But I really do fail to understand the crazy reactions to people over NI and Murdoch. So he is a media mogul/baron. So he owns many newspapers and TV stations and news channels. So what??
If you are not intelligent enough to make up your own mind about events in the news/world etc and are seriously influenced by the way some newspapers/TV channels report things then I am very sorry for you ..............
I think you are conflating several things here.
There seems to have been a deep rooted culture inside News International where law breaking was considered acceptable giving me at least the impression that NI thought they were above the law. And who can blame them? After all the police have sat on this evidence for several years and done little with it even after two NI employees were found guilty of phone hacking. To date we've had phone hacking of 4,000 plus people, including the families of dead soldiers and murder victims - that alone is a definition of sick. In addition there appears to have been active bribery of Met Police officers and attempts to illegally access information about Gordon Brown and his sick child and other politicians, there is no public interest angle in knowing that Brown's son has Cystic Fibrosis, unless that is taking a voyeuristic interest in other people's private lives is what turns you on. This behaviour wasn't confined to the NoTW as NI claimed, but it seems also infected the Sun and Sunday Times.
A straight question for you - as an owner of national media is this acceptable behaviour and with that track record should he be allowed to increase his domination of British media by taking over Sky? If you genuinely see no problem then I suggest you aren't paying attention yourself. The promises and support that Murdoch has given too many politicians has come at a cost and his influence over British politics has been anything but benign.
You obvioulsy cannot see the wood from the trees young man.
You go on as if News International is Newspeak for goodness sake.
.
I see NO problem in NI/Murdoch or whoever increasing their "domination". Why are you so worried? Do you really not have a mind of your own? I suspect you are still a student or at least involved in education. You need to grow up, come into the real world and stop spouting off ridiculous out of date left-wing rhetoric. Not just on this thread but on every discussion you join in.
You are without doubt the most predictable, boorish and unimaginative poster I have ever come across. That is really saying something considering you know who posts on here too.
Your only redeeming quality is that you follow cricket
I see NO problem in NI/Murdoch or whoever increasing their "domination". Why are you so worried?
I think the point is Chirpy it is not a good thing for any one individual, organisation to have such a domination of the media.
As was as stated in the commons last week this would not even happen in the land of free enterprise : the USA.
Even the bbc rightly criticised by many as having too large an influence, and an unfair advantage has had to withdraw from such things as web, and programme making, and I say that as a former member of that organisation. Frankly the trawling of Gordon Brown's son's medical, has no public interest!, and is simply appauling behaviour on any level. I am no friend of the former PM but he has a right to decency and a sense of justice.
That is NOT BFR's point. I already said that some things done were deplorable, I didn't go into specifics but the Brown affair is obviously one.
They do not have a domination. We all know who owns what. Do many really read newspapers these days? I certainly do not. What's the point? They are out of date as soon as thery are printed. HOw many people watch Sky News? Not a large percentage in this country.
My point is that it is just another overdone story. Totally overdone. The opposistion leader trying to make polical capital out of it is pathetic. The Torries would have done the same, granted and that would have been equally crass.
The whole of the European financial system is on the brink of collapse, countries are close to total bankruptcy but the big story over here is this sorry tale.
The problem with one company dominating the media is that the politicians (of both main parties) become scared to offend them. We have definately seen it in this country. The media have a huge influence on policy. It's massively important to the political culture of this country.
And it's way more than phone hacking - it's bribing the police, perjury, emplotying conment to get info from banks and solicitors and no doubt an awful lot more.
You obvioulsy cannot see the wood from the trees young man.
You go on as if News International is Newspeak for goodness sake.
.
I see NO problem in NI/Murdoch or whoever increasing their "domination". Why are you so worried? Do you really not have a mind of your own? I suspect you are still a student or at least involved in education. You need to grow up, come into the real world and stop spouting off ridiculous out of date left-wing rhetoric. Not just on this thread but on every discussion you join in.
You are without doubt the most predictable, boorish and unimaginative poster I have ever come across. That is really saying something considering you know who posts on here too.
