Options

Murdoch's son-in-law lied to press:

Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
Forum Member
Cameron and Osborne attended party

I can't see this story anywhere so apologies if it has already been discussed.

(also hope it's in the right forum)

With the News International phone hacking trial hotting up, David Cameron and George Osborne have both courted controversy by attending the party of Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law – prompting the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch to lie about it to the press.

With Cameron and Osborne’s presence guaranteed to prompt questions about their judgement, birthday boy and PR spinner Matthew Freud was so desperate to protect them that he misled the Telegraph’s Tim Walker as to whether they had attended:

“no…. please let me know if you would like a more explicit clarification.”

Freud’s people were later in touch to explain that the pair had been at the party in Oxfordshire.

With Cameron’s office refusing to comment on the matter, Downing Street residents are by no means the only top Tories to be shy about their Murdoch connections. Boris Johnson was grilled by London Assembly members last Summer after Scrapbook revealed a series of clandestine meetings with Rupert Murdoch and senior News International staff.

The bash was reportedly Noah’s Ark themed.

Certain Conservatives may be wishing for an escape vehicle of biblical proportions as the hacking trial progresses.


http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/11/cameron-and-osborne-did-attend-party-for-murdochs-son-in-law/

Doesn't give a date for the party but I can only think it was recent given refererence to the hacking trial

Comments

  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I am not my son in law's keeper.
  • Options
    rusty123rusty123 Posts: 22,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Is this gonna be another guilty by tenuous association thread?
  • Options
    glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jo March wrote: »
    Cameron and Osborne attended party

    I can't see this story anywhere so apologies if it has already been discussed.

    (also hope it's in the right forum)

    With the News International phone hacking trial hotting up, David Cameron and George Osborne have both courted controversy by attending the party of Rupert Murdoch’s son-in-law – prompting the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch to lie about it to the press.

    With Cameron and Osborne’s presence guaranteed to prompt questions about their judgement, birthday boy and PR spinner Matthew Freud was so desperate to protect them that he misled the Telegraph’s Tim Walker as to whether they had attended:

    “no…. please let me know if you would like a more explicit clarification.”

    Freud’s people were later in touch to explain that the pair had been at the party in Oxfordshire.

    With Cameron’s office refusing to comment on the matter, Downing Street residents are by no means the only top Tories to be shy about their Murdoch connections. Boris Johnson was grilled by London Assembly members last Summer after Scrapbook revealed a series of clandestine meetings with Rupert Murdoch and senior News International staff.

    The bash was reportedly Noah’s Ark themed.

    Certain Conservatives may be wishing for an escape vehicle of biblical proportions as the hacking trial progresses.


    http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/11/cameron-and-osborne-did-attend-party-for-murdochs-son-in-law/

    Doesn't give a date for the party but I can only think it was recent given refererence to the hacking trial

    Last weekend I think...there were items about the conflicting stories about whether they were there or not in some of the mainstream press earlier in the week.

    And it's not Freud is the interesting one for the conspiracy theorists...it's actually his missus who word is has a lot more influence these days since James f'ed up, Lacklan is doing his bit to keep Australia/SE Asia on the right track and now the Digger dumped the kung fu expert whose kids are too young anyway.

    Hints are it's Mrs Freud who is the heir apparent these days...always assuming the Americans don't deal with the Murdoch clan once and for all.
  • Options
    Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    rusty123 wrote: »
    Is this gonna be another guilty by tenuous association thread?
    The point of the story (to me) is that they were there at all.
  • Options
    Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    Last weekend I think...there were items about the conflicting stories about whether they were there or not in some of the mainstream press earlier in the week.

    And it's not Freud is the interesting one for the conspiracy theorists...it's actually his missus who word is has a lot more influence these days since James f'ed up, Lacklan is doing his bit to keep Australia/SE Asia on the right track and now the Digger dumped the kung fu expert whose kids are too young anyway.

    Hints are it's Mrs Freud who is the heir apparent these days...always assuming the Americans don't deal with the Murdoch clan once and for all.
    Thank you. :)
  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Jo March wrote: »
    The point of the story (to me) is that they were there at all.

    So you weren't trying to blacken someone's name because they went to party?
  • Options
    Jo MarchJo March Posts: 9,256
    Forum Member
    Annsyre wrote: »
    So you weren't trying to blacken someone's name because they went to party?
    I was merely posting about the article.

    "With Cameron and Osborne’s presence guaranteed to prompt questions about their judgement"

  • Options
    AnnsyreAnnsyre Posts: 109,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Jo March wrote: »
    I was merely posting about the article.

    "With Cameron and Osborne’s presence guaranteed to prompt questions about their judgement"


    If it was a good party then their judgement is good.
  • Options
    gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Annsyre wrote: »
    If it was a good party then their judgement is good.

    In that case why did Camerons office refuse to comment on it ?
Sign In or Register to comment.