Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Kowalski

Rupert Murdoch

130 posts in this topic

I'm not having much luck with the search facility so apologies for a new thread...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-17908839

"If at all relevant times, Rupert Murdoch did not take steps to become fully informed about phone-hacking, he turned a blind eye and exhibited wilful blindess to what was going on in his companies and publications.

"This culture, we consider, permeated from the top throughout the organisation and speaks volumes about the lack of effective corporate governance at News Corporation and News International.

We conclude therefore that Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company".

Ouch!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt if he'll lose any sleep over bad things being said about him. If he's forced to shell out money if there is a subsequent trial then that will smart more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that conclusion is a bit more than just "a bad thing being said about him"

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine the only thing he cares about is the opinion of new corp's shareholders (who also hate him :lol:) rather than the bleatings of a country which has minimal influence on the world state, and which is governed by people who have a massively inflated sense of their own worth.

if and when he does leave new corp, his replacement will be equally odious

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Murdoch isn't fit to run a company, no shit sherlock.

When are they going to address the fact that successive govts have allowed him to run those companies for 40 years, with their blessing and help?

When is someone in power going to raise the fact that Dave Moron had Rupert round to Downing Street before he'd even appointed his cabinet?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He irrelevant now anyway. Hes 81. Its like when they claim its a "success" when they catch 80 year old Nazi war criminals. No its not. They've gotten away with it and lived their lives.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He irrelevant now anyway. Hes 81. Its like when they claim its a "success" when they catch 80 year old Nazi war criminals. No its not. They've gotten away with it and lived their lives.

Nope.

He only becomes irrelevant once he's stopped pulling the strings of govt - and he's still very definitely doing that. It's because he's still doing that that Dave Moron is trying his best to hide behind Jeremy c**t.

He went into Downing Street to give Dave Moron his orders for how to run the country FFS.

The scandal is not Murdoch; businessmen will always try to corrupt govts to their wants. The scandal is the fact that govts were corrupted and are still being corrupted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cancer has Murdoch etc.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee report was split along party lines with the Tories dissenting from the 'not fit' paragraph. Well there's a surprise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think everyone knew what Murdoch is, What we didn't know is what a massive c**t Tom Watson is.Obviously needed to publish the findings of the report early in his own book to boost sales now he can no longer fiddle his MP's expenses. Can the next hearings decide who are fit and proper people to be MP's please?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee report was split along party lines with the Tories dissenting from the 'not fit' paragraph. Well there's a surprise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.

He only becomes irrelevant once he's stopped pulling the strings of govt - and he's still very definitely doing that. It's because he's still doing that that Dave Moron is trying his best to hide behind Jeremy c**t.

He went into Downing Street to give Dave Moron his orders for how to run the country FFS.

The scandal is not Murdoch; businessmen will always try to corrupt govts to their wants. The scandal is the fact that govts were corrupted and are still being corrupted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He irrelevant now anyway. Hes 81. Its like when they claim its a "success" when they catch 80 year old Nazi war criminals. No its not. They've gotten away with it and lived their lives.

Nope.

I disagree. It's no single person. That's just scapegoating. Nazism wasn't Hitler. Thatcherism wasn't Thatcher. He's just an icon, albeit a powerful one.

so not an irrelevance then, as I said. :rolleyes:

And neither can the guilty be scapegoated; the guilty are correctly identified and labelled, and there's absolutely no doubt about Murdoch's guilt in the whole scenario. It's something he fully accepts of himself, of himself having failed to properly manage the companies he's responsible for.

(It's only the extent of his guilt and the consequences that should come from that that he disputes).

Just because there's others involved in the whole thing doesn't change anything about Murdoch's own responsibilities ... otherwise we might as well be saying that Hitler has no guilt for the crimes of Nazism as it was never him who flipped the switch on any gas chamber. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Punishing him now really proves nothing.

it might prove nothing but it very definitely achieves something .... or are people now going to start claiming that there's no such thing as deterrence? :lol:

Especially when the corruption of government, as you said, still exists. Much like the global financial set up, its a systemic issue.

That's a different side to the same coin, something that needs dealing with away from a focus on purely Murdoch. After all, a corrupt official is open to corruption from anyone and not just a single individual.

In the same way that media companies need to be deterred from exorcising their power corruptly by making an example of Murdoch, those in a position of power within govt need to be deterred from being corrupted by making an example of those who have been corrupted.

Sadly, that still looks a very long way off. Most MPs have been proven as thieves including Dave Moron and yet they are being permitted to continue in their roles. Dave Moron keeps saying there should be no reward for failure in 'the city', and yet meanwhile he's been rewarded with a higher public office despite his thieving.