Your only redeeming quality is that you follow cricket
Sorry but i think you're going wrong here.
You claim that there is nothing to fear if people are intelligant enough to discover the news for themselves but this is a flawed idea and overlooking the reality of how much Murdoch owns.
I assume that most people do not have the time to attend every press conference, breaking news location, government launch etc themselves and therefore they are always reliant on a third party to attend and report on their behalf.
NI own Sky and would more than likely soon own all Sky output including Sky news.
They own The Times, the Sun and a Sunday paper (albeit in a new guise).
They hate the BBC because they are funded by the public and therefore don't need to pander to outside influences (bar the governement to an extent)
Therefore at every turn they try to have the BBCs funding slashed and belittle their strories.
Thus it is becoming increasingly difficult to know where the truth lies. And we should not give our entire news output to one person.
Its called protecting the freedom of the media, its not about how 'clever' people are or how 'able' they are to make up their own minds. Its about the availability of news from a variety of sources.
Go to America and try and find out some real 'facts' if you don't think Murdoch is a risk.
"They do not have a domination. We all know who owns what. Do many really read newspapers these days? I certainly do not. What's the point? They are out of date as soon as thery are printed. HOw many people watch Sky News? Not a large percentage in this country."
I suspect you are basing these 'facts' on your own preference not on any actual readship / viewing figures.
Sky news average daily reach: 2,156,000.
The Sun: 2,846,905
Daily Mail: 2,056,881
News of the world 2,657,232
The Sunday Times: 1,049,599
To name but a few. But hardly the small fry you suggest
NI own Sky and would more than likely soon own all Sky output including Sky news. .........
Just to correct one point - the original plan was that Murdoch would voluntarily hive off Sky News to independent ownership/control. Having given guarantees that he would do that Jeremy Hunt allowed the takeover to proceed.
It was Sky's withdrawal of this that forced Hunt to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. I doubt that they would allow a takeover if Sky don't relinquish control.
I know the original plan was. The fact of the matter is Sky news is a loss leader, being a new source is a very expensive business. So the plan as I see it was (and I did say more than likely as this will still come about it wil just take longer)
Sell off sky news (whilst retaining some control via board members).
Take ownership fully of other sky output.
Watch sky news falter.
Tell the governement that it is wrong for a country to rely on one main UK-based news output (BBC) for its 24-hour news
Kindly offer to take on Sky news again but as it is proven to be a loss maker, ask the governement for a grant to do so.
Murdoch simply does not give things away without a plan as to getting it all back in the end - with profit. Not his orignal 'merger' with BSB and compare it to today's plans.
So whilst I do know the orignal public plan, I still feel pretty safe in my ascertation that he will end up owning all Sky output including sky news.
Well regardless of what we think, the MPs ( Goverment) are now going to support Ed Milliband to put down a motion that the powerful media baron should not take over sky!......
I can see no other possible outcome.
How ginger brooks remains and the diggers son James remains to be seen.
According to Yates and others NI were un-coopertive.
Personally speaking It seems that the sun and Times if to be believed have done these deeds, his ownership of any of the media may be subject to further investigation, and possible prosecution.
I don't see any issues whatsoever with a non-UK taxpayer, born in Australia & domiciled in New York, having incredible, unprecedented sway over how our politicians are elected & how they govern. no not at all - it's such a non-issue. If his employees hack into people's private phones & then use the information for expoiltative purposes, whatever. Some people eh Chirpy, they moan at anything?
I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth But now Ive seen the payoffs Everywhere I look Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Nothing surprises me about the Dirty Digger and News International, these people really feel that they are above the law.
The really interesting thing here is that the political classes - both Labour and Tory - now feel they have a chance to put Murdoch out of the game once and for all and get the old bastard off their backs.
Make no mistake, neither Cameron or Milliband enjoy having the fellate the old man in order to win his support, and with NI at an all-time low the politicians would love the chance to get Murdoch out of the UK newspaper market.
No doubt about it, NI and Murdoch are in grave danger, I would not be at all surprised if he sold off his UK papers to kill the whole thing once and for all, it would also solve his huge problem of generating online revenues from newspapers - a problem nobody has the first clue how to solve.
When the dust settles, this will prove to be a healthy development in the long run I think. Power of any kind corrupts and that is what Murdoch has- However his influence in this country has greatly lessened as a result of all this.
There are issues flowing from this debacle which will need to be addressed in due course
1. The relationship between press and senior Labour and Tory politicians especially NI
Ed Milliband's "Damascus light" like volte face is not at all convincing and is opportune given his and other Labour figures cozying up to NI until only a few weeks ago. Also in accepting at face value an ex NI journo into his team.
Millibands calling for Vince Cable to be sacked after the under-cover "sting" which caught him saying privately that he was "waging war on Murdoch" looks pretty pathetic given what he is now saying.
Both Blair and Brown were happy to court NI, Murdoch and his coterie, because they mistakenly believed the 1992 bullshit that it was "The Sun Wot Won it". That was a massive error of judgement because "winner backing" Murdoch's support was assured given that Labour was going to win the 1997 and 2001 elections at a canter.
Cameron's judgement in befriending both Ginger Brooks and Coulson is seriously in question. Indeed considering the private warnings he was given about Coulson it is astonishing that he should just "cock a deaf 'un" and appoint him twice.
There has been a long line of both Tory and Labour leaders who have curried favour with Murdoch Snr and his henchmen.
This is massively unhealthy for our democracy. A massive media organisation which can manipulate politicians to is own benefit can only be malignant. Politicians cowed are politicians failing in their public duty.
2. The relationship between the Police and Journalists - especially those with at NI with the deepest pockets
We all know that the press plays an important role in a democracy. "We know that investigative journalism has uncovered serious wrong-doing over the years. That some of the "intelligence" gained may have come from the Police and possibly involved cash changing hands, whilst defacto corrupt, has in the main been accepted "in the greater public good".
NI though has gone way way beyond this in seeking to create stories and influence news from "fishing" exercises via phone hacking. In order to be in a position to do this they appear to be complicit in paying certain police officers to give them information to enable hacking to take place. This is absolute corruption and needs to be stamped out and those involved brought to book.
For the future some kind of beefed up PCC needs to be in place (as a last resort with statutory "teeth") to ensure that newspapers do not engage in this kind of activity and if they do, they can be exposed, fined or worse, be forced to close.
I am repulsed as most at the depths NOTW sank to get a story and delighted that their empire and influence in our country is crumbling.
Cant believe the Sun published Gordon Brown's son's medical condition - why would they do that? Scum But then AFTER they did, the Browns go to Becka's wedding. Very odd indeed listened all day to the enquiry yesterday and found it gripping. 1 policeman seemed honest, 1 seemed clueless, 1 was dishonest and a very bad actor and 1 seems efficient determined to uncover the causes of the mess. But most of all NI came out of it without a shred of integrity.
When the cash for honours investigation took place, all data on all the computers in the offices was copied to prevent loss of info - why not for the hacking investigation?
There are issues flowing from this debacle which will need to be addressed in due course
1. The relationship between press and senior Labour and Tory politicians especially NI
Ed Milliband's "Damascus light" like volte face is not at all convincing and is opportune given his and other Labour figures cozying up to NI until only a few weeks ago. Also in accepting at face value an ex NOTW journo into his team.
That'll be Tom Baldwin, who was on the Times, not the NOTW. Are you really saying that no one who has ever worked for NI should work for a political leader? That great democrat, taxpayer and upholder of the law Lord Cashcroft has, as ever, his own agenda in attacking Baldwin.
I don't disagree that the Labour leadership was far too keen on cultivating the Murdoch tabloids; I think it would be a bit unrealistic to expect politicians to stop socialising with all journalists. Especially when it's not uncommon for people to be both, e.g. Michael Gove.
There are issues flowing from this debacle which will need to be addressed in due course
1. The relationship between press and senior Labour and Tory politicians especially NI
Ed Milliband's "Damascus light" like volte face is not at all convincing and is opportune given his and other Labour figures cozying up to NI until only a few weeks ago. Also in accepting at face value an ex NOTW journo into his team.
That'll be Tom Baldwin, who was on the Times, not the NOTW. Are you really saying that no one who has ever worked for NI should work for a political leader? That great democrat, taxpayer and upholder of the law Lord Cashcroft has, as ever, his own agenda in attacking Baldwin.
I don't disagree that the Labour leadership was far too keen on cultivating the Murdoch tabloids; I think it would be a bit unrealistic to expect politicians to stop socialising with all journalists. Especially when it's not uncommon for people to be both, e.g. Michael Gove.
My mistake on Baldwin - mean't to put NI not NOTW - now amended.
As for your first point - no I am not saying no one. It was the "people in glass houses" point that I was making about Ed M.
Regarding your second point, many ex Journalist have made the leap across the divide - indeed we both know one who has! :-)
We live in a free society and long may it continue. Surely you would agree that Murdoch' power had become too great and that it is unhealthy for our democracy that his organisation (and others) to have cowed politicians - bullied some and intimidated others. Two Labour MPs Chris Bryant and Tom Watson have been brave enough to stand up and be counted. Its a shame that more senior Labour figures didn't/wouldn't. I am astonished that at the select committee when Brooks admitted that Police had been paid (in answer to Chris Bryants question) no further action/outrage or otherwise appeared to ensure. Indeed Bryant was threatened to be "outed" and indeed was "outed" as gay following that exchange.
As for Michael Gove - always disliked him, always will. If he is an example of a poacher turned gamekeeper then less of that would be better. :-)
Obviously the general position is unhealthy in the extreme. I don't know a great deal about Baldwin, but I wouldn't agree that just because he has worked for the Times he shouldn't have been hired.
As has become clear, the situation with Coulson was very different. He wasn't just another reporter and his own willingness to employ a criminal (the private investigator Rees, who had already done time) were already known when he was appointed, quite apart from the Mulcaire stuff.
AirMan so Brown didnt go to Rebeka Woods wedding? and she wasnt a regular weekend guest at Chequers then ? Two weeks ago Red Ed didnt go for a piss up with Murdock ?
NI have been shown up to be utter gutter press but the moral bollox from you Labour peeps is sickening ---- 13 years of government why didnt you put it right then ? When the first inquirey was being actioned and the first hacking was exposed why didnt the Labour government go for NI then ? When Woods said they had ppaid Obill at that inquiery why didnt you great moral crusaders shout then ?
How is it the two beakons of moral chastity and vertue Two jags and Hugh Grant now on TV giving it loads about gutter press ? One cheated on his wife with a staff member and the other caught and charged after being ina car with a hooker ?
Labour would actually do this country a good service ( well once in 14 years) if they actually went after the ObIll as well as NI and the Boy David. ObIll being payed to pass on info and peoples addresses etc is far more important than making Cameran look like a twat.
I've thought for a long time that Labour have pandered to the Sun and the Mail way too much. They decided in the mid-90s that they wouldn't win without neutralising those papers, That was a reasonable call to make but they went way beyond it and made it an article of faith so that they became shit scared of doing anything which would offend the papers. When the Sun started to lay into Brown, he changed and tried to get investigations going into the phone tapping but was blocked by civil servants. Too little, too late.
I hope that this changes things permanently and I think there may even be a chance that they will.
I do like Goonerhater's idea that if you have illicit sex of any kind you are fair game. Anyone can hack your phone, steal your medical records, make up lies about you but you can't complain cos you once got sucked off by a hooker. Is this just celebrities or does it apply to us all. Mod please delete this post if I'm not allowed the right to comment on New International because I once two-timed my ex-bird and I've been to a strip club.
AirMan so Brown didnt go to Rebeka Woods wedding? and she wasnt a regular weekend guest at Chequers then ? Two weeks ago Red Ed didnt go for a piss up with Murdock ?
