That's a helluva woman. No White broad has ever offered herself up as a human shield for me like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Printable View
That's a helluva woman. No White broad has ever offered herself up as a human shield for me like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Hmmmm... & that tells you, what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dino Velvet
Dino is afraid of cream pies...I think that is the issue. I note that few people have given acknowledgement to Janet Nova, News Corporations Interim General Counsul, sitting next to Wendi M, and the first one to intervene physically. Curious symmetry here: the assailant was a comedian called 'Johnny Marbles'; in 2003 it was the 'comedy terrorist' Aaron Barshak who dressed up as Osama bin Laden and successfully gatecrashed Prince William's 21st birthday party at Windsor Castle. It seems the best way to get within killing distance of the Great and the Powerful is to become a comic...
Yep - Jackie mason was on the grassy knoll when Kennedy rode by, but his water pistol wouldn't reach the President.
Jackie Mason? Sounds more like Jerry Lewis...one day we will know the truth...
And apparently John Wilkes Booth was a laugh a minute too.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Back on topic - James Murdoch is sticking to his story about the phantom internal email which he is alleged to have seen indicating that the original hacking scandal extended much wider than a single rogue reporter. He's either correct or desperate.
Here's the possible scenario. Tom Crone and Colin Myler have obvious axes to grind with their former masters. Nevertheless, if the police (or the select committee or has that been closed down for the summer recess?) find the NoW men's side of it to be true, James Murdoch would be finished - lied to parliament, perjured himself and liable to arrest as well as disbarred from future office.
News Corp would survive, but as a Murdoch-free environment.
Hacking scandal compared to Watergate:
‪Hacking scandal compared to Watergate [CNN 7-16-2011]‬‏ - YouTube
News Corp would survive, but as a Murdoch-free environment.
I said before I expect Murdoch to retire, if that is the case he will want to see his family firm make the transition as he wants it, assuming he realises it can't go on like this. An alternative option would be to separate the positions of Chairman and Chief Executive, Murdoch is currently both. It is still more common in the US for one man (and usually it is a man) to occupy both seats, whereas in the UK and Europe businesses see the benefits of the separation. This would enable Murdoch to stay on as King of the Castle, but without executive control over decision-making. However, my guess is NewsCorp would also want a re-structuring of the shareholding, which is split between the family-owned voting rights which give the Murdochs a simple majority over all executive decisions, and ownership: in democratic America, you would think this archaic way of protecting the family investment would have gone long ago.
Anyone in the UK interested in BBC TV's coverage and Robert Peston's role in undermining Vince Cable's position in government may want to read this from today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/wo...h.html?_r=1&hp
The Murdoch show continues to roll on, and so far nobody has appeared in court on any charge or found guilty of lawbreaking, though time will tell. In my earlier post I speculated that Murdoch might be challenged by his own Board and agree to step down as CEO and become Life President or something like that, whereas the Board today have endorsed his leadership and rejected the Select Committee conclusion.
The Select Committe on Culture, Media and Sport has issued a divided report, with a controversial late additional remark which claims Rupert Murdoch is not a 'fit and proper person' to run an international company, a conclusion which a member of the committee, Labour MP Tom Watson had already mentioned in advance in his book, Dial M for Murdoch. Peter Oborne has delineated the way in which both political parties have sucked straws at Murdoch parties, while also showing which ones were 'refuseniks', but for me the key issues are the conduct of the police and it remains to be judged by successful prosecution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...it-is-now.html
However, I think there is an interesting, and deeper issue here, and it is not about the press at all. Murdoch did not just want a full takeover of BSkyB for the money -it is one of the largest ISP in the UK, and what Murdoch wants is an end to 'net neutrality'. What enrages Murdoch most of all is that people like us, having paid a nominal fee to an ISP, can browse our way through multiple websites without paying a dime. Just as he has locked his online papers behind firewalls, and bought rights to major sporting events which force viewers to pay extra to see them, so he wants internet access locked behind a firewall. This blog on Dale&Co from last year to me spells out the dangers inherent in allowing Murdoch to expand his empire, but I suspect with hard copy newspapers on the slide, the long term firewall strategy is the reason why he has backing from his Board. Whether he can survive any prosecutions, or legal investigations into computer and phone hacking in the USA I don't know. But for now, he is secure.
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/murdoc...wn-worst-enemy