That is actually a great summary for anyone wondering what all the fuss is about.
Those people are mainly Mail / Sun readers / Sky news viewers who are probably only getting shreds of the info between complaining about immigrants / pedo's / Lady Di etc...
Murdoch and Brooks have been invited to attend a parliamentary committee next Tuesday
2:07pm• News International has said it will "co-operate" with the culture committee, which wants Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebakah Brooks to give evidence. "We have been made aware of the request from the CMS committee to interview senior executives and will co-operate," a company spokesowoman said. "We await the formal invitation." But it is not clear yet whether this means the Murdochs and Brooks will turn up next Tuesday. The company have not clarified this yet.
Does British Parliament have similar powers to congress over here? Like where they can legally compel you to appear and hold you in contempt if you refuse?
Does British Parliament have similar powers to congress over here? Like where they can legally compel you to appear and hold you in contempt if you refuse?
apparently they do not, or at least not in this particular circumstance
Does British Parliament have similar powers to congress over here? Like where they can legally compel you to appear and hold you in contempt if you refuse?
They don't, but parliament can setup a judicial inquiry that does have the power to compel attendance.
2.15pm: More hot news from outside the committee. Labour have released the text of the motion that will be put to a vote in the opposition day debate tomorrow. It's very simple.
This House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.
Ed Miliband has chosen this to maximise Lib Dem support. A Miliband aide has just told me the party hopes for "overwhelming support"
If MPs pass this motion, it won't technically have much effect. Murdoch isn't a British citizen, and the House of Commons cannot tell him what to do. In theory, it should not even be relevant to the Competition Commission inquiry into whether the bid should go through. All I can say at this stage is that a Commons vote of that kind won't increase the chances of the News Corp bid being successful.
The Tories won't want to vote against this motion (not least because, according a YouGov poll at the weekend [pdf], 70% of the public are opposed to the bid going through - and only 9% are in favour). They could abstain, but that would look weak and it would allow the motion to go through anyway. But they can table amendement. We'll find out more shortly.
You know, back in 6th Form, there was a guy in English Lit who would ask questions like "do you hate girls, or love men". This motion kind of sounds like that.
I'm just loving all this. It's becoming more and more clear that just about everyone has known more or less what was going on for a long time, but wouldn't speak out for fear that the Murdoch machine would turn on them. It's like that moment that the entire school turns on the bully and makes it very clear that they're not taking any more of his shit
2.15pm: More hot news from outside the committee. Labour have released the text of the motion that will be put to a vote in the opposition day debate tomorrow. It's very simple.
This House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.
Ed Miliband has chosen this to maximise Lib Dem support. A Miliband aide has just told me the party hopes for "overwhelming support"
If MPs pass this motion, it won't technically have much effect. Murdoch isn't a British citizen, and the House of Commons cannot tell him what to do. In theory, it should not even be relevant to the Competition Commission inquiry into whether the bid should go through. All I can say at this stage is that a Commons vote of that kind won't increase the chances of the News Corp bid being successful.
The Tories won't want to vote against this motion (not least because, according a YouGov poll at the weekend [pdf], 70% of the public are opposed to the bid going through - and only 9% are in favour). They could abstain, but that would look weak and it would allow the motion to go through anyway. But they can table amendement. We'll find out more shortly.
You know, back in 6th Form, there was a guy in English Lit who would ask questions like "do you hate girls, or love men". This motion kind of sounds like that.
I believe the classic example is a lawyer asking a witness if he's stopped beating his wife yet.
RMS Oceanic on
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
He shows disdain (in this one column alone) towards:
News of the World
All Celebrities
The Guardian
The Independent
The Sunday Times
Met Police
The Labour Party
Lib Dems
Max Clifford
The BBC
Rupert Murdoch
David Cameron (sort of)
To be fair, that sounds like most political conversations I find myself in nowadays
2.15pm: More hot news from outside the committee. Labour have released the text of the motion that will be put to a vote in the opposition day debate tomorrow. It's very simple.
This House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB.
Ed Miliband has chosen this to maximise Lib Dem support. A Miliband aide has just told me the party hopes for "overwhelming support"
If MPs pass this motion, it won't technically have much effect. Murdoch isn't a British citizen, and the House of Commons cannot tell him what to do. In theory, it should not even be relevant to the Competition Commission inquiry into whether the bid should go through. All I can say at this stage is that a Commons vote of that kind won't increase the chances of the News Corp bid being successful.
The Tories won't want to vote against this motion (not least because, according a YouGov poll at the weekend [pdf], 70% of the public are opposed to the bid going through - and only 9% are in favour). They could abstain, but that would look weak and it would allow the motion to go through anyway. But they can table amendement. We'll find out more shortly.
You know, back in 6th Form, there was a guy in English Lit who would ask questions like "do you hate girls, or love men". This motion kind of sounds like that.
I believe the classic example is a lawyer asking a witness if he's stopped beating his wife yet.
Is this just a PR thing, or would there be some significance in getting the results entered into parliamentary records?
Thinking of something similar to the whole superinjunction fiasco, where should things get rushed through and the commitee overseeing the merger is instructed to ignore the various investigations as being ongoing and therefore incomplete there is still this as part of the records that can't be ignored when it comes to legal challenges later down the line.
Tastyfish on
0
Options
GumpyThere is alwaysa greater powerRegistered Userregular
That's significant. It means the Commons is going to vote against Murdoch taking over BSkyB.
• MPs expected to vote against Rupert Murdoch taking over BSkyB. With Labour and the government in favour, the motion - "This House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw their bid for BSkyB" - may well go through unopposed.
He shows disdain (in this one column alone) towards:
News of the World
All Celebrities
The Guardian
The Independent
The Sunday Times
Met Police
The Labour Party
Lib Dems
Max Clifford
The BBC
Rupert Murdoch
David Cameron (sort of)
To be fair, that sounds like most political conversations I find myself in nowadays
I find myself increasingly vexed by cynical shrugging of the "they're all the same" variety. No, they're not.
Several entries in this list are blameless and are in fact praiseworthy in this scandal.
He basically accuses the guardian of trying to kill the whole industry out of spite
By doing their job, properly and by the law.
Richard Littlejohn is a reprehensible twat. Being on his 'things I hate list' is a badge of honour to be worn with pride.
The dirty swine are not playing by the rules.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Does British Parliament have similar powers to congress over here? Like where they can legally compel you to appear and hold you in contempt if you refuse?
They don't, but parliament can setup a judicial inquiry that does have the power to compel attendance.
They do, but the compulsion needs to be voted on in the commons before it becomes legally binding
It is understood Brooks could be compelled to attend if a majority of the House of Commons votes in favour of a motion requiring her to do so.
The chairman of the Commons Culture Committee, John Whittingdale, has told Sky News that parliament has the power to compel only British citizens to appear before committees - meaning that Rupert Murdoch is out of reach.
Whittingdale said that the committee would only be able to compel Rebekah Brooks, a British citizen and the embattled chief execuitve of News International to appear. Both Rupert Murdoch, an Australian native who took US citizenship, and his son James would not have to appear.
The haziness indicates it's not really something Commons committees (and or the media covering what goes on in politics) usually have to deal with.
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I find it surprising that Brown didn't nail Brooks to the wall after that (legally speaking of course), he was one of the most powerful men in the country at the time.
Yow do know what Twain said, right?
"France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
I find it surprising that Brown didn't nail Brooks to the wall after that (legally speaking of course), he was one of the most powerful men in the country at the time.
It looks like he did not connect that Brook calling him about knowing his son was going to die would be connected to illegal phone hacking. Or he took on board Brook's implied threat that NI could and would smear him by any means.
