Murdoch's minions reach a new low

[Triple Zero]

YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAH

[Cain]

The guy who did that also has a theory that the "deranged hoaxer" reported upon by the police investigating the Milly Dowler case was, in fact, Rebekah Brooks (possibly)

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2011/07/notw-milly-dowler/

While it has already been reported that staff from News of the World told Surrey Police about the illegal method(s) used to obtain the material that led to this article (link), it is not until you read a key revelation in that recent report and the article itself that you are likely to realise how much police contributed to the article, and judge how much this action might be interpreted as tacit approval of the methods of the tabloid staff who had broken the law in pursuit of this lead:

It was Surrey detectives who established that the call was not intended for Milly Dowler. – Guardian, 4 July 2011

Police believe the sick hoaxer called into a recruitment agency... It is thought the hoaxer even gave the agency Milly's real phone number. Police believe she may have got it by gaining the trust of people who knew the schoolgirl... The twisted creature also contacted TV's Crimewatch programme, claiming to be Milly. Police say the hoaxer has hampered the investigation and previous high-profile enquiries... A senior officer involved in the hunt said last night: "Our inquiries and those of other forces have been plagued by a professional hoaxer who has much experience of the practices of police and investigation methods. The chances are extremely high that the individual concerned is a rather disturbed lady who needs care. – News of the World, 14 April 2002

I'm sensing some past history here, and some frustration that more couldn't be done to control this reckless fantasist (hey, I can relate). That might explain some of this content offered up by police. Then again, perhaps it was more a case of police deciding to address matters with a coded message to the editor of News of the World or (more likely, in my view) much of the lecture above was aimed at the unnamed hoaxer and Rebekah Wade, and only half of it made it to print in the form of an attack on the hoaxer. (This is what tabloid scum do; they selectively edit reality, attempting to shape it to their will, and act in monstrous ways while screaming; "Look out! Behind you! MONSTER!!!!")

Good catch, eh?

[Freeky]

http://i.imgur.com/oFaWP.jpg

Oh my god by the third panel I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for it and then I

[LMNO]

Apparently, the news is trying to make Murdoch's Asian wife some sort of ninja hero for blocking the pie.

[Cain]

Yup.  She also clobbered the woman sitting between her and the pie-thrower.

And the pie-thrower made sure most of the news concentrated on him, rather than why Murdoch was being questioned and what was actually being asked.

[Disco Pickle]

taking the spotlight off of Murdoch and making his wife out to be some sort of hero is what I meant by not productive.  Counter productive would probably be more appropriate.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

taking the spotlight off of Murdoch and making his wife out to be some sort of hero is what I meant by not productive.  Counter productive would probably be more appropriate.

If it was counter productive for the prosecution, then wasn't it also productive for the defense?

I have been wondering if it wasn't all "just for show".

[Cain]

Agreed Pickles.  While I see what Cram is saying, the French activists who pioneered this method meant for it to be used on the puffed up and self-regarding.  They were French, after all, the tactic was for those kind of politicians who think they are intellectual giants, or those kind of intellectual giants who think they are statesmen (Bernard Henri-Levy comes to mind).  Murdoch doesn't strike me as a man with many pretensions.  Plus he's a fairly vulnerable looking, 80 year old man.

James Murdoch, on the other hand, is a jumped up little shit, so it may have worked on him.

[Cain]

taking the spotlight off of Murdoch and making his wife out to be some sort of hero is what I meant by not productive.  Counter productive would probably be more appropriate.

If it was counter productive for the prosecution, then wasn't it also productive for the defense?

I have been wondering if it wasn't all "just for show".

This wasn't an official hearing or anything.  With legal power to investigate and prosecute, at least.  It's more like a Senate Committee hearing.

It was interesting to note that, in a Parliament full of solicitors and people experienced at cross-examining witnesses, those who sat on the Committee were, by profession, two marketing types; one accountant; one former SpAd; a soldier; a novelist; an insurance salesman and a trade unionist.

Also the Justice Committee may have been more appropriate, given the police angle to all of this.

[Disco Pickle]

taking the spotlight off of Murdoch and making his wife out to be some sort of hero is what I meant by not productive.  Counter productive would probably be more appropriate.

