Murdoch and the MPs

28 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
I for one do not envy anyone their wealth

there is always a but there and if you say it often enough one or two peeple may well end up beleeving you.

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
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.

as has alredy been said about your lovely unions and there one man one vote not

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
The whole Murdoch family are corrupt and Rupert is the stinking Golgothan* at it's vile center.

does he hit one of your nerves mr staggers ? i think he hits a whole bunch of them. i can hear your teeth grinding together. :sad:

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Proof? I don't need proof

thank fully we tend to rely a little bit more on peeples innocence or guilt these days. lol

you may not need proof but a judge and a jury do and thank fully peeples guilt is not dicateted to by peeple like your good self who obviously hate peeple with power and money. road sweeper by trade are you? :grin::grin:

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
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.

such mis guided non sense. do you reely beleeve the stuff you write here?

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
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

my my my my you have got your hate hat on today mt=r staggers. you was not layed off by murdoch when the NOTW folded was you?

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
I really Really don't want to do this... it is pointless and adds nothing to this thread so I suggest that you all ignore this bit unless you're Starlight
Starlight...
Firstly I do not resent peoples wealth .. I know many quite wealthy people and count them amongst my friends,I also know unemployed and poor people who are our mutual friends... the one thing they all have in common is that they're not impressed by wealth ... possession of money is generally accidental brought about by birth,occupation or good luck ... I don't care about it so I'm not impressed by it... simple
Guilt..... guilt is a matter of fact the courts merely asses evidence .... I await your inevitable post about some 'scumbag' who should have got life or been strung up
Hate ?? no I really don't do hate .... I am actually quite a dispassionate man ... the things I read and see in the news rarely move me on any emotional level .. I do however recognise right and wrong and truth and lies
Starlight ... the problem appears to be that you think you've figured out what I believe and therefore keep trying to push me into that little pigeonhole you have labelled 'bleeding heart liberal lefty' , I would suggest that you think again ... you don't know me, you don't it would seem know much at all .. if you did you'd know that it is wise when one consistently fails at something to stop trying ... my advice would be to stop trying to stereotype and label people and to actually address them as individuals
There are many people on this forum who I disagree with and many of those same people I respect for putting across their point in a cogent and reasonable manner and then there are arseholes ...where do you want to fit ??
In the end you really shouldn't take what's said on the forum to heart little of it is meant as real insult most is rhetoric and much is bollocks.... So calm down dear

28 Jul 2011

Quote by GnV
But how would you know? I mean how would you know for certain that someone was claiming benefits? Such information is not in the public domain AFAIK.

I refer your honourable gentleman to my statement earlier;...lol
" Let me say, no one be-grudges anyone that works hard and earns money in a legitimate way. However some people will go to any means, inside and outside the law to gain and sustain their wealth. I will not and do not condone that."
I stand by that statement 100%. Winning the lottery, inheritance, ..there are many ways you could have legitimately come into money. And unless I knew of any reason I would not report it.
I'm sorry Mr Speaker but I must press the honourable Member for Cannock Dean to provide a reply.
How could he know that someone was claiming benefits. In the example he gave, the person concerned could have just been visiting his ageing mother every Friday! A very lawful occupation of one's time in anyone's book.
And whilst we are at it Mr Speaker, how can the honourable Member say with reason that he will not condone people who will go to any means inside the law to gain and sustain their wealth?
Is he really telling us that all property is theft and the State should set limits to what people can have?
I did say in previous answer unless I knew for sure I could and would not take any action. There again we hear all the time about some toerag that is robbing houses and dealing drugs in a community. The police know it...everyone in the street knows it...but getting 100% proof is not always so easy as everyone closes rank, and has a code of silence around him. Does that make that person innocent !! For me not being able to prove guilt does not equate to innocence !!!
As I have stated before, the O J Simpson case is a point in fact. His finger prints on the murder weapon....he legged it when police arrived...he continued to try and outrun police for over 2 hours !! he then was allowed to change the make up of the Jury 7 times !! the boy may have been found not guilty by his hand picked jury....but does any one (other than starlight ofcause..lol ) really believe he was innocent !!!

28 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
clap trap.
two wrongs do NOT make a right, unless of course it happens to be in deans world.

lol...and in your world OJ simpson is innocent !!
:laughabove:

Simpson was acquitted
what part of acquited or not guilty are you failing to understand??
you keep evading my question which meens you obviously have no answer but to keep going round in funny circles;
sorry oj was found guilty of murder and went to prison for it. well in your world he did lol

:lol: :lol:
You are right and wrong Star.
OJ was acquited on criminal charges and on a civil trial for the wrongful death of his wife his accusers were awarded compensation. In other words the jury thought he was guilty.
For the link of the proof in this..................look down to section 6 of your own link wink

Dave_Notts

28 Jul 2011

Thank you for that fact Dave.
So we can conclude that it was not possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered but it was more likely than not that he did.
Sort of summarises the whole silly argument really.

29 Jul 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
Thank you for that fact Dave.
So we can conclude that it was not possible to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered but it was more likely than not that he did.
Sort of summarises the whole silly argument really.

yes it does ben.
it seems that peeple on this forum would be better suited being lawyers it would seem. they seem to know the law better than the peeple who actually work in it.
dean seems to have inside knowledge of OJ's guilt that some kind of inner conspiracy amongst the lawyers and the jury was at large to find him not guilty. dean would probably think there was not reely enough evidence to find the yorkshire ripper guilty. :twisted:
yes dave i am more than aware of the civil trial. he paid some money out of that there is no deniel but was he ever convicted of that murder. peeple can shout as much as they like about him running away and all that rubbish. but he stood trial in a court room in front of a judge and jury and they acquited that a yes or a no?
was he found guilty?
obviously peeple here have there own thoughts but NO proof.
obviously a few sherlock holmes peeple on here who know differently. :twisted:
opinions are one thing but facts are some thing completely differant!! innocent

this is a link for peeple who may be swayed one way or the other. these are the FACTS in this matter.

guilty of murder there anywhere? :notes:

29 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggs
you haven't looked too hard then G.....

There are even reportedly several years where the multi-billion pound organisations headed by dear old Rupert paid no tax whatsoever in this country.... the reports are I'm sure available but I only did the first page of my search ... there seemed more than enough to go on there

Sorry to labour the point Staggs... but none of those links you provided actually show any occasion where the Murdoch empire failed in its duty to pay the tax levied upon it.
If no tax was levied, there was nothing to pay.

29 Jul 2011

Starlight....thanks for the link...it emphasises my point I'm trying to get across quite nicely. O J Simpson...had the right connections, a very high profile defence team, a hand picked jury, and managed to place doubt, so they found him not guilty !! However in a civil case where he was not allowed to, the jury found him guilty of unlawful killing !!
So the point I am getting to...as is the same as with Mr Murdoch, you may indeed have enough connections to ensure, you are not convicted.......
However that does not mean you are innocent !!!

29 Jul 2011

Quote by deancannock
Starlight....thanks for the link...it emphasises my point I'm trying to get across quite nicely. O J Simpson...had the right connections, a very high profile defence team, a hand picked jury, and managed to place doubt, so they found him not guilty !!

You miss several key points or rather you omit them, the 'picking of the jury' is the same for all such cases in the US, all defendants in such cases have the same ability to pick/agree on a jury, in that respect OJ Simpson was no different.
Other defendants in the US have had 'high profile' lawyers and been found not guilty, in that respect OJ Simpson was no different
managing to place doubt? of course he and his legal team did, that is the entire point of the defence, to provide beyond reasonable doubt, in that respect OJ Simpson was no different?

Quote by deancannock
However in a civil case where he was not allowed to, the jury found him guilty of unlawful killing !!

Now who is air brushing the facts? The burden of proof is much less in a US civil case, the jury was made up of people that already had good knowledge of the OJ case simply because it had been prime time tv on America for months just a few years before, hardly an unbiased approach now is it?. Civil case was simply about money, not about establishing guilt.

Quote by deancannock
So the point I am getting to...as is the same as with Mr Murdoch, you may indeed have enough connections to ensure, you are not convicted.......
However that does not mean you are innocent !!!

Murdoch has not as yet been charged with any criminal offence(s) and it would be utter folly to commen further on that score but in the UK a person found not guilty of an offence is just that not guilty and from that point on they must be presumed so. Should you mention to any person found not guilty of a crime that they are not innocent one would expect them to throw the book at you.
The innocent until proven guilty although crumbling as time goes by still for the most part stands although similar to a large amount of your comments in this thread there are always people not prepared to accept what the law says which given you've previously been down on those that may be circumventing it for gain...well, it's quite a strange angle you're coming from? On the one hand all those breaking it should be punished/brought to book but then above those that are not guilty in the eyes of the law but have money to defend themselves are not innocent? Bit of a contradiction there Dean
Andy

29 Jul 2011

no Andy ....no contradiction at all.
Quite simple
Just because you are found not guilty.....does not mean your innocent.
Thats what I have said and thats what I stand by.
Please do tell me.....haveing seen the trail..read the facts...do you honestly believe
O J Simpson to be INNOCENT !! ( yes I know a jury found him not guilty ..but thats not what i am asking here )

29 Jul 2011

Quote by he
I really Really don't want to do this... it is pointless and adds nothing to this thread so I suggest that you all ignore this bit unless you're Starlight

but you will anyway eh mr staggers? :twisted:

Quote by he
Starlight...
Firstly I do not resent peoples wealth .. I know many quite wealthy people and count them amongst my friends,I also know unemployed and poor people who are our mutual friends... the one thing they all have in common is that they're not impressed by wealth ... possession of money is generally accidental brought about by birth,occupation or good luck ... I don't care about it so I'm not impressed by it... simple
Guilt..... guilt is a matter of fact the courts merely asses evidence .... I await your inevitable post about some 'scumbag' who should have got life or been strung up
Hate ?? no I really don't do hate .... I am actually quite a dispassionate man ... the things I read and see in the news rarely move me on any emotional level .. I do however recognise right and wrong and truth and lies
Starlight ... the problem appears to be that you think you've figured out what I believe and therefore keep trying to push me into that little pigeonhole you have labelled 'bleeding heart liberal lefty' , I would suggest that you think again ... you don't know me, you don't it would seem know much at all .. if you did you'd know that it is wise when one consistently fails at something to stop trying ... my advice would be to stop trying to stereotype and label people and to actually address them as individuals
There are many people on this forum who I disagree with and many of those same people I respect for putting across their point in a cogent and reasonable manner and then there are arseholes ...where do you want to fit ??

is that it? thanks very much for your advise, at least you beleeve what you have written i suppose :notes:

Quote by he
In the end you really shouldn't take what's said on the forum to heart little of it is meant as real insult most is rhetoric and much is bollocks.... So calm down dear

i am very calm you should hear me when i reely have the bit between my teeth lol

29 Jul 2011

Quote by deancannock
no Andy ....no contradiction at all.
Quite simple
Just because you are found not guilty.....does not mean your innocent.
Thats what I have said and thats what I stand by.
Please do tell me.....haveing seen the trail..read the facts...do you honestly believe
O J Simpson to be INNOCENT !! ( yes I know a jury found him not guilty ..but thats not what i am asking here )

do YOU think that michael jackson was guilty because he paid money out dean? he too was never convicted of ANYTHING yet there are those out there who think he was as guilty as hell.
your comment high lighted above sorry dean that is a huge contradiction in terms.
i wonder what a judge would make of that comment dunno

i suppose if you turn that around dean you also beleeve that you can be guilty when you are in fact innocent?

29 Jul 2011

Quote by deancannock
Please do tell me.....haveing seen the trail..read the facts...do you honestly believe
O J Simpson to be INNOCENT !! ( yes I know a jury found him not guilty ..but thats not what i am asking here )

I dont know enough about the case and I'd lose the will to live if I had to trawl through the hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation on the case to be able to come to an informed view but as he was found not guilty in a court of law then I must presume he's not guilty irrespective of what I might think.
You are a barrel of contradictions Dean (not said in an argumentative way) ..you would report those you think are fiddling the system but go on to say that unless you had catergoric proof then you probably wouldnt report them..and yet with all the evidence given in the OJ case and him being found not guilty you still appear to see him as guilty? You also appear to be pre-judging any possible Murdoch case with 'he's got the money to get off' which is kind of funny really given that on the one hand you would seek to have somebody brought to book but
even though you would rely on the justice system to prosecute them/bring them to book you dont appear to rely on it as Murdoch could buy his way out of it?
Either the justice system stands for something or it doesn't? but please make your mind up.
Andy

