lol....you didn't see the C4 program last nifght...how Murdock ran the country then !!!
All Journalists at NOTW have said, that he was always in the news room, asking what the headliner was etc etc. Do you really think Mr Murdock didn't ask where they got a certain story or other from ?? Do you think he never asked why they were paying out vast sums of money to Police officers ?? Do you think he didn't ask why they were continueing to pay the salary of ther person they employed, was found guilty of hacking, and jailed ?? Does anyone really believe this wasn't hush money ?? Basically for me, so long as it sold papers, and made him money, he was not to bothered about the way the information was obtained.
He may not of known the intimate details, but to believe that he had no knowledge whatsoever is something I can not do. I think you will find there is alot more to come yet.....even his own Editor stgated to the workers on her departure, that in a years tiome when all was out, they would understand why they had to close !!
Think the general public that bought NOTW must take as much blame as the Murdoch's for there appetite in reading this rag newspaper and there stories and the same for The Sun. If people didnt buy such trash then there would be no market and therefore no bent reporters and no hacking.
I have a little bit of experience in this sort of thing, particularly the prevention, identification and rectification of corporate wrong doing.
In my experience long standing, wide scale corruption runs through the organisation from middle management right the way up to one or two members of the board of directors, usually including the Chief Exec or chairman.
Murdoch is widely known to be very hands on, indeed complaints from his editorial staff about his personal involvement have subsisted for years.
Finding proof of the wrong doing is always difficult. In many organisations, corruption is so entrenched that there are unwritten rules that ensure that senior staff are never implicated in a manner that can be substantiated. Often this is achieved by the use of subsidiary boards and steering and sub committees that take direct responsibility and then report to the main board. In this way when the shit hits the fan only the relatively minor players get splattered.
Do you recall that Jim Carey film (Fun With Dick & Jane) where he gets made an exec then gets implicated in the collapse of the company? When I first saw that film I chuckled like a madman because that's exactly how it works, out there in the big bad fundamentally corrupt corporate world.
Knowing it and proving it are two entirely different things - they are worlds apart.
I rather think the expression 'put up or shut up' applies here. If what Ben says is true, nibbling away at the corners will achieve nothing because the defences are too strong to make any impact. In the meantime, some MP or other will be caught with their trousers round their ankles in a public place and the world will move on.
Innocent until proven guilty is another important aspect to consider. The Murdochs have not been convicted of anything - let alone charged with any misdemeanour in any Court of Law in regard to this. Until and unless they are convicted of an offence, they remain innocent.
if you ask any of his 1000s companies if he is hands on they all say yeah he is.
It's like when you boss goes on holiday. and he says " I be keeping a eye on the business"
No he not he playing Golf and some random hot country.
He don't live in the UK he own's the biggest newspapers in the world. and to think he is more interested in a sunday paper, what will turnover like 1 per cent of his company over is slightly odd.
take the wall street journal it has like over 2 and half million daily readers, why would he be more hands on with the NOTW?
It's like saying ronald macdonald was to blame for my burger being cold in luton.
Tim Martin ruined my pint in Luton.
I don't think Murdoch worries over much about money, he has had plenty for a long time and the only thing the fabulously wealthy crave more than money is power.
And that's why he interfered so much in the day to day running of his UK media interests I think.
Andy/Jules....yes I have paid a mate to do an odd job for me ? I also pay my daughter to wash my car ? I would not pay a tradesman cash, as I would want a reciept incase anything was wrong !!
Now I do know where you coming from. If someone works all the time for cash, and so does not pay tax, they are indeed not just fiddling the tax man, but in fact are fiddling me and you as well !! If I did know of someone that was earning vast amounts of money in this way, or indeed someone that was claiming benifeits when not intitled, I do think I would be with-in my rights to complain, moan or inform the authorities .
It is fair andy/jules..to ask...where is the cut off point ? In reality I don't know exactly.....However if I did think someone was fiddling on a regular basis such as a benifeift fraud....or a guy working as a painter and decorator every day except a friday, when he went to sign on as unemployed...then yes I would report it.
However if like my mate, who accepted £20 for fitting a couple of light sockets for me, then I would not report it. He didn't ask for the money: he didn't quote me a price ! So was it payment or a gift ? In reality I'm sure if I had have rung up the tax office, they would not of been interested anyway.
However what we are talking about here, is a company owned and run by Mr Murdoch that continued to paid in salary (whilst the person concerned was in jail) over £150,000 to an ex-employee that was convicted and jailed for phone hacking, whilst working for his company !!! This is a company owned and run by Mr Murdoch that paid out in excess of £150,000 to various police officers over a 5 year period, for privilaged information !! Slightly different to the £20 I gave my mate..or the £5 I give my daughter !!
clap trap.
two wrongs do NOT make a right, unless of course it happens to be in deans world.
I for one do not envy anyone their wealth .... I do however resent the fact that, that wealth equates to political influence,it makes mock of the concept of one man one vote and degrades our whole democratic process.
The whole Murdoch family are corrupt and Rupert is the stinking Golgothan* at it's vile center.
Proof? I don't need proof any more than those who believe everyone who's unemployed is an evil dole cheat or every immigrant a scrounger .... your problem is that evidence for my conjecture will come out,and if you care to actually look is to some extent already available.
I am always amused by those who defend the wealthy at every opportunity (they're laughing at you) Defend them all you like, they will still close ranks and piss down your neck at the first opportunity.
Wealth and power do not abrogate your responsibility to your fellow man or society,many of the rich and powerful seem to think they do,the Murdoch clan are quite obviously cut from this cloth and for that if nothing else should be ostracised ... if we're talking about taxes , as no-one in particular once said 'pay up or fuck off' the Murdochs have consistently refused to pay they should have their assets seized and be banned from both entering or doing business in any territory they have similarly exploited
Sorry in edit ....
*see the film Dogma for the Golgothan
yea I think I will leave anyone else to read and laugh at that. Says alot more than I even can..lol
:wink:
:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao: