I haven't read all the thread but from what I understand, payoffs have been made to Politicians for favourable outcomes? If that was the case that they were accepting bribes, that to me makes them more reprehensible than those offering it.
Murdoch - unfit to have any role in the UK media
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I'm sure they don't; in much the same way that they wouldn't care if they saw someone breaking into or 'keying' someone else's car, someone's house being burgled, some old dear being mugged, a kid getting beaten up or a celebrity's privacy being invaded and their name being dragged through the mud. "It's not my problem, I don't care."
We have seen clear examples of the way in which the Police have been happy to turn a blind eye to News Corp's criminal behaviour, except of course when they are looking for a bribe or a retirement job. Why on earth would one expect the general public to be any different?
This is an attitude that is increasingly becoming the norm - "There is no such thing as society, just selfish individuals looking out for their own interests." as someone might have expressed it
I don't believe that the Grauniad, Torygraph or Independent have quite the same power over politicians and the police as News Corp does; added to that, historically there has been a reluctance amongst the reptiles of the press to get involved in an internecine war so you may well be right. However, that doesn't in any way absolve the Murdochs or News Corp.
Soldato
Agree with this last point, there is of course no absolution for News Corp based on waht they did, and there is I believe a public interest matter at stake here.
There other thing that makes me stop and think is how were News Corp ever allowed into a position where they were that strong / influential at a political level.
The obvious answer is they greased palms of MP's at all levels with cold hard cash. So there is still one fairly major question that needs answering, how did this go un-detected at a parliamentary level for so long ? This isn't a Tory thing, or a Labour thing or any other party thing. It is clear that this arrangement must have been in play for a very very long time spanning multiple governments. Therefore the lack of will shown by all adminsitrations to date to clean up their house with respects this, is on par with News Corps practices. In some ways actually worse, because the very same body of people that were happily being greased up for decades are now the ones trying to hold their 'greaser' to account.
This is why I honestly feel there is not much impartiality occurring in this enquiry and it is Witch Hunt worthy. The more heat and discredit the politicians can load on to Murdoch et al., the more they can deflect from the fact that they have been negligent, bribe happy and self serving for years...
I think this particular show will not end at Leveson. There is a lot more mileage here than just News Corp and their precarious relationships with public figures, law makers and the police.
Has there been any evidence of that, or even any accusations? Did you pull it out of the air?
Soldato
I pulled it out of the air as a theory. But I;d like to hear your theories on how the News Corp empire were allowed such political sway at the highest levels in the UK political landscape, if there was no corruption involved at any level at all.
moreover corruption at a police level has been established so it can be extrapolated that the behavioural patterns were there already.
So its not that far fetched to think it happened at a parliamentary level either. But hey, that's not going to come out in an investigation sanctioned by parliament now is it ??? ......
It's been firmly established that it wasn't for money, that it was for influence and positive press.
Politicians court the media, the media writes nice stories.
I don't think it's in doubt and I think your accusations of cash are crazy.
Soldato
Not that crazy at all
Proven connection between politicians and greed for money was clearly shown in the expenses scandals.
Allegations of News Corp 'bribing' certain individuals at the Met is currently being substantiated. So we can establish the News Corp had no problems handing out cash for 'favours' or 'information'
Therefore its not too crazy to then assume that in some cases there would have been some kind of financial 'incentives' floating around for certain politicians when it came to their Media 'Courtship'
To instantly dismiss the possibility of any kind of financial gains as an incentive is equally crazy. MPs are Human, humans like things, things cost money...... its a fairly basic premise that captures a lot of easily persuaded individuals in its grip.
I'm instantly dismissing your baseless accusations which seem to be entirely rooted in the fact that "Politicians like money"
I'm not dismissing the possibility, however you're touting it as if it's so obvious that proving it happened is pointless and it should be just assumed.
That is too crazy I'm afraid. Pointless trying to continue a discussion with you if you're just going to throw around stuff like that.
Soldato
At no point did I label anything I said as fact of thematter. In fact I even freely admited that I pulled it out of the air. I am however saying there is a distinct possibility that at some level there may have been some kind of financial corruption that allowed News Corp to gain the amount of Sway and Leverage they enjoyed within British Politics.
They would have had access to a lot of lower grade politicians and civil servants who would not have cared for any number of nice stories, therefore one has to infer that there is distinct possibility they may have been 'financially incentivised' to give up information, or help get something up to higher levels within the party.
What I have purported is a set of inferences based on recorded behaviours that have been exhibited by politicians in this country.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I very much doubt that any News Corp employee, let alone the Dirty Digger handed money to any senior politician, even in a plain brown envelope at King's Cross Station; I suspect that the relationship was always much more circumspect and deniable.