29 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
no Andy ....no contradiction at all.
Quite simple
Just because you are found not guilty.....does not mean your innocent.
Thats what I have said and thats what I stand by.
Please do tell me.....haveing seen the trail..read the facts...do you honestly believe
O J Simpson to be INNOCENT !! ( yes I know a jury found him not guilty ..but thats not what i am asking here )

i suppose if you turn that around dean you also beleeve that you can be guilty when you are in fact innocent?
yes..100% starlight...just ask the birmigham pub bombers who were convicted...opps they were innocent !! Just ask the guildford five bombers that were convicted..opps they were innocent !! thousands of other mis-carriages of justices. Are you telling me that people that commit the crime always get convicted ? Or do you believe, like I am stating that sometimes, most especially with clever lawyers, guilty people, sometimes can get off with it.
Please read what I am saying....Just because you are found not guilty in a court of law... does not mean you are innocent !! ( yes..indeed you may be...but equally you may actually be as guilty as hell )

Staggerlee_BB

Sex God

29 Jul 2011

Quote by GnV
you haven't looked too hard then G.....

There are even reportedly several years where the multi-billion pound organisations headed by dear old Rupert paid no tax whatsoever in this country.... the reports are I'm sure available but I only did the first page of my search ... there seemed more than enough to go on there

Sorry to labour the point Staggs... but none of those links you provided actually show any occasion where the Murdoch empire failed in its duty to pay the tax levied upon it.
If no tax was levied, there was nothing to pay.
No I'll give you that G ... problem is and always will be the question of how any company or individual can morally justify taking millions of pounds off the taxpayer and then through slight of hand avoid paying any tax back into the system from which they so readily take ... and yes I know they aren't breaking the law (or haven't at least been shown to be),but the fact that these people are lining their pockets whilst their customers are in many cases struggling is obscene

GnV

Sex God

29 Jul 2011

Perhaps they give a shit about morals Staggs.
But that's another thread altogether :grin:
Oooops, in edit: perhaps they don't give a shit about morals

Staggerlee_BB

Sex God

29 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
stuff

Can we get Kenny back in a transfer deal ... I reckon a straight swap or give 'em a few quid I'll start the fund

Lizaleanrob

Sex God

29 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
stuff

Can we get Kenny back in a transfer deal ... I reckon a straight swap or give 'em a few quid I'll start the fund
fucking ell staggs i think i seen it all now
well nearly all

Unknown User

29 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
stuff

Can we get Kenny back in a transfer deal ... I reckon a straight swap or give 'em a few quid I'll start the fund
i had to do a bit of digging to find out who this kenny is or seams like that should be a was.
a thorn in your side it seams mr staggers and i am flattered that you would rather him back here than me
do not fret at all. i shall go a bit more gentle on you :grin::grin:

Staggerlee_BB

Sex God

29 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
stuff

Can we get Kenny back in a transfer deal ... I reckon a straight swap or give 'em a few quid I'll start the fund
i had to do a bit of digging to find out who this kenny is or seams like that should be a was.
a thorn in your side it seams mr staggers and i am flattered that you would rather him back here than me
do not fret at all. i shall go a bit more gentle on you :grin::grin:
My point actually was that he at least had something to say rather than the banal childish jibes you insist on throwing my way .... don't worry there's no need to go easy on me ... if you do ever come up with an actual counter to one of my posts I'm sure I'll rise to the task

Dave__Notts

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
yes dave i am more than aware of the civil trial. he paid some money out of that there is no deniel but was he ever convicted of that murder. peeple can shout as much as they like about him running away and all that rubbish. but he stood trial in a court room in front of a judge and jury and they acquited that a yes or a no?

No, he wasn't found guilty of murder
Quote by starlightcouple
was he found guilty?

Yes, he was found guilty of unlawful killing
Quote by starlightcouple
obviously peeple here have there own thoughts but NO proof.

You supplied the proof that I read. Am I to take it that what you supplied was wrong then
Quote by starlightcouple
obviously a few sherlock holmes peeple on here who know differently. :twisted:

As above. You supplied the information that I read to form my opinion. Are you saying you supplied wrong information :dunno:
Quote by starlightcouple
opinions are one thing but facts are some thing completely differant!!

As above again. I drew my opinion by using your facts. Should I not believe anything you write then :dunno:
Dave_Notts

Unknown User

30 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
My point actually was that he at least had something to say rather than the banal childish jibes you insist on throwing my way .... don't worry there's no need to go easy on me ... if you do ever come up with an actual counter to one of my posts I'm sure I'll rise to the task

:rotflmao::rotflmao:
if you say so mr staggers if you say so.
peeple do get bored though with some peeples constant ranting on forums, and peeple like nothing more than a good flouncer. :lol: :lol:

Unknown User

30 Jul 2011

Quote by Dave__Notts
yes dave i am more than aware of the civil trial. he paid some money out of that there is no deniel but was he ever convicted of that murder. peeple can shout as much as they like about him running away and all that rubbish. but he stood trial in a court room in front of a judge and jury and they acquited that a yes or a no?

No, he wasn't found guilty of murder
Quote by starlightcouple
was he found guilty?

Yes, he was found guilty of unlawful killing
Quote by starlightcouple
obviously peeple here have there own thoughts but NO proof.

You supplied the proof that I read. Am I to take it that what you supplied was wrong then
Quote by starlightcouple
obviously a few sherlock holmes peeple on here who know differently. :twisted:

As above. You supplied the information that I read to form my opinion. Are you saying you supplied wrong information :dunno:
Quote by starlightcouple
opinions are one thing but facts are some thing completely differant!!

As above again. I drew my opinion by using your facts. Should I not believe anything you write then :dunno:
Dave_Notts
i see your nit picking again mr notts. i shall give in to save any further going on and on and on over the same ground.
let us just say that now OJ is indeed in prison doing the time that some peeple should have thought he should have been doing from the start.
it was also done in a proper court with proper powers and not a civil court with no powers other than to hand out fines or compenssations.

Staggerlee_BB

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Starlight ..... was this man innocent ??

GnV

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Starlight ..... was this man innocent ??

Was he proven guilty (even in absentia)?

GnV

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
let us just say that now OJ is indeed in prison doing the time that some peeple should have thought he should have been doing from the start.
it was also done in a proper court with proper powers and not a civil court with no powers other than to hand out fines or compenssations.

Different offence?

Lizaleanrob

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Starlight ..... was this man innocent ??

hmmmm wasn`t he some sort of austrian painter

Unknown User

30 Jul 2011

Quote by GnV
let us just say that now OJ is indeed in prison doing the time that some peeple should have thought he should have been doing from the start.
it was also done in a proper court with proper powers and not a civil court with no powers other than to hand out fines or compenssations.

Different offence?
yes gnv

i thought he was innocent actually :grin::grin:

Unknown User

30 Jul 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Starlight ..... was this man innocent ??

in some peeples eyes yes he was.
to millions and millions of peeple between 1939 and 1945 he was a God. only when the war was lost did they dissappear from sight.
do i think he was innocent though? in killing millions of jews no he was guilty but other things he did i thought was within the boundaries of war at that time.
reely mr staggers is that the best argument you can come up with?
now do i think this man is innocent?

not a chance. your mate i understand?

Dave__Notts

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Quote by starlightcouple
i see your nit picking again mr notts. i shall give in to save any further going on and on and on over the same ground.
let us just say that now OJ is indeed in prison doing the time that some peeple should have thought he should have been doing from the start.
it was also done in a proper court with proper powers and not a civil court with no powers other than to hand out fines or compenssations.

:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
Oh that made me laugh. Obviously you do not know the roles of the different courts.
They are both courts of law dealing with different aspects of law..........but they are both proper courts Star
Dave_Notts

Dave__Notts

Sex God

30 Jul 2011

Quote by GnV
Starlight ..... was this man innocent ??

Was he proven guilty (even in absentia)?
Thats a good point. I had not even thought of that G. Did he ever stand trial or was it just accepted after the loss of the war and his death. I know some Germans were sentanced in absentia.
Can someone be tried after death? Didn't Cromwell get hanged after they dug him up when the new King came to the throne?
Dave_Notts