If it was counter productive for the prosecution, then wasn't it also productive for the defense?

I have been wondering if it wasn't all "just for show".

If it was a trial, sure.  You would never want any reason to build sympathy for a defendant as a prosecutor.  From what I understand these are more along the lines of the Congressional hearings we have here.  Inquiries and answers under oath in order to determine what, if any, charges should be brought and against whom.  It's the public opinion and sympathy brought by the pie that's counter productive.

Cain's better equipped to confirm that as my knowledge of England's Parliament is limited.

[Cramulus]

Agreed Pickles.  While I see what Cram is saying, the French activists who pioneered this method meant for it to be used on the puffed up and self-regarding.  They were French, after all, the tactic was for those kind of politicians who think they are intellectual giants, or those kind of intellectual giants who think they are statesmen (Bernard Henri-Levy comes to mind).  Murdoch doesn't strike me as a man with many pretensions.  Plus he's a fairly vulnerable looking, 80 year old man.

James Murdoch, on the other hand, is a jumped up little shit, so it may have worked on him.

yeah, I'm coming around on this... I've been watching the testimonies with great interest, it's frustrating to see all this morning's news focused on this non-issue.



BTW: Handy testimony links!

pt1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPwwMMbx0M
pt2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJn6Hb0MPK8
pt3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC0-Kh69nj8
pt4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wACxYtwfk4g
pt5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO01Z5xc1Wc
pt6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd8_mJ96j_c
pt7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGD2-rICF4k&feature=BFa&list=ULeeVX6Qszhqo

[Cramulus]

James Murdoch - what a little shit!

Watching these proceedings is much more entertaining than American court! I like how the MPs control the conversation, they don't allow the witnesses to filibuster, etc.

I gotta say, these guys [the Murdochs] really do know how to make news. [duh] Right at the beginning, the MPs shot down their request to read an opening statement. In the next 5 minutes, both James and Rupert Murdoch tried their best to inject their emotional framing into the line of questioning. Murdoch statement "This is the most humble day of my life." was a random interjection, it wasn't connected to any rhetoric... He knows that a very short emotional sound bite like that is what the news craves. They kept playing that clip on the radio as if it means anything!

The Murdochs attitude is adequately submissive, the "I fucked up" posture. They are like, "Jesus! That was a lot of hacking! We are totally 100% with you, let's get to the bottom of this and do some JUSTICE! FUCK YEAH!" They're doing an okay job of distancing themselves from the illegal activities. They're real shrewd, I'm betting they've still got some good tricks up their sleeves. But this parliament has been lied to before about this topic already - their questions are pointed and sharp. I really am loving watching this trial.

[Dysfunctional Cunt]

taking the spotlight off of Murdoch and making his wife out to be some sort of hero is what I meant by not productive.  Counter productive would probably be more appropriate.

If it was counter productive for the prosecution, then wasn't it also productive for the defense?

I have been wondering if it wasn't all "just for show".

This wasn't an official hearing or anything.  With legal power to investigate and prosecute, at least.  It's more like a Senate Committee hearing.

It was interesting to note that, in a Parliament full of solicitors and people experienced at cross-examining witnesses, those who sat on the Committee were, by profession, two marketing types; one accountant; one former SpAd; a soldier; a novelist; an insurance salesman and a trade unionist.

Also the Justice Committee may have been more appropriate, given the police angle to all of this.

Ah see, I completely misunderstood, I was under the impression they had already brought charges against Murdoch and this was a pre-trial kind of thing.  So this is to decide if they are going to do so? 

The news this morning that I saw was so focused on the wife that I really found it a bit difficult to know what exactly had happened, or was happening.

They did say that the blame for the phone hacking was continuing to roll downhill.  Who's at the bottom of this hill?  Anyone know?

[Cain]

I actually feel almost the exact opposite, Cram.  The questioning is weak, and they're letting Murdoch and son waffle on for too long.  The only one even making an effort to hold their feet to the fire is Tom Watson.  I mean, Louise Mensch is basically eye candy, Sheridan is out of his depth and Whittingdale is rumoured to be batting for Murdoch.

[Triple Zero]

@LulzSec tweets We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have.