The Culture, Media and Sport select committee’s report is published at 11.30am

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 87,224
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Journos get locked in an hour beforehand for a quick look at it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gGp7fN7Y9VAeEL7q1eJ9Y229WYMQ?docId=N0010011335829561673A

Apparently it’s going to be some compromise between the lefties, who want to put J. Murdoch in the frame, and the righties, who want to blame Myler & Crone more.

"With five Labour MPs and five Tories on the committee, the casting vote could end up with Adrian Sanders, a mild-mannered Devon MP who is its only Liberal Democrat."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d6e301e2-922d-11e1-867e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1tZqvFnqL

Whenever I see that phrase it makes me think of "Mild-mannered Clark Kent ......."
«13456710

Comments

  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This report was originally expected out a month ago...yet another day when words like "Murdoch/hacking/culture/Cameron/media/cover up/Hunt" will all appear in one sentence...two days before elections...Dave must be thrilled.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 386
    Forum Member
    Rupert Murdoch is “not a fit person” to run an international company because he showed “wilful blindness” to the extent of phone-hacking at the News of the World, a devastating report by MPs has concluded.

    More here.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9238228/Culture-Media-and-Sport-select-committee-releases-phone-hacking-report-live.html
  • 1TrueNorth1TrueNorth Posts: 4,001
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    NANANANA NANANANA Heeeeeeey GOODBYE. Lets hope he loses BSKYB next.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The report is here.
  • InspirationInspiration Posts: 62,694
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Seems to be a lot of conflict within the group? Am I understanding that correctly? Suggesting it's turned into a Labour vs News Corp thing?
  • The PhazerThe Phazer Posts: 8,487
    Forum Member
    Seems to be a lot of conflict within the group? Am I understanding that correctly? Suggesting it's turned into a Labour vs News Corp thing?

    Well this Lib Dems went with Labour rather than their coalition partners...

    Phazer
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tom Watson's just had a rant which the chairman says had nothing to do with the report.
  • InspirationInspiration Posts: 62,694
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No surprise there. The guy has a book out.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Tom Watson's just had a rant which the chairman says had nothing to do with the report.

    He's probably hacked off at Guido for asking why he leaked the committee findings in his book.
  • David TeeDavid Tee Posts: 22,833
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Seems to be a lot of conflict within the group? Am I understanding that correctly? Suggesting it's turned into a Labour vs News Corp thing?

    Some conflict - I'm not sure about a lot. With Watson involved I think close scrutiny is called for.

    Edit: Mensch is on record as saying that the credibility of this report is damaged because it does not have full backing of all committee members.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Seems to be a lot of conflict within the group? Am I understanding that correctly? Suggesting it's turned into a Labour vs News Corp thing?

    It is unfortunate that this is becoming Labour vs Conservative. It would have been better I think to come to a unanimous conclusion even if it meant watering it down a bit.

    Having said that it should be remembered that some conservative members have acted with bias towards the Murdoch's.
    Louise Mensch is a case in point. Her questioning of James Murdoch was particularly sycophantic.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No surprise there. The guy has a book out.

    Using privileged information for personal gain? Gosh - that's quite a serious allegation... If wonder if Labour will demand an inquiry?
  • Parker45Parker45 Posts: 5,849
    Forum Member
    This has become pointless. It's going to be seen as a Tom Watson report and will be largely ignored.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm sure the nation will come to a standstill to read it, I mean MPs are such upstanding pillars of society aren't they.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It seems the Tories themselves are split. One is saying they couldn't come to the conclusion that RM is unfit because it was not part of the committees job. Another is saying that he has indeed come to the conclusion that RM is fit based on him having been in business for so many years. So which is it? The dissenting member shouldn't decide on that or that they had indeed decided that he was fit and proper?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,915
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mensch doing her very best to defend Murdoch. Maybe Fox has offered her a film adaptation.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    onefineday wrote: »
    Mensch doing her very best to defend Murdoch. Maybe Fox has offered her a film adaptation.

