Frank Sidney Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 You don't get to be a multi billionaire if you are a doddery old fool. Regards Angel. He hasn't always been a doddery old fool. Regards Frank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 The whole issue is more about an attack by the left on the right... Yeah, that's what the Tories, the Met, News International and Boris Johnson alleged for years up until the hacking of Milly Dowler's phone was brought to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 But it wasn't the people directly under their control who were doing wrong. They were middle managers on the whole. Did you miss the bit where James Murdoch said he had authorised large payoffs (larger than the likely damages) to victims of voicemail interception in return for their silence? Are we to believe he personally authorised a payments of over 2 million quid without knowing why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 haha - from the Custard Pie man, asked by Nick Robinson: when I asked him what he said and why he'd done it, he said he was now the subject of a police investigation and therefore could not talk to me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudbeer Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 He hasn't always been a doddery old fool. Regards Frank Exactly and I would think it highly unlikely that he is still involved in the day to day of one of his established papers. Don't get me wrong am sure he is no angel and I reckon in his time he was probably totally ruthless. I would also question some of his morals looking at the type of articles that regularly run in some of his tabloids. My point is watching the committe going for him yesterday and frankly getting nowhere and then seeing a member of the public try to get to him would I suspect leave many people feeling a liitle uncomfortable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 But it wasn't the people directly under their control who were doing wrong. They were middle managers on the whole. No Chief Executive knows what's going on with all staff in a company on a day to day basis. They don't have time to check on all their employees. They rely on others informing them. These people have already been informed by a more junior member of staff. Its not surprising the issue wasn't evident. The whole issue is more about an attack by the left on the right... Oh, please. I'll quote directly from that article I linked to earlier, since I like the way Davies writes it: And so it was that {Rupert Murdoch] had never known that in March 2003 his editor, Rebekah Brooks, had told this same select committee that her journalists had paid police in the past; and he didn't know why no one had investigated this interesting confession; and he had never heard that the judge who presided over Max Mosley's action for privacy in 2008 had accused the News of the World's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, of blackmailing two prostitutes in the case; and he didn't know that his son had authorised more than £1m to be paid to settle the case of Gordon Taylor; and he didn't know that his subsidiary company had authorised another £1m to settle the case of Max Clifford; and he didn't know that last year, this same select committee had accused executives from News International of suffering from "collective amnesia". He couldn't even remember what he had ever discussed with Tony Blair. "We argued about the euro," I think. Stretching credulity even further, James Murdoch wants us to believe that he authorised massive sums of money in out-of-court settlements without him ever being made of aware of the evidence that compelled him to do so. That's James Murdoch. Rupert Murdoch's son. 'Middle managers', you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted July 20, 2011 Author Share Posted July 20, 2011 Did you miss the bit where James Murdoch said he had authorised large payoffs (larger than the likely damages) to victims of voicemail interception in return for their silence? Are we to believe he personally authorised a payments of over 2 million quid without knowing why? Nobody would dispute that. But he was paying them off because of what others had done. He wasn't involved in the actual hacking or the authorisation of it. He was paying them off to protect his business, which is the way of the world.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica23 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Exactly and I would think it highly unlikely that he is still involved in the day to day of one of his established papers. Don't get me wrong am sure he is no angel and I reckon in his time he was probably totally ruthless. I would also question some of his morals looking at the type of articles that regularly run in some of his tabloids. My point is watching the committe going for him yesterday and frankly getting nowhere and then seeing a member of the public try to get to him would I suspect leave many people feeling a liitle uncomfortable. The only thing that made me feel uncomfortable was the fact that with the honourable exception of Tom Watson none of those MPs had the first clue about how to ask a decent question or to go about getting around the Murdochs' stonewalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Nobody would dispute that. But he was paying them off because of what others had done. He wasn't involved in the actual hacking or the authorisation of it. He was paying them off to protect his business, which is the way of the world.. Precisely - yet he claims to have known nothing of it at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted July 20, 2011 Share Posted July 20, 2011 Ill bet if you find the person who stands to gain the most from this you will find the instigator. The whole thing is a farce to feed to the sheep with a goal.If Murdock doesnt get the BskyB deal someone else will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.