It's sickening, but no wonder the whole fucking world is fucked beyond belief. Until such time as the people of this country get some moral backbone we're just going deeper and deeper into the shit.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The committee report was split along party lines with the Tories dissenting from the 'not fit' paragraph. Well there's a surprise.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see from all this is the latest power struggle from the rich and powerful, while Murdoch is wrong they do seem to be making him a bit of a sacrificial lamb. If he goes, someone else will just take his place.

It's the Labour MPs acting like their party hasn't ever tried to get in bed with him before now that gets me the most :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the Labour MPs acting like their party hasn't ever tried to get in bed with him before now that gets me the most :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see from all this is the latest power struggle from the rich and powerful, while Murdoch is wrong they do seem to be making him a bit of a sacrificial lamb. If he goes, someone else will just take his place.

Not by default. What happens off the back of this depends very much on how this is dealt with.

If Murdoch & his companies get off scott-free then it's guaranteed that Murdoch or someone else will do the same things in the future.

If Murdoch's businesses are damaged - properly damaged (the revoking of the Sky licence, or Murdoch forced to sell his Sky shares and give up control) - as a result then it doesn't necessarily follow that the same will happen again.

This has been more than just politicians sucking up for good press. It's been a deal with the devil, proper full-scale corruption.

It's the Labour MPs acting like their party hasn't ever tried to get in bed with him before now that gets me the most :lol:

Labour have been no better than the tories, I'm not pretending otherwise.

But at least Labour have moved on, and wish to kill off this corruption. The responses of the tories get to prove that they wish for things to continue as they are.

At the time of the election Dave Moron bleated about how it was of the utmost importance to get to grip with the deficit and that nothing should get in front of him doing that - and yet before he'd even appointed his cabinet he had Rupert round to Downing Street.

Why? What makes Rupert more important than what Dave Moron said was most important?

This (and similar influence on the previous Labour govt) is the most important part of everything which has gone on, and why progress to this point has been so slow. It's clear as day that there's much more to be exposed and that the wish of Dave Moron is that it's not exposed - just listen to what he said around the Jeremy c**t issue, that someone can only be investigated for criminal acts when there's already the evidence in the public domain to convict them.

The 'evidence' being presented is only the evidence that 'a suspect' (such as Jeremy c**t) wishes to make public themselves. Nothing is being investigated. It's a cover-up from the top downwards, because those at the top are implicated no less than anyone else.

It's all very well laughing at Labour's double standards, but that shouldn't allow anyone to be diverted from the parts that really matter. Don't laugh and by doing so let these corrupt c**ts off the hook.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happens to Murdoch, his 'role' will probably never be replicated. Newspapers are a dying industry, less and less people buy them, and they're all (apart from The Sun?) struggling to get enough money to pay their way. I was reading that The Huffington Post (I think..) is the most widely 'read' newspaper in America, but, like many internet based sites, they're not making any money

who knows how this will end up

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happens to Murdoch, his 'role' will probably never be replicated.

I'm not sure about that, tho I take your point in regard to newspapers.

He's doing something not hugely dissimilar with Fox News, which appears to be leading politicians rather than politicians leading it. That's responsible for the current nuttiness of the Republican Party to a large extent I'd say, tho perhaps that's just the view I'm getting from this side of the pond.

It's not quite the same thing because it's not ever switched sides - yet. But just as The Scum does, it presents a hugely simplified version of the world for those who don't like to think too hard, and tries to lead people into its agenda via that.

I'd guess that where Fox is failing is due more to the average Yank's lack of interest in news compared to the UK, meaning that it's not able to exert the same influence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so not an irrelevance then, as I said. :rolleyes:

And neither can the guilty be scapegoated; the guilty are correctly identified and labelled, and there's absolutely no doubt about Murdoch's guilt in the whole scenario. It's something he fully accepts of himself, of himself having failed to properly manage the companies he's responsible for.

(It's only the extent of his guilt and the consequences that should come from that that he disputes).

Just because there's others involved in the whole thing doesn't change anything about Murdoch's own responsibilities ... otherwise we might as well be saying that Hitler has no guilt for the crimes of Nazism as it was never him who flipped the switch on any gas chamber. :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've missed the point. No one questioned his role. They questioned the impact of holding him to account, which both me and The Nal believe is pretty much meaningless. The mechanations in place will continue to persist, while some onlookers, such as perhaps yourself, will feel a kind of moral vindication for the fact that he's been vilified.

The only thing that will make it meaningless is words like these which encourage people to let him off the hook. :rolleyes:

The impact of holding him to account will be a MASSIVE hit to his businesses, thru the loss of Sky, and the consequences that are to come onto News Corp in the USA.

The impact of holding him to account will be the loss of control of News Corp by his family.

Anything else is a charter to further corruption, both by Murdoch and other 'media barons'.

It's not about revenge, it's not about him being vilified, it's not even about your moronic take on things. It's about moral justice, and things being better going forwards.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.