However, I believe that some documents dating back to Thatcher's time were released recently which seem to suggest that she decided not to refer the Dirty Digger's takeover of the Times to the Monopolies Commission in exchange for his undertaking to destroy the print unions - an idea which I am sure she would have enthusiastically applauded
However, I believe that some documents dating back to Thatcher's time were released recently which seem to suggest that she decided not to refer the Dirty Digger's takeover of the Times to the Monopolies Commission in exchange for his undertaking to destroy the print unions - an idea which I am sure she would have enthusiastically applauded
Soldato
I very much doubt that any News Corp employee, let alone the Dirty Digger handed money to any senior politician, even in a plain brown envelope at King's Cross Station; I suspect that the relationship was always much more circumspect and deniable.
However, I believe that some documents dating back to Thatcher's time were released recently which seem to suggest that she decided not to refer the Dirty Digger's takeover of the Times to the Monopolies Commission in exchange for his undertaking to destroy the print unions - an idea which I am sure she would have enthusiastically applauded
That much is obvious, I also can't imagine Thatcher, Kinock,Ashdown, Blair, Brown Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Osbourne, etc accepting a huge wad of cash from News Corp. However I can imagine a few juniors taking a bung to get certain things moving. There is no difference if its a senior level politician or a junior level one, the end result is still the same is it not, corporations effectively buying policy ? its just one takes longer as you have to work your way slowly and insidiously from the bottom up to get the results.
True, but Rupert Murdoch was not and is not on the board of directors of News International who owned News Group Newspapers which in turn owned the News of the World....the responsibility for this specifically would lie with Rebekah Brooks or her predecessors who were the CEO's at the times of the criminal activities. Also let us not get too hung up on Corporate Governance, as unlike the USA, UK CG is a guidance code with a "comply or explain" system, it is not a strict set of legally enforced rules that every company has to follow.....a listed company such as the one on the FTSE is required to follow their criteria regarding CG and will be required as a condition of their listing to either comply with CG or explain why they are not, and the explanation had better bne a good one and without getting to involved in this, it also only generally applies to specific parts of the CG.....a privately owned company doesn't have to comply with CG.
The problem with attributing legal responsibility to Rupert Murdoch is the way News International is structured, for CG and legal purposes the direct responsibility would generally lie with the CEO of either News Group Newspapers the direct owner of News of the World or with News International depending on how NGN is structured.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is something rotten in News Corp, just that it would be nigh on impossible to bring charges against Rupert Murdoch for the actions of the News of the World, there are too many people in-between him and the act itself. In the USA however he would have serious problems if it is found that he or rather Newscorp broke CG rules in the USA, because of, and I think it was Enron, the way some companies were structuring their accounts to hide assets and losses CG is a legal entity with very strict legal penalties depending on the Corporation Laws and Statute in each State...(the reason why many companies incorporate in Delaware for example is because it is cheaper than most other States, it has no residency requirement and companies that do not operate in Delaware are not obligated to pay Delaware Corp taxes and the big ones are one person can hold all Officer Positions and serve as Sole Director, and pertinent to Newscorp, the Courts are separate, they do not have Juries, Judges with specific Corporate law experience oversee and decide the cases.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I think that this is where it is all going to go horribly wrong for the Dirty Digger. At the moment, shareholders are sticking by the Murdoch Mafia. However, once News Corp appears to be moving into Enron territory, they will start to get very twitchy very quickly.
I look forward to choosing not to buy my copy of the Big Issue from an endless line of one-time Murdoch Mafia Dons
So, with John Major's testimony today at the Leveson enquiry it seems someone (and my money is on Rupert Murdoch) is telling some porky pies...
After not changing the Conservative stance on Europe, a few months later the Sun switched it's allegience to Tony Blair and the rest is history...
Maybe Murdoch meant it when he said he never asked Prime Ministers for anything....he just told Prime Ministers what he wanted...
Rupert Murdoch said:
John Major said:
After not changing the Conservative stance on Europe, a few months later the Sun switched it's allegience to Tony Blair and the rest is history...
Maybe Murdoch meant it when he said he never asked Prime Ministers for anything....he just told Prime Ministers what he wanted...
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
TBF I remember the days before Sky and it wasn't this haven of wall-to wall free sport people like to make out. As there was only 4 channels and each had to show a wide range of programming you 'd be lucky to see more than one 'Division 1' match a week.
Had it not been for Sky, the Premiership wouldn't have existed and the game wouldn't have become the game it has. Some people would prefer that, but had there been no Sky money back in the 90s, English football today would be no more respected than the leagues in Lithuania.