Did anyone expect anything different from the people Rupert Hires???

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

** Do you think he is ultimately responsible as the CEO of the company regardless of what he knows??

I used to think that, but now I know that it's really the fault of the person that ran the company before him. (That's sarcasm, btw).

Quote

**Considering that particular company is only 1% of his media empire, can you not see that the repercussions of this debacle 'might' shine some light on similar wrongdoings in the other 99%.

It might, yes - seems like it's certainly shown light on similar dealings at several papers that AREN'T part of his 'empire'.

Quote

It seems to me you are just stubborn, why would you even bother defending such a despicable person?

Looks like YOU need to read post #7 as well. If he's proven to be complicit in the tapping, he should have to face the consequences.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nigel99 574]

Mike,

You asked for evidence that Murdoch was personally involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14242763

This article is pretty explicit and shows that he was at the very least involved the cover-up. I don't see any point continuing to ask "show me the e-mail" because the email chain referenced in this link WILL see the light of day and show him up. If it doesn't then it shows complete incompetence, because why would you authorise a payment based on hearsay?

If I were you I would back away gracefully, and admit that the Murdoch's are not "shiny happy people" and leave it at that.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Mike,

You asked for evidence that Murdoch was personally involved.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14242763

This article is pretty explicit and shows that he was at the very least involved the cover-up. I don't see any point continuing to ask "show me the e-mail" because the email chain referenced in this link WILL see the light of day and show him up. If it doesn't then it shows complete incompetence, because why would you authorise a payment based on hearsay?

Several large leaps of logic, here.

First, James is not Rupert, and yes, I know they're related.

Secondly, knowledge after the fact is not the same as knowledge beforehand.

So, yes... bring on the email. Let's get to the bottom of it.

Quote

If I were you I would back away gracefully, and admit that the Murdoch's are not "shiny happy people" and leave it at that.

Another large leap of logic. Asking for evidence != "Murdochs are shiny happy people".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nigel99 574]

If you look at the timeline, he was aware of this prior to the pay-off. That is quite some time ago and according to the review currently going on there was "clear evidence of criminal activity" shown in the various email trails sent out for legal review.

By not taking the appropriate actions of handing his staff over to the police, or at the very least firing them he became complicit.

As to Rupert's involvement I am sure in time it will come to light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/rupert-murdoch-eye-off-ball

As for asking for evidence, there becomes a point where it is pretty obvious to all but the most ardent supporters that this is endemic to the organisation as a whole and therefore as CEO the bucks stops at his door.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you look at the timeline, he was aware of this prior to the pay-off. That is quite some time ago and according to the review currently going on there was "clear evidence of criminal activity" shown in the various email trails sent out for legal review.

By not taking the appropriate actions of handing his staff over to the police, or at the very least firing them he became complicit.

So, Coulson and Mulcaire *weren't* arrested, then? I guess the papers got it wrong.

Quote

As to Rupert's involvement I am sure in time it will come to light.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/rupert-murdoch-eye-off-ball

You mean like this bit from your posted link?

"This was not a man in charge. He had no idea that one of his editors had admitted paying police, nor that one of his reporters had been accused of blackmail, nor that his son had signed off a £1m cheque to Gordon Taylor (and who was Gordon Taylor anyway?). "

My God, you're right.... he's OBVIOUSLY guilty as charged in the court of public opinion!!! Throw him in the Tower!!

Quote

As for asking for evidence, there becomes a point where it is pretty obvious to all but the most ardent supporters that this is endemic to the organisation as a whole and therefore as CEO the bucks stops at his door.

So, you'll be starting a thread demanding the arrest of the reporters, editors and owners of the Daily Mail, The People, The Daily Mirror and The Mail on Sunday, right? After all, they all made more requests for confidential info from private investitators than NoW did.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

I provided sufficient proof to satisfy YOUR claim,

Uh, no dude, they were YOUR three ridiculous claims, and you've not shown a damn thing, especially as far as I'm concerned.

Quote

Kallends postings also support 2 and 3.

Where? You're just plucking things out of thin air again.

Quote

You first.

OK, so you admit you accused me of thinking those things not because of what I wrote, but because you think you're psychic. It's a start.

Quote

Yup, just like Piers Morgan - you know, the guy that's now on CNN?

Piers Morgan, Piers Morgan, now why does that ring a bell...

Oh yes! Piers Morgan - you know, the guy that was fired as editor of the Mirror for running a front page story with faked photographs of British soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Now there's a reliable source of information! And it's interesting that you forgot to mention that quote came from an interview where he was defending himself from an accusation of hacking. You'd hardly expect him to say he knew all about it, would you?

Not to mention that this "He never asked me about methodology of stories," still ties in nicely with Guardian opinion you linked to of Get it, just don't tell me how you get it. Because the editors, managers, lawyers and acccountants obviously weren't doing all the box ticking, were they?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I provided sufficient proof to satisfy YOUR claim,

Uh, no dude, they were YOUR three ridiculous claims, and you've not shown a damn thing, especially as far as I'm concerned.

Post 90, by jakee (not mnealtx):

"Specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made."