Let me help you with this. Coulson's a crook, who is likely to be going down. Baldwin isn't, as far as anyone knows. That's my point.
I don't believe I've said anything supporting anyone attending particular social events.
It is naive of all of us to think that politicians will suddenly stop caring what the press think about them and also what the press will make of decisions they take. That will always go on.
We have to hope that a more balanced relationship will follow all this squit and in future there are more arms length relations between press and politicians.
I remember feeling very uneasy about the relationship between Thatcher and the Murdoch empire. I kind of expected it though, given that the Tories already had much of Fleet Street on their side. Of course when Murdoch set up his operations in Wapping, it added greatly to the feeling that one was a mouth piece for the other and vice versa.
When Blair started courting Murdoch I was even more uneasy, not because I didn't understand why he might want to try to get a different, less hostile hearing from his media organisation, but because the reality was that Murdochs embracing of "New Labour" was largely to their papers benefit because Blair clearly was a likely winner. I thought then and still do, that Murdoch needed Blair as much if not more than Blair needed Murdoch.
What then followed was a failure of the then Government to reign in NI's activities. No one will convince me without compelling evidence to the contrary that Nelsonian blind eyes were applied during Labour's time in Government to the press in general and NI in particular.
It is going to be interesting to see how the judicial review pans out. My worry is that conclusions may not be reached for years and the heat will have gone out of this story.
Comments
NI - Did wrong.
Police- did wrong.
But I really do fail to understand the crazy reactions to people over NI and Murdoch. So he is a media mogul/baron. So he owns many newspapers and TV stations and news channels. So what??
If you are not intelligent enough to make up your own mind about events in the news/world etc and are seriously influenced by the way some newspapers/TV channels report things then I am very sorry for you
..............
I think you are conflating several things here.
There seems to have been a deep rooted culture inside News International where law breaking was considered acceptable giving me at least the impression that NI thought they were above the law. And who can blame them? After all the police have sat on this evidence for several years and done little with it even after two NI employees were found guilty of phone hacking. To date we've had phone hacking of 4,000 plus people, including the families of dead soldiers and murder victims - that alone is a definition of sick. In addition there appears to have been active bribery of Met Police officers and attempts to illegally access information about Gordon Brown and his sick child and other politicians, there is no public interest angle in knowing that Brown's son has Cystic Fibrosis, unless that is taking a voyeuristic interest in other people's private lives is what turns you on. This behaviour wasn't confined to the NoTW as NI claimed, but it seems also infected the Sun and Sunday Times.
A straight question for you - as an owner of national media is this acceptable behaviour and with that track record should he be allowed to increase his domination of British media by taking over Sky? If you genuinely see no problem then I suggest you aren't paying attention yourself. The promises and support that Murdoch has given too many politicians has come at a cost and his influence over British politics has been anything but benign.
.............
When?
Are you imagining things again?
You obvioulsy cannot see the wood from the trees young man.
You go on as if News International is Newspeak for goodness sake.
.
I see NO problem in NI/Murdoch or whoever increasing their "domination". Why are you so worried? Do you really not have a mind of your own? I suspect you are still a student or at least involved in education. You need to grow up, come into the real world and stop spouting off ridiculous out of date left-wing rhetoric. Not just on this thread but on every discussion you join in.
You are without doubt the most predictable, boorish and unimaginative poster I have ever come across. That is really saying something considering you know who posts on here too.
Your only redeeming quality is that you follow cricket
That is NOT BFR's point. I already said that some things done were deplorable, I didn't go into specifics but the Brown affair is obviously one.
They do not have a domination. We all know who owns what. Do many really read newspapers these days? I certainly do not. What's the point? They are out of date as soon as thery are printed. HOw many people watch Sky News? Not a large percentage in this country.
My point is that it is just another overdone story. Totally overdone. The opposistion leader trying to make polical capital out of it is pathetic. The Torries would have done the same, granted and that would have been equally crass.
