Yup, but it started under Thatcher so nought new. Murdoch decides who governs Britian and we let him do it and I can't see it changing in any meaningful way. Boo hoo.
Really do not understand why people get in such a state about Murdoch. So if he has been in cahoots with every PM for the last 30 or 40 years what difference has it made to you? He owns a few newspapers and TV channels, so what? Get over yourselves.
Well Chirps if you don't understand (and I think this is yet another of your trolls) then you are naive. If you want to see a historical equivalent then read about William Randolph Hearst. At least he put himself up for election on occasions.
Really do not understand why people get in such a state about Murdoch. So if he has been in cahoots with every PM for the last 30 or 40 years what difference has it made to you? He owns a few newspapers and TV channels, so what? Get over yourselves.
Your post should have ended after the first four words.
Really do not understand why people get in such a state about Murdoch. So if he has been in cahoots with every PM for the last 30 or 40 years what difference has it made to you? He owns a few newspapers and TV channels, so what? Get over yourselves.
Your post should have ended after the first four words.
Yup, but it started under Thatcher so nought new. Murdoch decides who governs Britian and we let him do it and I can't see it changing in any meaningful way. Boo hoo.
It was happening under Churchill in World War 2.
Beaverbrook etc. T'was ever thus regardless of political colour.
Yup, but it started under Thatcher so nought new. Murdoch decides who governs Britian and we let him do it and I can't see it changing in any meaningful way. Boo hoo.
It was happening under Churchill in World War 2.
Beaverbrook etc. T'was ever thus regardless of political colour.
Quite so but I think SA was saying that Murdoch's influence on PMs began with the one elected in 1979
Thatcher was the first to utilise the power of Murdoch for her own ends but to her credit I think she was always in control. Subsequent PM's have cosied up to the point where it is obscene. Blair is the Godfather to one of Murdochs children !!!!!!!!!!! Brown was as prime minister not agile minded enough to persuade Rupert to continue his support for Labour ending in the accusation of that phone call made by Murdoch at yesterday's hearing which Brown denies ever taking place. Either Brown or Murdoch is lying. Cameron has adopted the Tony Blair approach and is nicely tucked up in bed with Murdoch. Cameron cut short a family holiday to fly out to see Murdoch on his yacht. I presume he was summoned. This thing stinks to high heaven and I hope that we truly get to the bottom of it all but I'm not holding my breath.
Much ado about nothing, except for illustrating in yet more vivid colour (lest there was any doubt) what a bunch of spineless opportunists British politicians from all the major parties have become.
I am not singling out the Tories for castigation. Far from it. I merely observe what is already well known ( and indeed has been the subject of questions at the Leveson enquiry) and that is that Margaret Thatcher, in the then secret meetings with Murdoch, recognised the vote pulling power of Murdoch and his vast and expanding media empire. The New Labour govt. of Tony Blair is actually more guilty of cosying up to Murdoch than Thatcher. Blair knew that the only way that Labour could gain electoral success would be to make friends in the city and Murdoch's papers, notably The Sun. In following this path, Blair took a calculated decision to ditch the 'working class' and the unions. If anyone seriously believes that Murdoch doesn't hold immense sway over our electoral process, then I think they are deluding themselves.
Really do not understand why people get in such a state about Murdoch. So if he has been in cahoots with every PM for the last 30 or 40 years what difference has it made to you? He owns a few newspapers and TV channels, so what? Get over yourselves.
He or his companies have broken the law, they have corrupted the police, the civil service and our political process they (he and his family) must be stripped of their positions and removed from the country. They have hacked phones, computers - emails, broken into homes and offices, made illegal payments to police officers and civil servants. Just how far does one man have to go to arouse your anger?
What would you do in the face of such actions, sit and wait for your turn or stop it? Societies can only work to the good of all if they adhere to proper checks and balances. There have been no adequate or effective checks on his power for far too long. A better question than “what difference has he made to you” is, why has this man seemingly been above the law for so long?
Back when "Fortress Wapping" was being established Brenda Dean warned of the insidious nature of this man and everybody looked the other way, we lost the right to reply which was such an important balance to the then right wing media. Kelvin MacKenzie stated "you haven't got us by the balls any more". Most people were very anti union at that time, so they got away with it and we have paid the price for that ambivalence, we need to correct that now.
I really cant understand peoples equivocation on this man, he is dangerous, he destroys, infiltrates, corrupts and distorts. He is a festering sore on the planet and should be removed very painfully. I witnessed first hand how truth was manipulated by his editors, first in the printer's dispute and then in the miners dispute (it should not be forgotten that even the BBC took part in this). He turned himself into an oligarch, a powerful man with no means of control, restraint or responsibility.
Political parties court press, big institutions and individuals for backing, and in return press, big institutions and individuals expect some form of assistance to further their commercial interests, be it contracts, regulations etc.
That is the so called democratic world we live in. It has been this way for many, many decades, and it will not change as a result of all this.
Political parties court press, big institutions and individuals for backing, and in return press, big institutions and individuals expect some form of assistance to further their commercial interests, be it contracts, regulations etc.
That is the so called democratic world we live in. It has been this way for many, many decades, and it will not change as a result of all this.
There is a huge difference between courting influence and breaking the law!
Really do not understand why people get in such a state about Murdoch. So if he has been in cahoots with every PM for the last 30 or 40 years what difference has it made to you? He owns a few newspapers and TV channels, so what? Get over yourselves.