Thread title: Prima facie evidence that Amazon believes that Rupert Murdoch hired the reporters responsible for the wiretapping.

That satisfies the first satirical point that I made, and hence satisfies your demand in post 90.

Quote

Quote

Kallends postings also support 2 and 3.

Where? You're just plucking things out of thin air again.

That should have been 2 *or* three, in retrospect.

Post 13: "What do the three newspapers (paraphrased) have in common? Rupert Murdoch."

Quote

Quote

You first.

OK, so you admit you accused me of thinking those things not because of what I wrote, but because you think you're psychic. It's a start.

Wrong again - I stated that because you, like Amazon and Kallend, believe that Rupert Murdoch was involved sans any confirming evidence - why else keep mentioning him?

Quote

Quote

Yup, just like Piers Morgan - you know, the guy that's now on CNN?

Piers Morgan, Piers Morgan, now why does that ring a bell...

Oh yes! Piers Morgan - you know, the guy that was fired as editor of the Mirror for running a front page story with faked photographs of British soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Now there's a reliable source of information! And it's interesting that you forgot to mention that quote came from an interview where he was defending himself from an accusation of hacking. You'd hardly expect him to say he knew all about it, would you?

So, you've got nothing but attacking the messenger? Well, *that* certainly shows ole Rupert was in it up to his neck, now doesn't it?

Lame.

Quote

Not to mention that this "He never asked me about methodology of stories," still ties in nicely with Guardian opinion you linked to of Get it, just don't tell me how you get it. Because the editors, managers, lawyers and acccountants obviously weren't doing all the box ticking, were they?

Still waiting on the bit where you show Rupert was involved...coming to that any time soon?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

"Specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made."

Thread title: Prima facie evidence that Amazon believes that Rupert Murdoch hired the reporters responsible for the wiretapping.

I think you know that's not true, but whatever. As long as it means you admit the other 5 accusations were bullshit I'll give you that 1.

Quote

So, you've got nothing but attacking the messenger?

It's Piers Morgan. The sleaziest man in newspapers in an interview where he is defending himself. Damn right I'm attacking the messenger and no, it's not all I've got because as I said, what he says still supports the opinion of the Guardian column you posted.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made."

Thread title: Prima facie evidence that Amazon believes that Rupert Murdoch hired the reporters responsible for the wiretapping.

I think you know that's not true, but whatever. As long as it means you admit the other 5 accusations were bullshit I'll give you that 1.

Nope, doesn't mean that...and I'm supremely unconcerned whether you "give me that 1" or not.

Quote

Quote

So, you've got nothing but attacking the messenger?

It's Piers Morgan. The sleaziest man in newspapers in an interview where he is defending himself. Damn right I'm attacking the messenger and no, it's not all I've got because as I said, what he says still supports the opinion of the Guardian column you posted.

That would be the one that says that the higher-ups wouldn't have known the minutae of everything that happens on the news floor?

I agree.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Nope, doesn't mean that

Then prove them.

Quote

That would be the one that says that the higher-ups wouldn't have known the minutae of everything that happens on the news floor?

That would be the one that says the higher ups intentionally avoided finding out the precise details of what happens on the news floor.

Don't tell me you can't understand the difference!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Nope, doesn't mean that

Then prove them.

You're the one that said "specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made", remember? That means one is sufficient.

Quote

Quote

That would be the one that says that the higher-ups wouldn't have known the minutae of everything that happens on the news floor?

That would be the one that says the higher ups intentionally avoided finding out the precise details of what happens on the news floor.

Don't tell me you can't understand the difference!

"Another emailer, who has written several times on the same subject, also pointed out that throughout the chain of command on pop papers, staff only told their bosses what they needed to know.

Therefore the reporter didn't explain to the news editor how he/she obtained information unless specifically ordered to do so. Similarly, the news editor didn't tell the assistant editor and the assistant editor didn't tell the editor."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

You're the one that said "specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made", remember? That means one is sufficient.

So you admit the other 5 allegations were complete bullshit.

Quote

"Another emailer, who has written several times on the same subject, also pointed out that throughout the chain of command on pop papers, staff only told their bosses what they needed to know.

Therefore the reporter didn't explain to the news editor how he/she obtained information unless specifically ordered to do so. Similarly, the news editor didn't tell the assistant editor and the assistant editor didn't tell the editor."

"His argument is similar to that of my emailer. Editors would rather not know exactly how stories were obtained. So they did not oblige their middle-ranking executives to explain."

""the real culprits" of phone-hacking "are the rapacious results-or-else managements who know damned well how sales-making headlines are achieved and editorial bullies who abuse their hire-and-fire powers to intimidate staff in an ever-tightening jobs market.""

Your link, my point. Thanks.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You're the one that said "specifically cite a post in this thread which shows that I or anyone else believes any of the three points you made", remember? That means one is sufficient.

So you admit the other 5 allegations were complete bullshit.

Quote

"Another emailer, who has written several times on the same subject, also pointed out that throughout the chain of command on pop papers, staff only told their bosses what they needed to know.