The whole of the European financial system is on the brink of collapse, countries are close to total bankruptcy but the big story over here is this sorry tale.
The problem with one company dominating the media is that the politicians (of both main parties) become scared to offend them. We have definately seen it in this country. The media have a huge influence on policy. It's massively important to the political culture of this country.
And it's way more than phone hacking - it's bribing the police, perjury, emplotying conment to get info from banks and solicitors and no doubt an awful lot more.
Sorry but i think you're going wrong here.
You claim that there is nothing to fear if people are intelligant enough to discover the news for themselves but this is a flawed idea and overlooking the reality of how much Murdoch owns.
I assume that most people do not have the time to attend every press conference, breaking news location, government launch etc themselves and therefore they are always reliant on a third party to attend and report on their behalf.
NI own Sky and would more than likely soon own all Sky output including Sky news.
They own The Times, the Sun and a Sunday paper (albeit in a new guise).
They hate the BBC because they are funded by the public and therefore don't need to pander to outside influences (bar the governement to an extent)
Therefore at every turn they try to have the BBCs funding slashed and belittle their strories.
Thus it is becoming increasingly difficult to know where the truth lies. And we should not give our entire news output to one person.
Its called protecting the freedom of the media, its not about how 'clever' people are or how 'able' they are to make up their own minds. Its about the availability of news from a variety of sources.
Go to America and try and find out some real 'facts' if you don't think Murdoch is a risk.
"They do not have a domination. We all know who owns what. Do many really read newspapers these days? I certainly do not. What's the point? They are out of date as soon as thery are printed. HOw many people watch Sky News? Not a large percentage in this country."
I suspect you are basing these 'facts' on your own preference not on any actual readship / viewing figures.
Sky news average daily reach: 2,156,000.
The Sun: 2,846,905
Daily Mail: 2,056,881
News of the world 2,657,232
The Sunday Times: 1,049,599
To name but a few. But hardly the small fry you suggest
.........
Just to correct one point - the original plan was that Murdoch would voluntarily hive off Sky News to independent ownership/control. Having given guarantees that he would do that Jeremy Hunt allowed the takeover to proceed.
It was Sky's withdrawal of this that forced Hunt to refer the matter to the Competition Commission. I doubt that they would allow a takeover if Sky don't relinquish control.
I know the original plan was. The fact of the matter is Sky news is a loss leader, being a new source is a very expensive business. So the plan as I see it was (and I did say more than likely as this will still come about it wil just take longer)
Sell off sky news (whilst retaining some control via board members).
Take ownership fully of other sky output.
Watch sky news falter.
Tell the governement that it is wrong for a country to rely on one main UK-based news output (BBC) for its 24-hour news
Kindly offer to take on Sky news again but as it is proven to be a loss maker, ask the governement for a grant to do so.
Murdoch simply does not give things away without a plan as to getting it all back in the end - with profit. Not his orignal 'merger' with BSB and compare it to today's plans.
So whilst I do know the orignal public plan, I still feel pretty safe in my ascertation that he will end up owning all Sky output including sky news.
To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now Ive seen the payoffs
Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Nothing surprises me about the Dirty Digger and News International, these people really feel that they are above the law.
The really interesting thing here is that the political classes - both Labour and Tory - now feel they have a chance to put Murdoch out of the game once and for all and get the old bastard off their backs.
Make no mistake, neither Cameron or Milliband enjoy having the fellate the old man in order to win his support, and with NI at an all-time low the politicians would love the chance to get Murdoch out of the UK newspaper market.
No doubt about it, NI and Murdoch are in grave danger, I would not be at all surprised if he sold off his UK papers to kill the whole thing once and for all, it would also solve his huge problem of generating online revenues from newspapers - a problem nobody has the first clue how to solve.
But then AFTER they did, the Browns go to Becka's wedding. Very odd indeed
listened all day to the enquiry yesterday and found it gripping.
1 policeman seemed honest, 1 seemed clueless, 1 was dishonest and a very bad actor and 1 seems efficient determined to uncover the causes of the mess.