He or his companies have broken the law, they have corrupted the police, the civil service and our political process they (he and his family) must be stripped of their positions and removed from the country. They have hacked phones, computers - emails, broken into homes and offices, made illegal payments to police officers and civil servants. Just how far does one man have to go to arouse your anger?
What would you do in the face of such actions, sit and wait for your turn or stop it? Societies can only work to the good of all if they adhere to proper checks and balances. There have been no adequate or effective checks on his power for far too long. A better question than “what difference has he made to you” is, why has this man seemingly been above the law for so long?
Back when "Fortress Wapping" was being established Brenda Dean warned of the insidious nature of this man and everybody looked the other way, we lost the right to reply which was such an important balance to the then right wing media. Kelvin MacKenzie stated "you haven't got us by the balls any more". Most people were very anti union at that time, so they got away with it and we have paid the price for that ambivalence, we need to correct that now.
I really cant understand peoples equivocation on this man, he is dangerous, he destroys, infiltrates, corrupts and distorts. He is a festering sore on the planet and should be removed very painfully. I witnessed first hand how truth was manipulated by his editors, first in the printer's dispute and then in the miners dispute (it should not be forgotten that even the BBC took part in this). He turned himself into an oligarch, a powerful man with no means of control, restraint or responsibility.
I couldnt agree more with this summing up of Murdoch and his family business.The man is Australian and yet controls who is elected in this country.Politicians will jump into bed with him to make sure that his mouth piece(the Sun) gets people to vote for their party.Some people are too stupid to decide for themselves so they let a comic like the Sun do their thinking for them.This man infiltrates every corner of our society from Politicians to the police to journalists etc.He is the original teflon kid(nothing sticks).We have an opportunity to nail this bastard for good and we should take it.
On another subject i don't know why anybody takes Chirpy Red seriously,the man is a clown and only posts the things he does to get a reaction.He is like a child who misbehaves to get attention.
Political parties court press, big institutions and individuals for backing, and in return press, big institutions and individuals expect some form of assistance to further their commercial interests, be it contracts, regulations etc.
That is the so called democratic world we live in. It has been this way for many, many decades, and it will not change as a result of all this.
I certainly agree that it been this way for many years but I do believe certain aspects have to change. Do you think it is a healthy relationship that the elected Prime Ministers of this country seem to be so tied in with this creature ? Blair is his child's godfather. Very nice but are they really such good chums and if so why ? Cameron cuts short his holidays to fly out to visit his good buddy ? Odd that both he and Blair both seem to treasure Murdochs friendship and obviously have so much in common with Murdoch they enjoy a good old chinwag about how the kiddies are getting on. No.
Political parties court press, big institutions and individuals for backing, and in return press, big institutions and individuals expect some form of assistance to further their commercial interests, be it contracts, regulations etc.
That is the so called democratic world we live in. It has been this way for many, many decades, and it will not change as a result of all this.
That is part of the problem Dan, the intelligent people among the electorate realise it is wrong and want it to change, the people we elect should recognise this and do our bidding. The fact that we have resigned ourselves to this always being the case is a minor tragedy.
Comments
He owns a few newspapers and TV channels, so what? Get over yourselves.
WTF are "trolls"?
Beaverbrook etc. T'was ever thus regardless of political colour.
Thatcher was the first to utilise the power of Murdoch for her own ends but to her credit I think she was always in control. Subsequent PM's have cosied up to the point where it is obscene. Blair is the Godfather to one of Murdochs children !!!!!!!!!!! Brown was as prime minister not agile minded enough to persuade Rupert to continue his support for Labour ending in the accusation of that phone call made by Murdoch at yesterday's hearing which Brown denies ever taking place. Either Brown or Murdoch is lying. Cameron has adopted the Tony Blair approach and is nicely tucked up in bed with Murdoch. Cameron cut short a family holiday to fly out to see Murdoch on his yacht. I presume he was summoned. This thing stinks to high heaven and I hope that we truly get to the bottom of it all but I'm not holding my breath.
What would you do in the face of such actions, sit and wait for your turn or stop it? Societies can only work to the good of all if they adhere to proper checks and balances. There have been no adequate or effective checks on his power for far too long. A better question than “what difference has he made to you” is, why has this man seemingly been above the law for so long?
Back when "Fortress Wapping" was being established Brenda Dean warned of the insidious nature of this man and everybody looked the other way, we lost the right to reply which was such an important balance to the then right wing media. Kelvin MacKenzie stated "you haven't got us by the balls any more". Most people were very anti union at that time, so they got away with it and we have paid the price for that ambivalence, we need to correct that now.
I really cant understand peoples equivocation on this man, he is dangerous, he destroys, infiltrates, corrupts and distorts. He is a festering sore on the planet and should be removed very painfully. I witnessed first hand how truth was manipulated by his editors, first in the printer's dispute and then in the miners dispute (it should not be forgotten that even the BBC took part in this). He turned himself into an oligarch, a powerful man with no means of control, restraint or responsibility.
Political parties court press, big institutions and individuals for backing, and in return press, big institutions and individuals expect some form of assistance to further their commercial interests, be it contracts, regulations etc.
That is the so called democratic world we live in. It has been this way for many, many decades, and it will not change as a result of all this.
Great use of the word equivocation btw.
On another subject i don't know why anybody takes Chirpy Red seriously,the man is a clown and only posts the things he does to get a reaction.He is like a child who misbehaves to get attention.
Who is worse? He who offers payment or he who accepts?
I have no problem with Murdoch or his empire.