Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

sunny jim said:
Is it me or are Sky News not toeing the "Murdoch/partyline" at the moment? Tbh I dont watch it that much but they just played an illicit recording of todays meeting between Brooks and the rest of the staff which didnt put Brooks in a good light.
Click to expand...

Seeing ones potential boss throw 200 potential colleagues under a bus, in order to save herself, might have concentrated minds over there.
 
ok, so shoot me... & speculation

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.

/speculation & shooting me.
 
weltweit said:
ok, so shoot me... & speculation

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.

/speculation & shooting me.
Click to expand...
Consider your self shot
 
weltweit said:
ok, so shoot me... & speculation

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.

/speculation & shooting me.
Click to expand...

He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
 
agricola said:
He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Click to expand...

Actually, scratch my sympathy spiel, he has brought all this on himself and it couldn't happen to a nicer person.

I caught some speculation today that he could be forced to sell his stake. Not a right fit and proper person and all that.
 
agricola said:
He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Click to expand...

Ok - virtual tenner he ends up having to sell - or bails before it comes to that.
 
agricola said:
He wont be forced to sell his stake in BSkyB - they might delay and perhaps even block his takeover, but screwing him that much would result in so many skeletons coming out of the closet that it would make the past three days seem like an especially dull year in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that if it's determined that he's not a fit and proper person to takeover and own BSkyB outright, then he automatically isn't a fit and proper person to own any of it, so presumably would be forced to sell.
 
weltweit said:
ok, so shoot me... & speculation

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.

/speculation & shooting me.
Click to expand...

Meh. Can't say I can bring myself to feel sorry. I don't think any one investor should be able to hold a controlling stake in the UK's largest broadcast conglomerate. Not to mention a 100% stake. Especially not if it's the person who gave the world Fox News. Just don't think just one person should have the say in deciding the line up of channels, and so deciding what people can or can't see. In fact, I'd be very much in favour of a law, limiting the amount of shares any one entity can hold in BSkyB at any one time.

And if the deal falls through, or if he's forced to sell his current holdings then he's really got noone to blame but himself and the questionable decisions he's made in the past.
 
weltweit said:
ok, so shoot me... & speculation

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.

/speculation & shooting me.
Click to expand...

arrrrgh !!!
 
Kaka Tim said:
Ok - virtual tenner he ends up having to sell - or bails before it comes to that.
Click to expand...

Your imaginary money is always good with me. Personally I think they'll kick the Sky takeover down the kerb a bit, wait for this either to die a death or widen to encompass most of the tabloids, then let him have Sky on the basis that he is largely responsible for its success anyway (or rather, he almost went bankrupt making it a success) and in order to keep him on side for the next election. The idea that they would wipe him out is surely wide of the mark, he has far too much dirt on everyone and has the means to expose it all.
 
frogwoman said:
arrrrgh !!!
Click to expand...

Yes, I can understand that reaction and I have slightly changed my view, if he is forced to sell, it will be his own fault and he deserves no sympathy.

Nevertheless, I can remember back before satellite tv in the UK when Murdoch's Sky took on the much better funded BsB corporation (iirc) which was promoting the Squariel a small square ariel. No one really knew if either of the technologies would work but sky pushed on towards a launch date. Amstrad produced their decoders in record time, beating a lot of competing electronics firms including the one that I worked for at that time, and the sky channel was launched. As a result the competing BsB corporation folded and then merged with sky creating BskyB. It was said at the time that Murdoch had borrowed so much that he effectively ran the banks rather than the other way round. It was a good bit of business and risk taking but back then he was already hated by the establishment, so in many ways nothing has changed.
 
Anyone seen todays Popbitch email? Apologies if its a repost, but it deserves a full quote:

PB said:
>> Screwed <<
Noose tightens at News Int

With all the blagging, cash payments
and subterfuge involved, some of the
stories coming out at the moment make
phone hacking sound like it would be a
very complicated and expensive operation.
Well, imagine if NOTW execs were bright
enough to have found a simpler solution.

As the self-appointed scourge of paedos
and the promoters of Sarah's law, it was
only natural that the News Of The World
would be on hand to comfort the victims'
families in many of the most horrific
crimes of the last decade. And such was
their apparent determination to rid the
country of child sex offenders, it wouldn't
have seemed too weird if a senior NOTW
figure sympathetically handed over a
mobile phone at no expense to the victim -
so that they could all keep in touch. And
then, of course, there would be no problem
monitoring those phones, would there?
If the rumours going around News
International about who the person
handing out the phone was are anything
more substantial than chatter from
understandably bitter ex-employees then
we might see some action on this website
before too long:
http://www.hasrebekahbrooksbeensackedyet.com/
Click to expand...
 
agricola said:
Your imaginary money is always good with me. Personally I think they'll kick the Sky takeover down the kerb a bit, wait for this either to die a death or widen to encompass most of the tabloids, then let him have Sky on the basis that he is largely responsible for its success anyway (or rather, he almost went bankrupt making it a success) and in order to keep him on side for the next election. The idea that they would wipe him out is surely wide of the mark, he has far too much dirt on everyone and has the means to expose it all.
Click to expand...

This is what bothers me.

It seems many politicians are terrified, BECAUSE they have something to hide and it is possible Murdoch knows their secrets.

And it has been said (whose quote is this?) never pick an argument with someone who buys their ink by the barrel.

Surely people going into politics should be clean - to the greatest extent?
 
weltweit said:
ok, so shoot me... & speculation

I feel a little bit sorry for Murdock now that he may be concievably forced to sell his complete stake in BskyB because he is not a fit and proper person. After all BskyB was his baby, it beat its competitor easily and established satellite TV as a viable business in the UK. I imagine it will hurt him to be forced to sell this, which is in many ways his biggest baby.