It's like poor Ryan getting Brook and coulson to admit to paying off cops and within months there are photos of him in his underwear (on gay sites not less because homo's are icky amrite News corp) on the front page.
Coogens correct in his statement that it was a protection racket.
Fair enough but if anything was to spur a man into action, especially one with Brown's reputed temper, it would be a trashy tabloid using his baby son's illness as a way to sell papers.
The more I think about it, the more it enrages me. When Brown made his farewell speech and then walked away with his family, the thing that struck me the most was how relieved he looked, like the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders and also how obvious his love for his kids was. Whatever about the pressures of high office, no one should have to put up with something like this.
I find it interesting how Brown was never really portrayed in the media in a positive light. he was made out to be an idiot.
probably would have been different if he'd licked murdoch's boots. Apparently, he broke the story about his son himself so the sun couldn't have their big scoop. and he was warned that was the wrong way to play. which is really, horribly shocking.
Apparently the front page of the Sun tomorrow is going to lead with the headline below (list from the Guardian live blog)
• The Sun: "Brown wrong - We didn't probe son's medical records" • The Times: "Crisis talks as Cameron as joins the revolt against the Murdochs"
• The Daily Telegraph: "Hacking scandal executives face threat of police inquiry"
• The Financial Times: "Parties unite in Commons vote to oppose Murdoch's BSkyB bid"
• The Independent: "Party leaders unite against Murdoch"
• The Daily Mail: "£1,000 bill for Green energy"
• The Daily Express: "EU migrants to get British pensions"
• The Daily Star : "Hacking scandal latest - Roo sues over tart leaks"
The Guardian: "Parliament versus Murdoch"
Apparently the front page of the Sun tomorrow is going to lead with the headline below (list from the Guardian live blog)
• The Sun: "Brown wrong - We didn't probe son's medical records" • The Times: "Crisis talks as Cameron as joins the revolt against the Murdochs"
• The Daily Telegraph: "Hacking scandal executives face threat of police inquiry"
• The Financial Times: "Parties unite in Commons vote to oppose Murdoch's BSkyB bid"
• The Independent: "Party leaders unite against Murdoch"
• The Daily Mail: "£1,000 bill for Green energy"
• The Daily Express: "EU migrants to get British pensions"
• The Daily Star : "Hacking scandal latest - Roo sues over tart leaks"
The Guardian: "Parliament versus Murdoch"
Of course they didn't.
Their hired private detective did.
The Sun have seen that because of this whole mess, the NOTW went down in flames and News Corp.'s BSkyB bid is in crisis so they're obviously worried Murdoch will click his fingers and say goodbye to The Sun as well so they want to defend every single criticism that comes their way instead of letting things take their course.
Davies is of course the reporter that hung on to the story of News of the world shinaningins story. It is a bit fox news/cnn we video interview our corespondent but Davies has some good insights.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Davies is of course the reporter that hung on to the story of News of the world shinaningins story. It is a bit fox news/cnn we video interview our corespondent but Davies has some good insights.
The interesting part for me there was Gordon Brown talking about The Sunday Times.
I've always thought that, regardless of appearances, all of Murdoch's companies would be run the same way. The Sunday Times has a veneer of respectability, but there's no reason to think that for some reason Murdoch would allow it to be an independent newspaper and not use it for his goals.
Brown's comments here support that view of the Times, and also reminds me that I never did understand why he was so unpopular - perhaps media bias played a big part in that?
Edit: Also what is with Hugh Grant, superhero? That is so surreal.
Of all the police Andy Hayman must be one of the worst. He:
-Had a role in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes
-Did a half-arsed job into phone hacking
-Whilst investigating phone hacking was taken to dinner by NI executives
-Forced to resign due to expenses abuse and sexual harrassment
-Gets a job as a columnist for the NI paper, The Times
In summary:
Man investigates crime
Man finds nothing wrong
Man gets job from criminals
Davies is of course the reporter that hung on to the story of News of the world shinaningins story. It is a bit fox news/cnn we video interview our corespondent but Davies has some good insights.
