Rupert has walked into a huge trap and he hasnt seen it. The first guy banged on about Corporate Governance-- R Murdock said he didnt know--- wasnt informed--- not his job---only 1% of company etc , but and itst HE HAS TO KNOW he is CEO and thats very very big in the USA its Fedral Law etc . If News Int get found out to have paid UK OBill Rupert can get nicked in the USA.
One best bit was the guy going on about Murdock going to Number 10 by the back door when asked by Cameron just after last election. You could see the guy crowing. Then Murdock says "mind you i went amny times to Number 10 via the back door when Grodon Brown was PM" --- ooooops quick change the question lol
Thought they answered (without saying much) more than i thought they would. I thought they would do a "Maxwell Brothers" and say nothing. seemed genuine re the anger at what had happened.
As for the old guy geting hit -- did you see his daughter steam in ---- get in there girl !!
I have been dipping in and out of this and so far I think the Murdochs have answered every question. What is coming across is what a bunch of incompetent showboating fools the MPs asking the questions are. Every question seems pointless. Did you know this payment had been made? When were you informed of this? Murdoch is head of a corporation that owns many companies and employs thousands and thousands of people. Are they seriously expecting him to read and remember every one of the hundreds of e.mails and reports he must be copied in on every day?
But the most rediculous and pointless question has got to be 'Mr Murdoch, when did you become aware that criminal practice had become endemic at News International?'
Totally agree but it is an inevitable consequence in my view of how poorly paid MPs are. The average backbencher (like those on this committee) earns £65k pa, less than a newly-qualified lawyer at a London law firm for example, yet is expected to work probably 60-70 hours per week, many of them away from home. It is hardly surprising that it does not attract many 'high quality' individuals, and I'm particularly dubious of 'career politicians' who have no experience whatsoever in other fields.
These guys define "slippery". The impression I get is that they think nothing and nobody can touch them.
Correct, we know nothing, but we are a family dynasty running a large media organisation like a corner shop, but not aware, did not know, was not there etc, etc........
Quite what the management and standards committee Brooks alludes too when the questions gets awkward, and that she only read about the Miller Dowler hacking, beggers belief!.
I do not expect her to be aware of every stringer, but as a senior editor the buck stops end of!. She is responsible for the day to day management. The Murdoch's can at least claim that they have editors to manage this, or should have?. If she did not know she should have known!
Cameron isn't going - unless someone turns up evidence that he's lied - and there isn't going to be a change of government either way. Nevertheless, I think it was arrogance rather than naivety that led him to take Coulson into Downing Street against advice and he's going to pay for that time and again, especially if Coulson goes down. The Tory attempt to equate Tom Baldwin with Coulson is feeble and likely to remain so.
I disagree, it was an attempt to butter up Murdoch and get News International on board. Rumours suggest that he was set to employ a BBC journalist when it was "suggested" to him that he employ Coulson instead. The person who made that suggestion has just lost her job at News International.
The questioning of the Murdochs was, sadly, amateurish, unstructured and disjointed but unsurprising when you consider the backgrounds of the committee members (seeNewYorkAddick above) and the serverly limited time available. What did James think he was getting for his £700k payment to Taylor? Did Rupe really not know that his son had made such a huge payment? Did James not think it worth mentioning to daddy? The amount was significantly beyond what they have been offering more recently. So,so many questions left unasked and therefore unanswered. Roll on the Leveson enquiries which, I hope, will be in public.
As for Melanie Phillips, why does anyone pay the slightest attention to someone who is paid fill a column each week and who therefore expresses an opinion on any subject under the sun - prefereably one which is 'controversial'. And she writes for that odious rag the Daily Mail! She would love to read that CL posters are talking about 'punching' her - probably give her another column. She is best ignored.
The questioning of the Murdochs was, sadly, amateurish, unstructured and disjointed but unsurprising when you consider the backgrounds of the committee members (seeNewYorkAddick above) and the serverly limited time available.
So,so many questions left unasked and therefore unanswered. Roll on the Leveson enquiries which, I hope, will be in public.
Er...plus the fact that they are limited in what they can ask because of the ongoing criminal investigation. I'm sure given a free hand the questioning would have been much, much, more in depth and less of a show trial.
The Murdochs are not the subject of any ongoing criminal investigation of course, neither having been arrested or interviewed. My comments were limited to them. Different considerations applied to Mrs Brooks.
Sorry, but how the fcuk does a bloke get into a parliamentary enquiry with a bloody custard pie in his hands? Don't care who got it, that's a bloody disgrace - it could've been anything in his hand, a knife, acid, anything.
If you get called to give evidence at one of these things you shouldn't be going fearing attack inside the building, no matter who you are.
