 11,171 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @darkmorgado According to who? and is this recently? I can believe it in his early days as people who get to that sort of level do tend to be control freaks but now? Come on the guy probably spends half the day dozing in his chair. How often does he even go into the office these days? Shit he is ten years older than my parents and they barely know what day it is half the time.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:21:26 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    @gang_of_bitches Is not up to us to remove the heads of large corporations though is? That is up to their own internal management and shareholders.
    Murdoch holds a controlling share in the company, so he can't be forced out by shareholders.

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

  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 15:23:12 11,171 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Well there you go then so there really is nothing that can be done about him unless he decides to go. Makes this whole thing even less relevant for those wanting to get their revenge on Murdoch.

    Edited by glaeken at 15:25:20 12-06-2012
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:25:27 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Hence the decades-long despisement of him by the rest of the media and his reputation as an almost bond-villain-esque evil mastermind manipulating everything behind the scenes.

    There's plenty that can be done about him, and this inquiry is part of that.

    The problem up until now is that the political elite have been too scared to tackle him head on. Now they can, and are doing their best to expose all of his dodgy practices over the years.

    Murdoch being an utter cunt that practically runs the country by pulling political strings has pretty much been a truism over here since at least Thatcher. Everyone knew it, but noone would do anything about it. Now we can see an appetite to do something about it, and whether anything tangible comes of it, I think his influence has been massively diminished and will never recover.

    If along the way they manage to bring cunts like Dacre down a peg or two, clarify journalistic standards and improve the regulatory process then all the better.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:29:22 12-06-2012

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:31:19 12-06-2012

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

  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 15:25:58 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    @gang_of_bitches Is not up to us to remove the heads of large corporations though is? That is up to their own internal management and shareholders. If they are happy with Murdoch as leader and he wants to stay I am sure he will. I donít see what politicians or the general public may want in this has much relevance as itís not something that is within their power to achieve.

    At the end of the day a corporationís goals may not be what government or the general public want. They may not have shared interests. Unless we want to allow government the ability to fuck around in private businesses based on what they think will make them popular itís all a moot point.
    But if, as in this, case crimes are being covered up by means of conspiracy (in the legal rather than hysterical sense) within a corporation that is not an internal matter. Just because they didn't actually botch the engineering at Hatfield didn't stop the Railtrack executives being charged with corporate manslaughter. If you head up an organisation, it's your duty to ensure that it's working within the law.
  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 15:29:59 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    Well there you go then so there really is nothing that can be done about him unless he decides to go. Makes this whole thing even less relevant for those wanting to get their revenge on Murdoch.
    As I said previously, if Leveson were to use any words vaguely resembling "not fit and proper" in his conclusion, those deciding on the BSkyB buyout and indeed Murdoch's whole UK operation would be under quite a bit of pressure. Not that it will happen, but allow me to dream.
  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 15:33:30 11,171 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @darkmorgado He does not bother me much :) I can see if you are of a certain political bent how he could be looked upon as foiling you particular flavour of politics from gaining much traction but I am apolitical so I guess that is why I just cannot really get behind the hate. Not that I am behind the love either. I am strictly in the neutral zone.

    As for the poltical elite riding on on their white chargers I am sure they have all had their back scratched from time to time in their arrangements with the media so forgive me if I don't raise a cheer for our galllent defenders. They just sense a witch hunt that they might be able to profit from.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:37:16 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Hmm.

    Milliband just said he thinks the threshold for allowable dominance on print media should be set at "between twenty and thirty percent".

    Murdoch has 37%.

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

  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 15:41:55 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    glaeken wrote:
    @darkmorgado He does not bother me much :) I can see if you are of a certain political bent how he could be looked upon as foiling you particular flavour of politics from gaining much traction but I am apolitical so I guess that is why I just cannot really get behind the hate. Not that I am behind the love either. I am strictly in the neutral zone.