The interesting part for me there was Gordon Brown talking about The Sunday Times.
I've always thought that, regardless of appearances, all of Murdoch's companies would be run the same way. The Sunday Times has a veneer of respectability, but there's no reason to think that for some reason Murdoch would allow it to be an independent newspaper and not use it for his goals.
Brown's comments here support that view of the Times, and also reminds me that I never did understand why he was so unpopular - perhaps media bias played a big part in that?
Edit: Also what is with Hugh Grant, superhero? That is so surreal.
I'd argue Nick Davies is the real super hero; broke the original story, exposed the Milly Dowler hacking several years later after continuing to work on it inspite of being pretty much accused as a creep with an agenda by News Corp. Grant helped added fuel to the fire and is really a likable chap. Unfortunately without the prior ground work by Davies and then guardians Milly Dowler story Grant would not have gained real traction.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Davies is of course the reporter that hung on to the story of News of the world shinaningins story. It is a bit fox news/cnn we video interview our corespondent but Davies has some good insights.
The interesting part for me there was Gordon Brown talking about The Sunday Times.
I've always thought that, regardless of appearances, all of Murdoch's companies would be run the same way. The Sunday Times has a veneer of respectability, but there's no reason to think that for some reason Murdoch would allow it to be an independent newspaper and not use it for his goals.
Brown's comments here support that view of the Times, and also reminds me that I never did understand why he was so unpopular - perhaps media bias played a big part in that?
Edit: Also what is with Hugh Grant, superhero? That is so surreal.
I'd argue Nick Davies is the real super hero; broke the original story, exposed the Milly Dowler hacking several years later after continuing to work on it inspite of being pretty much accused as a creep with an agenda by News Corp. Grant helped added fuel to the fire and is really a likable chap. Unfortunately without the prior ground work by Davies and then guardians Milly Dowler story Grant would not have gained real traction.
I don't really mean Hugh Grant is a hero, but just how odd his role in this is.
He's getting his kicks in at an organization that has been pretty nasty to everyone in public life. He's really good at kicking too it seems.
Bastable on
Philippe about the tactical deployment of german Kradschützen during the battle of Kursk:
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
0
Options
facetiousa wit so dryit shits sandRegistered Userregular
edited July 2011
I don't really have anything to add to any of this but I'm finding it fascinating to follow. Could you imagine if Murdoch went down? Realistically, I know it's incredibly unlikely but wow.
facetious on
"I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde
Posts
Amazing.
That is actually a great summary for anyone wondering what all the fuss is about.
Those people are mainly Mail / Sun readers / Sky news viewers who are probably only getting shreds of the info between complaining about immigrants / pedo's / Lady Di etc...
apparently they do not, or at least not in this particular circumstance
They don't, but parliament can setup a judicial inquiry that does have the power to compel attendance.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
You know, back in 6th Form, there was a guy in English Lit who would ask questions like "do you hate girls, or love men". This motion kind of sounds like that.
I believe the classic example is a lawyer asking a witness if he's stopped beating his wife yet.
To be fair, that sounds like most political conversations I find myself in nowadays
Is this just a PR thing, or would there be some significance in getting the results entered into parliamentary records?
Thinking of something similar to the whole superinjunction fiasco, where should things get rushed through and the commitee overseeing the merger is instructed to ignore the various investigations as being ongoing and therefore incomplete there is still this as part of the records that can't be ignored when it comes to legal challenges later down the line.
I find myself increasingly vexed by cynical shrugging of the "they're all the same" variety. No, they're not.
Several entries in this list are blameless and are in fact praiseworthy in this scandal.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
By doing their job, properly and by the law.
Richard Littlejohn is a reprehensible twat. Being on his 'things I hate list' is a badge of honour to be worn with pride.