    She showed extraordinary bias when she wished J. Murdoch luck in cleaning up his company during his last encounter with the committee. That was suggesting that he was somehow above the corruption that was under discussion.
  • ThePhotographerThePhotographer Posts: 3,112
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mensch is not a credible MP.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mensch is not a credible MP.

    That can be said about the majority of them.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mensch is not a credible MP.

    I don't believe that every Tory member is, as suggested by, J. Hunt a cheerleader for News Corps. Mensch unfortunately is one who definitely does seem to be in that camp.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    Transient1 wrote: »
    It seems the Tories themselves are split. One is saying they couldn't come to the conclusion that RM is unfit because it was not part of the committees job. Another is saying that he has indeed come to the conclusion that RM is fit based on him having been in business for so many years. So which is it? The dissenting member shouldn't decide on that or that they had indeed decided that he was fit and proper?

    Back in the 1970's there was an insurance fraud whereby the company involved eventually had so much fake insurance on it's books that the fake insurance was bigger than the genuine insurance - in that instance the CEO of the company, despite being unaware and taking no part in the actual fraud - went to prison. The reason is that a CEO is ultimately responsible for what goes on.

    The same standard should apply to the Murdoch's - hacking phones is illegal, it happened in their watch and saying they did not know is no excuse - and even if it was all it shows is they are incapable of running the company in a proper way - knowing what is happening is their job.
  • Transient1Transient1 Posts: 1,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Back in the 1970's there was an insurance fraud whereby the company involved eventually had so much fake insurance on it's books that the fake insurance was bigger than the genuine insurance - in that instance the CEO of the company, despite being unaware and taking no part in the actual fraud - went to prison. The reason is that a CEO is ultimately responsible for what goes on.

    The same standard should apply to the Murdoch's - hacking phones is illegal, it happened in their watch and saying they did not know is no excuse - and even if it was all it shows is they are incapable of running the company in a proper way - knowing what is happening is their job.

    Indeed! Apart from that though I think it is not credible that the Murdoch's only found out that the "one rogue reporter defence" was a pack of lies until just over a year ago. Especially the one who signed off a large cheque to pay off somebody who was not under the remit of that one rogue reporter.
  • The PhazerThe Phazer Posts: 8,487
    Forum Member
    jmclaugh wrote: »
    That can be said about the majority of them.

    Indeed, though lots of them are at least keen to make it less obvious (other exceptions such as Keith Vaz, Denis MacShane, Dorries and Claire Perry exist - they all seem to enjoy public humilation by application of faulty logic skills and just plain stats fibbing).

    Phazer
  • BosoxBosox Posts: 14,172
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    In the best traditions of Rebecca Brooks it's worth naming and shaming the Tory MPs on the committee who think it's still good business to shill for Murdoch:

    Phillip Davies, Shipley
    Louise Mensch, Corby
    Damian Collins, Folkestone and Hythe
    Therese Coffey, Suffolk Coastal
    John Whitingdale, Maldon

    I hope their constituents are watching.
  • TonyfaceTonyface Posts: 1,602
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Back in the 1970's there was an insurance fraud whereby the company involved eventually had so much fake insurance on it's books that the fake insurance was bigger than the genuine insurance - in that instance the CEO of the company, despite being unaware and taking no part in the actual fraud - went to prison. The reason is that a CEO is ultimately responsible for what goes on.

    The same standard should apply to the Murdoch's - hacking phones is illegal, it happened in their watch and saying they did not know is no excuse - and even if it was all it shows is they are incapable of running the company in a proper way - knowing what is happening is their job.

    Totally agree, it is not just Astonishing, but fu*king Incredible that a CEO that has been so successful in running businesses and making money, did not know what was going on in his company.

    What I do also find incredible is that MP's do not know what the procedure/law is for dealing with people that have Misled Parliament.
Sign In or Register to comment.