But most of all NI came out of it without a shred of integrity.
When the cash for honours investigation took place, all data on all the computers in the offices was copied to prevent loss of info - why not for the hacking investigation?
That'll be Tom Baldwin, who was on the Times, not the NOTW. Are you really saying that no one who has ever worked for NI should work for a political leader? That great democrat, taxpayer and upholder of the law Lord Cashcroft has, as ever, his own agenda in attacking Baldwin.
I don't disagree that the Labour leadership was far too keen on cultivating the Murdoch tabloids; I think it would be a bit unrealistic to expect politicians to stop socialising with all journalists. Especially when it's not uncommon for people to be both, e.g. Michael Gove.
My mistake on Baldwin - mean't to put NI not NOTW - now amended.
As for your first point - no I am not saying no one. It was the "people in glass houses" point that I was making about Ed M.
Regarding your second point, many ex Journalist have made the leap across the divide - indeed we both know one who has! :-)
We live in a free society and long may it continue. Surely you would agree that Murdoch' power had become too great and that it is unhealthy for our democracy that his organisation (and others) to have cowed politicians - bullied some and intimidated others. Two Labour MPs Chris Bryant and Tom Watson have been brave enough to stand up and be counted. Its a shame that more senior Labour figures didn't/wouldn't. I am astonished that at the select committee when Brooks admitted that Police had been paid (in answer to Chris Bryants question) no further action/outrage or otherwise appeared to ensure. Indeed Bryant was threatened to be "outed" and indeed was "outed" as gay following that exchange.
As for Michael Gove - always disliked him, always will. If he is an example of a poacher turned gamekeeper then less of that would be better. :-)
Obviously the general position is unhealthy in the extreme. I don't know a great deal about Baldwin, but I wouldn't agree that just because he has worked for the Times he shouldn't have been hired.
As has become clear, the situation with Coulson was very different. He wasn't just another reporter and his own willingness to employ a criminal (the private investigator Rees, who had already done time) were already known when he was appointed, quite apart from the Mulcaire stuff.
AirMan so Brown didnt go to Rebeka Woods wedding? and she wasnt a regular weekend guest at Chequers then ? Two weeks ago Red Ed didnt go for a piss up with Murdock ?
NI have been shown up to be utter gutter press but the moral bollox from you Labour peeps is sickening ---- 13 years of government why didnt you put it right then ? When the first inquirey was being actioned and the first hacking was exposed why didnt the Labour government go for NI then ? When Woods said they had ppaid Obill at that inquiery why didnt you great moral crusaders shout then ?
How is it the two beakons of moral chastity and vertue Two jags and Hugh Grant now on TV giving it loads about gutter press ? One cheated on his wife with a staff member and the other caught and charged after being ina car with a hooker ?
Labour would actually do this country a good service ( well once in 14 years) if they actually went after the ObIll as well as NI and the Boy David. ObIll being payed to pass on info and peoples addresses etc is far more important than making Cameran look like a twat.
I've thought for a long time that Labour have pandered to the Sun and the Mail way too much. They decided in the mid-90s that they wouldn't win without neutralising those papers, That was a reasonable call to make but they went way beyond it and made it an article of faith so that they became shit scared of doing anything which would offend the papers. When the Sun started to lay into Brown, he changed and tried to get investigations going into the phone tapping but was blocked by civil servants. Too little, too late.
I hope that this changes things permanently and I think there may even be a chance that they will.
I do like Goonerhater's idea that if you have illicit sex of any kind you are fair game. Anyone can hack your phone, steal your medical records, make up lies about you but you can't complain cos you once got sucked off by a hooker. Is this just celebrities or does it apply to us all. Mod please delete this post if I'm not allowed the right to comment on New International because I once two-timed my ex-bird and I've been to a strip club.
Let me help you with this. Coulson's a crook, who is likely to be going down. Baldwin isn't, as far as anyone knows. That's my point.
I don't believe I've said anything supporting anyone attending particular social events.