The dirty swine are not playing by the rules.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
The Guardian seems to be more a victim of advertising revenue collapse and a series of poor business decisions, if Private Eye is to believed
They do, but the compulsion needs to be voted on in the commons before it becomes legally binding
It is understood Brooks could be compelled to attend if a majority of the House of Commons votes in favour of a motion requiring her to do so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/12/rupert-murdoch-invited-mps
and this as well it seems
The chairman of the Commons Culture Committee, John Whittingdale, has told Sky News that parliament has the power to compel only British citizens to appear before committees - meaning that Rupert Murdoch is out of reach.
Whittingdale said that the committee would only be able to compel Rebekah Brooks, a British citizen and the embattled chief execuitve of News International to appear. Both Rupert Murdoch, an Australian native who took US citizenship, and his son James would not have to appear.
The haziness indicates it's not really something Commons committees (and or the media covering what goes on in politics) usually have to deal with.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
"France has usually been governed by prostitutes."
Fair enough but if anything was to spur a man into action, especially one with Brown's reputed temper, it would be a trashy tabloid using his baby son's illness as a way to sell papers.
The more I think about it, the more it enrages me. When Brown made his farewell speech and then walked away with his family, the thing that struck me the most was how relieved he looked, like the weight of the world had been lifted from his shoulders and also how obvious his love for his kids was. Whatever about the pressures of high office, no one should have to put up with something like this.
probably would have been different if he'd licked murdoch's boots. Apparently, he broke the story about his son himself so the sun couldn't have their big scoop. and he was warned that was the wrong way to play. which is really, horribly shocking.
this is also completely fucked up. hey, police, do the journalists illegal work instead of your job!
the met are going to be gutted too. I hope to god.
• The Sun: "Brown wrong - We didn't probe son's medical records"
• The Times: "Crisis talks as Cameron as joins the revolt against the Murdochs"
• The Daily Telegraph: "Hacking scandal executives face threat of police inquiry"
• The Financial Times: "Parties unite in Commons vote to oppose Murdoch's BSkyB bid"
• The Independent: "Party leaders unite against Murdoch"
• The Daily Mail: "£1,000 bill for Green energy"
• The Daily Express: "EU migrants to get British pensions"
• The Daily Star : "Hacking scandal latest - Roo sues over tart leaks"
The Guardian: "Parliament versus Murdoch"
Even if the whole of the British Media was going down in flames, some things would remain unchanged
Their hired private detective did.
Indeed. Stay classy Express!
They won the east division title in 2006.
What? Is a childrens' book character suing due to a damaged pastry?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/jul/12/phone-hacking-scandal-live-coverage
Davies is of course the reporter that hung on to the story of News of the world shinaningins story. It is a bit fox news/cnn we video interview our corespondent but Davies has some good insights.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
The interesting part for me there was Gordon Brown talking about The Sunday Times.
I've always thought that, regardless of appearances, all of Murdoch's companies would be run the same way. The Sunday Times has a veneer of respectability, but there's no reason to think that for some reason Murdoch would allow it to be an independent newspaper and not use it for his goals.
Brown's comments here support that view of the Times, and also reminds me that I never did understand why he was so unpopular - perhaps media bias played a big part in that?
Edit: Also what is with Hugh Grant, superhero? That is so surreal.
-Had a role in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes
-Did a half-arsed job into phone hacking
-Whilst investigating phone hacking was taken to dinner by NI executives
-Forced to resign due to expenses abuse and sexual harrassment
-Gets a job as a columnist for the NI paper, The Times
In summary:
Man investigates crime
Man finds nothing wrong
Man gets job from criminals
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
I don't really mean Hugh Grant is a hero, but just how odd his role in this is.
"I think I can comment on this because I used to live above the Baby Doll Lounge, a topless bar that was once frequented by bikers in lower Manhattan."
Steam: Chagrin LoL: Bonhomie