Therefore the reporter didn't explain to the news editor how he/she obtained information unless specifically ordered to do so. Similarly, the news editor didn't tell the assistant editor and the assistant editor didn't tell the editor."

"His argument is similar to that of my emailer. Editors would rather not know exactly how stories were obtained. So they did not oblige their middle-ranking executives to explain."

""the real culprits" of phone-hacking "are the rapacious results-or-else managements who know damned well how sales-making headlines are achieved and editorial bullies who abuse their hire-and-fire powers to intimidate staff in an ever-tightening jobs market.""

Your link, my point. Thanks.

So, how did the 'rapacious results-or-else managements' get the info, if 'staff only told their bosses what they needed to know'? They using your phenomenal psychic powers?

No points for you, sorry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

So, how did the 'rapacious results-or-else managements' get the info, if 'staff only told their bosses what they needed to know'?

What info, exactly?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,108]

So now you've shifted from "he didn't do anything wrong" to "they all do it".

You should have quit while only a little bit behind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[fossg 0]

Short answer without getting involved in the minutiae on the situation..... No

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

So, how did the 'rapacious results-or-else managements' get the info, if 'staff only told their bosses what they needed to know'? They using your phenomenal psychic powers?

No points for you, sorry.

Hehehehehe

"This practice was widely discussed in the daily editorial conference, until explicit reference to it was banned by the Editor"

Hehehehehe

"In a separate letter, one of the Murdochs' own law firms claim that parts of that evidence were variously "hard to credit", "self-serving" and "inaccurate and misleading".

Goodman's claims also raise serious questions about Rupert Murdoch's close friend and adviser, Les Hinton, who was sent a copy of the letter but failed to pass it to police and who then led a cast of senior Murdoch personnel in telling parliament that they believed Coulson knew nothing about the interception of the voicemail of public figures and that Goodman was the only journalist involved."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Ah, yes... so Morgan's discussion of the subject is unreliable because he was an employee of Murdoch, but Goodman's is absolutely reliable...as an employee of Murdoch.

And *still* no mention of Rupert being involved in or knowledgable of the hacking - I thought y'all were saying he was in this up to his neck?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[dreamdancer 0]

james murdoch first
(then rupert)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

Ah, yes... so Morgan's discussion of the subject is unreliable because he was an employee of Murdoch,

Hehehehehe


Cite please!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Ah, yes... so Morgan's discussion of the subject is unreliable because he was an employee of Murdoch,

Hehehehehe


Cite please!

I mis-stated - to correct:

So, Morgan's statement is unreliable because he was trying to cover his ass, but you're taking Goodman's at face value?

No selection bias *there*, no...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ah, yes... so Morgan's discussion of the subject is unreliable because he was an employee of Murdoch,

Hehehehehe


Cite please!

I mis-stated - to correct:

So, Morgan's statement is unreliable because he was trying to cover his ass, but you're taking Goodman's at face value?

No selection bias *there*, no...

More WEASELING from mnealtx.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

More WEASELING from mnealtx.

MORE lack of proof from kallend - maybe you can come up with some logs from your telepathy machine or something.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,564]

Quote

So, Morgan's statement is unreliable because he was trying to cover his ass,

And because, before he exported himself to the US, he was probably the sleaziest man in Britain. If he told me grass was green I'd go outside and double check.

Quote

but you're taking Goodman's at face value? No selection bias *there*, no...

Funny, isn't it, what's important and what isn't?

It's important to note that it's only investigators implicated and not journalists, but it's not important if it's editors and not just journalists.

It's important if management don't know specifics about any particular criminal act, but it's not important if they discourage staff from reporting any criminal behaviour to them.

It's important if a man not directly involved with the current scandal says in a public interview management probably wouldn't have known anything, but it's not important if a man at the centre of it (who got a surprisingly large payout for a disgraced employee, I wonder what you get when you're fired for a bad reason?) says in a private letter they definitely did.

But hey, I guess it is just one guy saying certain higher ups knew more than they testified about, right?

"The law firm's challenge to the Murdochs' evidence follows an earlier claim made jointly by the paper's former editor and former lawyer that a different element of James Murdoch's evidence to the committee was "mistaken". He had told the committee that he had paid more than £1m to settle a legal action brought by Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association without knowing that Taylor's lawyers had obtained an email from a junior reporter to the paper's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing 35 transcripts of voicemail messages. Crone and the former editor, Colin Myler, last month challenged this.

In letters published by the committee, the former News of the World lawyer repeats his position. He says this email was "the sole reason" for settling Taylor's case. He says he took it with him to a meeting with James Murdoch in June 2008 when he explained the need to settle: "I have no doubt that I informed Mr Murdoch of its existence, of what it was and where it came from."

Myler, in a separate letter also published on Tuesday, endorses Crone's account. Their evidence raises questions about James Murdoch's failure to tell the police or his shareholders about the evidence of crime contained in the email."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

More WEASELING from mnealtx.

MORE lack of proof from kallend - maybe you can come up with some logs from your telepathy machine or something.

You're funny when you defend the indefensible.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.