Still, nice to see someone give the toerag a slap. The shameful thing was that out of all the blokes in the room they left it to a woman to serve it out.
I know that both Labour and Tory governments do this but doesn't it make you sick the way that politicians routinely hand out plum jobs to their mates, usually 'old school' friends?
Check this bloke out, he gets paid 140K PA to be a "Special Advisor" to 'Call Me Dave' - they were, of course, at Eton and Cambridge together. Quelle surprise.
What chance do you reckon you would have of picking up that job if it were publicly advertised - even if you were much better qualified than Mr. Llewellyn?
Cameron isn't going - unless someone turns up evidence that he's lied - and there isn't going to be a change of government either way. Nevertheless, I think it was arrogance rather than naivety that led him to take Coulson into Downing Street against advice and he's going to pay for that time and again, especially if Coulson goes down. The Tory attempt to equate Tom Baldwin with Coulson is feeble and likely to remain so.
I disagree, it was an attempt to butter up Murdoch and get News International on board. Rumours suggest that he was set to employ a BBC journalist when it was "suggested" to him that he employ Coulson instead. The person who made that suggestion has just lost her job at News International
Just as likely it was the boy George's idea, as Rebekah and Cameron's aides say. But there are two issues - the appointment of Coulson in 2007 and the decision to take him on to the government payroll in 2010 with the scandal still rumbling on in the background.
I know that both Labour and Tory governments do this but doesn't it make you sick the way that politicians routinely hand out plum jobs to their mates, usually 'old school' friends?
Check this bloke out, he gets paid 140K PA to be a "Special Advisor" to 'Call Me Dave' - they were, of course, at Eton and Cambridge together. Quelle surprise.
What chance do you reckon you would have of picking up that job if it were publicly advertised - even if you were much better qualified than Mr. Llewellyn?
I think that's a bit unrealistic. These are political appointments of high sensitivity. The appointee has to be someone you trust absolutely, which is almost bound to be someone you already know.
I know that both Labour and Tory governments do this but doesn't it make you sick the way that politicians routinely hand out plum jobs to their mates, usually 'old school' friends?
Check this bloke out, he gets paid 140K PA to be a "Special Advisor" to 'Call Me Dave' - they were, of course, at Eton and Cambridge together. Quelle surprise.
What chance do you reckon you would have of picking up that job if it were publicly advertised - even if you were much better qualified than Mr. Llewellyn?
I think that's a bit unrealistic. These are political appointments of high sensitivity. The appointee has to be someone you trust absolutely, which is almost bound to be someone you already know.
I appreciate your point Airman but it is still somewhat galling to see old school friends get given 140K PA "special adviser" roles - especially when the Tories made such a big deal about the exact same roles being handed out by the Blair/Brown government.
One cannot help but feel that if Brown had appointed one of his old school chums to such a position then there would have been a furious reaction from the right-wing press.
In addition, to be absolutely fair about this, surely there is the possibility of bringing in high calibre talent from the outside world that can be trusted? I know the "old boy network" is pervasive but even in the corporate world outsiders are brought in to work with top management, not everything can be done 'in-house' so to speak.
The Americans do appoint people of their own political persuasion to White House positions (although sometimes they give the other team jobs such as Obama with Gates) but although personal connections count there is also pressure to get the best person for the job or else the appointed person may not get congressional approval, its a much better system in my view although in recent years it has been too political because of the GOP lurch to the far-right.
I have been dipping in and out of this and so far I think the Murdochs have answered every question. What is coming across is what a bunch of incompetent showboating fools the MPs asking the questions are. Every question seems pointless. Did you know this payment had been made? When were you informed of this? Murdoch is head of a corporation that owns many companies and employs thousands and thousands of people. Are they seriously expecting him to read and remember every one of the hundreds of e.mails and reports he must be copied in on every day?
But the most rediculous and pointless question has got to be 'Mr Murdoch, when did you become aware that criminal practice had become endemic at News International?'
Totally agree but it is an inevitable consequence in my view of how poorly paid MPs are. The average backbencher (like those on this committee) earns £65k pa, less than a newly-qualified lawyer at a London law firm for example, yet is expected to work probably 60-70 hours per week, many of them away from home. It is hardly surprising that it does not attract many 'high quality' individuals, and I'm particularly dubious of 'career politicians' who have no experience whatsoever in other fields.
The real problem is the weakness in the Select Committee system. The current committee system was based on Congressional Committees which have significantly more power and resources, for example they can put witnesses on oath and have vaster resources which allow them to be more forensic in their questioning. But these meetings aren't designed to be court cases but enquiries to find out what happened which gives legislators an indepth understanding of the nature of the problem. Ultimately they are designed to scruntinise legislation after the second reading (as well as to shadow governmental departments) which enables them to propose legislation which is workable rather than a kneejerk reaction to a problem.