/speculation & shooting me.
Click to expand...

*throws weltweit's post into the fire*

I want it all to burn. All of it .

Murdoch's ambition was for all culture and information to be delivered by magnates like him. It is the ultimate capitalist's wet dream to see the media in entirely private hands. But private hands of a particular kind, naturally. Murdoch is the cheerleader for a world in which magnates own everything and we thank them for it

"oh thankyou sir for saving our paper/football club/tv channel/theatre. You're putting sooo much of your own money into it and it doesn't even make you a profit! " *hands over money, takes ticket*


And Alan Rusbridger is a fucking cunting disgrace. I'd like to jam cigarettes down his throat on behalf of Dennis Potter for his approach to all of this. The world is being stolen from us and all he can do is tut-tut as one of the thieves is taken down - 'but he did so love his papers, old Rupe.'

I never thought I'd say this, but thank fuck for the bbc. Grow some balls, now, bbc. This shit belongs to fucking US.
 
invisibleplanet said:
Co-operative Bank PLC pulled their ads from NoTW a few days ago.
It won't be long before they do the same as Renault
Click to expand...


The co-op were lagging far, FAR behind other advertisers! In fact, iirc (it'll be there somewhere back in the thread) I *think* they had actually made a specific statement about NOT withdrawing (until the point that they changed their mind)!
 
weltweit said:
Yes, I can understand that reaction and I have slightly changed my view, if he is forced to sell, it will be his own fault and he deserves no sympathy.

Nevertheless, I can remember back before satellite tv in the UK when Murdoch's Sky took on the much better funded BsB corporation (iirc) which was promoting the Squariel a small square ariel. No one really knew if either of the technologies would work but sky pushed on towards a launch date. Amstrad produced their decoders in record time, beating a lot of competing electronics firms including the one that I worked for at that time, and the sky channel was launched. As a result the competing BsB corporation folded and then merged with sky creating BskyB. It was said at the time that Murdoch had borrowed so much that he effectively ran the banks rather than the other way round. It was a good bit of business and risk taking but back then he was already hated by the establishment, so in many ways nothing has changed.
Click to expand...

He certainly wasn't hated by Thatcher, her government could have stopped Sky TV from launching, or least marketing itself & selling advertising in the UK, if they had wanted too.

British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) was the official UK licenced satellite broadcaster - using frequencies allocated to the UK by the ITC (International Telecommunications Commission) for TV transmissions.

Sky launched on the Luxembourg-based Astra satellite system, using frequencies allocated by the ITC for telecommunications purposes, Astra had no regulatory permission to broadcast TV.

Basically Sky was a pirate at launch, it and anyone working for it, promoting it or advertising on it could have been subjected to action under the Marine, etc. Broadcasting Act 1967 (the 'etc.' included transmissions from the sky), which had been introduced to deal with offshore pirate radio.
 
Barking_Mad said:
....
Statement from the Guardian on the information it gave to the government regarding Andy Coulson:

Before the general election the Guardian contacted all three party leaders to tell them of certain facts about Andy Coulson which the Guardian could not at that stage report.

In a telephone call around February 25th, Guardian deputy editor Ian Katz told the prime minister's director of strategy Steve Hilton a number of details about the case of Jonathan Rees, a private detective who had worked for the News of the World, which the paper had been unable to publish due to ongoing legal proceedings. These included:

• Rees's name – he had been described in a Guardian report published online on February 24th and in the paper edition of February 25th only as "Mr A"

• The fact that he was awaiting trial for a murder in which the victim was found in a pub car park with an axe in his head

• The fact that Rees had been jailed for seven years for conspiring to frame a woman by placing cocaine in her car, after which he had been rehired by Coulson's News of the World.

• The fact that Rees's illegal activities on behalf of the News of the World had been prominently reported in the Guardian before he was rehired under Coulson.

None of these details was included in any report for several months until after the collapse of Rees's trial in March 2011. The thrust of the conversation was that Rees was a murder suspect who had been involved in massive corruption on behalf of the News of the World of which Coulson could not have been unaware. The Guardian understands No 10 chief of staff Edward Llewelyn was informed of this conversation.

Downing Street's reference to the private detective working for Panorama is baffling and irrelevant to how the Rees information was handled. There was no suggestion that Rees ever had any connection with Panorama until March 2011, many months after No 10 was told the details of the Rees case.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

surprised not to see more comment on this tbh. surely that fucks cameron good & proper?
 
killer b said:
surprised not to see more comment on this tbh. surely that fucks cameron good & proper?
Click to expand...

Well, according to Dave's car crash press conference this morning he never heard about any specifics like that, so there. As far as plausible denial goes, not sure how that will stand up, but if we take him by his word, none of those allegations have ever reached him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
"Victims of grooming gangs want action"...headline today on the BBC
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
302
Views
7K
xenon
X
Fozzie Bear
Neo Nazi has-beens Blood and Honour sanctioned by the Treasury
Replies
16
Views
449
The39thStep
The39thStep
Humberto
Missing persons. How many families does it happen to?
Replies
12
Views
912
cupid_stunt
cupid_stunt
ska invita
A new mass party of the left (Jan 2025 edition)! Collective / Fightback
2
Replies
52
Views
1K
Eric Jarvis
Eric Jarvis
cupid_stunt
Water bills to rise by £86 EXTRA on average next year (2025) + more every year until at least 2030
Replies
29
Views
741
editor
editor
Back
Top Bottom