    As for the poltical elite riding on on their white chargers I am sure they have all had their back scratched from time to time in their arrangements with the media so forgive me if I don't raise a cheer for our galllent defenders. They just sense a witch hunt that they might be able to profit from.
    As far as Murdoch's political leanings go I don't care what they are so much either. I care that he's able to wield far more influence than millions of voters and pervert the electoral process. I also care that he's done more than his fair share to produce the shallow celebrity obsessed society we have today. I don't doubt it would have happened without him, but he certainly accelerated it, all the while pointing to how he was keeping The Times going as a sign of his commitment to quality reporting when all it was was a token gesture.

    I really am angry about him, I should get out more.

    Edited by gang_of_bitches at 15:47:03 12-06-2012
  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 15:44:03 40,735 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Well, I think it should be allowed at potato.

    And I'm unbiased.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:44:18 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @gang_of_bitches

    There's an interesting anecdote that I remember reading in the Independent back in (I think) 2004/5.

    At the time of the general election, they were running billboard ads stating "RUPERT MURDOCH WON'T DETERMINE THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION. YOU WILL".

    The day after the ads went up, James Murdoch stormed into the Independent offices screaming and swearing "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WE WON'T DECIDE WHO WINS THE ELECTION!"

    EDIT: Here's a recent commentary about it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/24/james-murdoch-rebekah-brooks-simon-kelner-independen

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:45:31 12-06-2012

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:49:49 12-06-2012

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

  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 15:45:42 40,735 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Aye. That sounds totally legit.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 15:46:45 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aye. That sounds totally legit.
    It's actually been submitted as evidence to the Inquiry, and not denied by the Murdochs.

    EDIT: In fact, far from denying it, James Murdoch has admitted it: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-24/news/31390328_1_james-murdoch-rupert-murdoch-inquiry

    Edited by darkmorgado at 15:52:23 12-06-2012

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

  • Khanivor 12 Jun 2012 15:54:13 40,735 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Your link tells of a very different story, but anyhoo.

    As in shouting at someone for essentially defaming your father on public billboards does not equal claiming that you will indeed decide who wins the election.

    Edited by Khanivor at 15:55:29 12-06-2012
  • glaeken 12 Jun 2012 15:56:26 11,171 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    You are only supposed to take away the bits that agree with your opinion.

    As for Murdoch he will be gone soon and then someone else comes along to fill the void. Probably a more anonymous individual these days though.

    Edited by glaeken at 15:57:18 12-06-2012
  • gang_of_bitches 12 Jun 2012 15:56:45 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Khanivor wrote:
    Aye. That sounds totally legit.
    It's actually been submitted as evidence to the Inquiry, and not denied by the Murdochs.

    EDIT: In fact, far from denying it, James Murdoch has admitted it: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-24/news/31390328_1_james-murdoch-rupert-murdoch-inquiry
    Not wanting to defend him, but all that article suggests is that he was pissed off that the Indy ran the headline (understandable), nothing to do with its veracity.
  • TheSaint 12 Jun 2012 15:57:19 14,370 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Hmm.

    Milliband just said he thinks the threshold for allowable dominance on print media should be set at "between twenty and thirty percent".

    Murdoch has 37%.
    That's convenient.
  • spamdangled 12 Jun 2012 16:01:53 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Isn't it just.

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

  • gang_of_bitches 13 Jun 2012 18:12:19 5,495 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Plenty going on today.

    Rebekah Brooks charged and bailed to appear again in two weeks.

    Jeremy Hunt gets away with it in Commons vote despite Lib Dems abstaining.
  • spamdangled 13 Jun 2012 18:26:34 27,355 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Hunt was always going to get away with it. Even without the LD vote, the tories had a majority over labour.

    Though apparently they had to go so far as ordering people back to the commons from holiday to ensure they had the numbers.

    Lots of talk about a big split in the coalition though because the LDs abstained.

    Edited by darkmorgado at 18:27:50 13-06-2012

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

  • Page

    of 105 First / Last

Log in or register to reply