Anyone else think Stockhausen was leaving the forums?
I am disappoint.
I thought so too.
Goodbye and good riddance!
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
I thought so too.
I clicked on this thread and like you, I am disappointAnyone else think Stockhausen was leaving the forums?
I am disappoint.
DO IT!No goodbye threads!!
Oh wait.....
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,124
Removal old post
Last edited:
It would be nice if the monthly prices of Sky would drop to reflect this
They have froze for 12 months, o and check that I'm currently paying half price that was due to run out in August
Hmmmm. With a statement like that I wouldn't be shouting about other people's naivety.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
But you realise that as soon as it becomes public knowledge that News Corp intend to buy again, it'll shoot back up?
News Corp can't 'surprise-buy' BSkyB.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Why can't it?
Popular opinion would largely appear to be against it, suspicion about leaking toxicity and criminality across the newsgroup brand and political distancing and potential recourse. I think the subsiduary itself will want to seek independence or new ownership. Same sort of reason with the furor over the bSkyb deal continuing and it cutting short. It would also seem to be warming up in America.
Australia too, where Murdoch owns 70% of the newspapers
Though looks like the australian arm will do an internal investigation and audit the last 3 years of expenses to check there was no impropriety and we all know how well internal audits work out
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 902
- Location
- Calgary
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
News International is the UK manifestation of News Corp. News International publishes the Times, the Sunday Times, the Sun and until last weekend, the News of the Screws. It makes its money from the gutter (tabloid) end of its publishing in the UK. It is now a tarnished brand. I suspect that Murdoch sees TV, films, etc. and particularly the Internet rather than newspapers as the long-term future. I suspect that at the right price, he would love to get out of printing newspapers in the UK altogether.
However . . . Murdoch's control of the Times and the Sun does allow him to have a malign influence over the government of the day. He might not actually be able to win the next election for the BNP or UKIP but he can certainly have a significant influence on the outcome. For the past 30 years, starting with Thatcher, neither the Tory or Labour party could afford to ignore his "advice" on media regulation. In light of his manifest selfishness, greed and lack of any social responsibility, Murdoch would have course, be the Finchley Witch's idea of the perfect "individual".
The public have momentarily turned against Murdoch and his tabloids.
The Labour party have at last seen the opportunity to get their revenge on Murdoch. Some Tories feel the same. Cameron has realised that his kow-towing to Murdoch may no longer serve his purpose. There is a rare consensus between Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs that the country would be better off if Murdoch got his malevolent dirt peddlers out of the British media. This may last longer than the blink of an eye.
What is perhaps more interesting is whether this contagion will spread to NewsCorp. NewsCorp is based in America and owns News International. The Murdoch family own less than 50% of NewsCorp but run it as if they own all of it. So long as investors are making money out of NewsCorp, they have been inclined to turn a blind eye to how exactly that money is made. News Corp has made one or two disastrous investments recently - the Wall Street Journal and MySpace. Murdoch has failed in his attempt to buy control of BSkyB. Murdoch is an 80 year old man, he would like to hand on control of his empire to his children like some North Korean despot.
I can quite see that American institutional investors might see that it is time for the Dirty Digger, his clan and their disgusting lieutenants to get lost. That this will result in any sort of improvement is much less certain.
I don't really care what happens in either America or Australia; I would just like to see legislation passed in the UK that would make deeply offensive newspapers and news outlets such as those imposed on us by Murdoch disappear for good.
I would particularly like to see the government forced to put more money into the BBC and pass legislation to make it even more independent - it has long been seen as an enemy of the government; Thatcher hated it, Blair did everything he could to destroy it and Cameron has been enthusiastically carrying on Blair's policy of destruction whilst promoting BSkyB.
I hope that the entire Murdoch family end up categorised as undesirable aliens, unfit to breathe British air or own so much as a local public convenience and his thoroughly evil UK lieutenants (Brooks / Wade, Coulson and others) get to spend many years in the nick - that really WOULD be a great outcome
Nobody is forced to read a Murdoch publication, they chose too.
Where is that money coming from, the license fee as it stands is nothing more than a tax, I can choose never to watch the BBC yet I still need a licence if I watch other channels.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I suspect that very few people have ever been forced to watch child abuse. despite this, the government has chosen to make the distribution and possession of such material illegal. I suspect that most people approve of this legislation.
Personally, I don't believe that the British people or the country would suffer greatly if the sort of practices and gutter publications associated with Murdoch were to disappear from our lives.
You can choose not to drive on the roads, you can choose not to inform the Police if you are mugged or your bedsit is burgled; there are many things you might choose not to do.
I believe that most people believe that two of the responsibilities of any government are to provide certain services to a decent standard and to help maintain a certain quality of life. Just because an individual doesn't agree with or make use of certain things doesn't mean that the government should not provide them for the benefit of the majority. An independent media that is not controlled by some unprincipled, selfish, greedy, unelected foreigner seems to me to be one of those things that the government should be providing
You could always emigrate. I hear that America under the Tea Party would be just peachy for someone like you. Somalia is another place where I doubt that you would be expected to fund a quality, independent broadcast service any time soon.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Does it? Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that the thoroughly corrupt Russian government tells you what papers to read?
Do you feel that there might just possibly be any level of involvement in the Russian government by thoroughly unpleasant and corrupt plutocrats?
Only one person on this forum could compare a newspaper to kiddie porn.
Take a step back and have a look at the things you type stockhausen and then think to yourself "Why doesn't anyone take me seriously?".
Take a step back and have a look at the things you type stockhausen and then think to yourself "Why doesn't anyone take me seriously?".
Last edited:
Would probably come to the conclusion we're all right wing and anti-liberal and that there is nothing wrong with himself.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711