I appreciate your point Airman but it is still somewhat galling to see old school friends get given 140K PA "special adviser" roles - especially when the Tories made such a big deal about the exact same roles being handed out by the Blair/Brown government.
One cannot help but feel that if Brown had appointed one of his old school chums to such a position then there would have been a furious reaction from the right-wing press.
I think there are two separate issues here - one is people appointing advisers they know well and the other is the extent to which the elite are drawn from a narrow selection of public schools and Oxbridge. People would think it odd if the political advisers all came from, say, Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School, but they are more inclined to accept it when they are all Old Etonians.
Comments
harry hill could've sorted this in 2 mins.
Rupert has walked into a huge trap and he hasnt seen it. The first guy banged on about Corporate Governance-- R Murdock said he didnt know--- wasnt informed--- not his job---only 1% of company etc , but and itst HE HAS TO KNOW he is CEO and thats very very big in the USA its Fedral Law etc . If News Int get found out to have paid UK OBill Rupert can get nicked in the USA.
One best bit was the guy going on about Murdock going to Number 10 by the back door when asked by Cameron just after last election. You could see the guy crowing. Then Murdock says "mind you i went amny times to Number 10 via the back door when Grodon Brown was PM" --- ooooops quick change the question lol
Thought they answered (without saying much) more than i thought they would. I thought they would do a "Maxwell Brothers" and say nothing. seemed genuine re the anger at what had happened.
As for the old guy geting hit -- did you see his daughter steam in ---- get in there girl !!
Totally agree but it is an inevitable consequence in my view of how poorly paid MPs are. The average backbencher (like those on this committee) earns £65k pa, less than a newly-qualified lawyer at a London law firm for example, yet is expected to work probably 60-70 hours per week, many of them away from home. It is hardly surprising that it does not attract many 'high quality' individuals, and I'm particularly dubious of 'career politicians' who have no experience whatsoever in other fields.
yeah, i didn't know who she was either but reading that she ought to be filed under c. also i think lerory has gone easy on his description of her.
It seems as though a few of you consider it acceptable to punch women then.
I disagree, it was an attempt to butter up Murdoch and get News International on board. Rumours suggest that he was set to employ a BBC journalist when it was "suggested" to him that he employ Coulson instead. The person who made that suggestion has just lost her job at News International.
As for Melanie Phillips, why does anyone pay the slightest attention to someone who is paid fill a column each week and who therefore expresses an opinion on any subject under the sun - prefereably one which is 'controversial'. And she writes for that odious rag the Daily Mail! She would love to read that CL posters are talking about 'punching' her - probably give her another column. She is best ignored.
I know that both Labour and Tory governments do this but doesn't it make you sick the way that politicians routinely hand out plum jobs to their mates, usually 'old school' friends?
Check this bloke out, he gets paid 140K PA to be a "Special Advisor" to 'Call Me Dave' - they were, of course, at Eton and Cambridge together. Quelle surprise.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ed-llewellyn-the-old-school-chum-in-trouble-for-not-communicating-2317215.html
What chance do you reckon you would have of picking up that job if it were publicly advertised - even if you were much better qualified than Mr. Llewellyn?
I appreciate your point Airman but it is still somewhat galling to see old school friends get given 140K PA "special adviser" roles - especially when the Tories made such a big deal about the exact same roles being handed out by the Blair/Brown government.
One cannot help but feel that if Brown had appointed one of his old school chums to such a position then there would have been a furious reaction from the right-wing press.
In addition, to be absolutely fair about this, surely there is the possibility of bringing in high calibre talent from the outside world that can be trusted? I know the "old boy network" is pervasive but even in the corporate world outsiders are brought in to work with top management, not everything can be done 'in-house' so to speak.
The Americans do appoint people of their own political persuasion to White House positions (although sometimes they give the other team jobs such as Obama with Gates) but although personal connections count there is also pressure to get the best person for the job or else the appointed person may not get congressional approval, its a much better system in my view although in recent years it has been too political because of the GOP lurch to the far-right.
The real problem is the weakness in the Select Committee system. The current committee system was based on Congressional Committees which have significantly more power and resources, for example they can put witnesses on oath and have vaster resources which allow them to be more forensic in their questioning. But these meetings aren't designed to be court cases but enquiries to find out what happened which gives legislators an indepth understanding of the nature of the problem. Ultimately they are designed to scruntinise legislation after the second reading (as well as to shadow governmental departments) which enables them to propose legislation which is workable rather than a kneejerk reaction to a problem.