Why do you think they had his family, and all the other committee members followed followed? What do you think they intended to do with the information? Does that on it's own not justify the remark?
Question 2. If Watson should be punished for making a remark you take exception to then what should happen to NI for all their wrongdoings. If Watson should be sacked shouldn't NI be stripped of their media interests for all their corrupt practices?
A judges integrity should be above that of the man in the dock.
Lets face it Mr Watson's integrity is a little coloured, Tony Blair would tell you that.
I don't give a damn about Murdoch, what I do care about is how our Parliament is perceived throughout the World. Some good Parliamentarians have come from council estates, Tom Watson is not of that calibre.
A committee member should not use their power to operate personal vendetta's (which you seem to justify), they should represent Parliament.
Tom Watson's impartiality is tainted.
Would that I could see the world through such tainted glasses. You don't give a damn about people breaking the law and acting in a corrupt way and encouraging others too also. Let somebody stand up to them though and he is pursuing a vendetta. It's beyond belief.
It's clear that some people want to discuss anything but what NI have got up to. Luckily not everybody wants to see it swept under the carpet.
Would that I could see the world through such tainted glasses. You don't give a damn about people breaking the law and acting in a corrupt way and encouraging others too also. Let somebody stand up to them though and he is pursuing a vendetta. It's beyond belief.
It's clear that some people want to discuss anything but what NI have got up to. Luckily not everybody wants to see it swept under the carpet.
You don't get it do you ? that's twice now the Murdoch's have been under scrutiny and the left have taken the shine off the proceedings and stolen the headlines, whether it be a foam pie throwing loon or a pizza pie guzzling (on expenses of course) grandstanding MP.
You don't get it do you ? that's twice now the Murdoch's have been under scrutiny and the left have taken the shine off the proceedings and stolen the headlines, whether it be a foam pie throwing loon or a pizza pie guzzling (on expenses of course) grandstanding MP.
Have you got any actual evidence of Tom Watson claiming Pizza on expenses or are you just making clap trap up because you don't like him? :rolleyes:
A judges integrity should be above that of the man in the dock.
Lets face it Mr Watson's integrity is a little coloured, Tony Blair would tell you that.
Agreed, no matter what his personal thoughts or opinion of Murdoch he should never had said that. Watson came over as being very unprofessional and amateurish for a person holding that post.
Have you got any actual evidence of Tom Watson claiming Pizza on expenses or are you just making clap trap up because you don't like him? :rolleyes:
That clap trap as you put it, is freely available in the public domain.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: back at you.
Mr Watson also featured in the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal disclosures.
Mr Watson, the minister for digital engagement, spent the maximum of £4,800 in a single year on food, and had his expenses cut after buying a set of dining room chairs that exceeded the limit set by the fees office.
He was forced to defend the appearance of a receipt for a "pizza wheel" on a Marks & Spencer receipt he submitted, saying it was given as a free gift after he went on a £150 spending spree at the store.
That clap trap as you put it, is freely available in the public domain.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: back at you.
Mr Watson also featured in the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal disclosures.
Mr Watson, the minister for digital engagement, spent the maximum of £4,800 in a single year on food, and had his expenses cut after buying a set of dining room chairs that exceeded the limit set by the fees office.
He was forced to defend the appearance of a receipt for a "pizza wheel" on a Marks & Spencer receipt he submitted, saying it was given as a free gift after he went on a £150 spending spree at the store.
They were ALL at it so that won't work with me. Claiming all sorts.
I notice no other MP's on the committee slap him down for the Mafia comments. I was actually watching it.
You insinuated I was making the clap trap up.
Maybe the other Committee members had a greater degree of integrity and rebuked him in private, not wishing to use the political procedure for self grandioseness.
I sincerely hope that any future investigations into media wrong doing does not let NI off the hook using your yardstick of "they where all at it", or is such an excuse reserved for the hero's of the Anti Murdoch agenda ?
A judges integrity should be above that of the man in the dock.
Lets face it Mr Watson's integrity is a little coloured, Tony Blair would tell you that.
The members of the committee are not judges though are they. Given the seriousness of what they are investigating they should do it without worrying about offending the Murdoch family or their apologists.
You don't get it do you ? that's twice now the Murdoch's have been under scrutiny and the left have taken the shine off the proceedings and stolen the headlines, whether it be a foam pie throwing loon or a pizza pie guzzling (on expenses of course) grandstanding MP.
I don't get it? That's a laugh. You are the one who can only see this in terms of some battle with the left wing. I am very middle of the road pragmatist as far as politics are concerned. I do believe strongly though that nobody should be above the law. Whether they are the head of a media company or a rioter.
I sincerely hope that any future investigations into media wrong doing does not let NI off the hook using your yardstick of "they where all at it", or is such an excuse reserved for the hero's of the Anti Murdoch agenda ?
See it's you who doesn't get it. People who want to see somebody who for years has been above the law held to account have an agenda according to you. It's all the usual Murdoch apologists who are jumping in to this thread to stick up for them and who are supposedly outraged by somebodies forthright questioning of him. Do they not have an agenda?
Before they start feeling sorry for the Murdoch's because somebody has apparently insulted them perhaps the apologists should show a little outrage about Milly Dowler's mother being ecstatic on finding messages had been deleted from her daughters phone because she thought that meant she was still alive. Then I might take their synthetic rage a bit more seriously.
The members of the committee are not judges though are they. Given the seriousness of what they are investigating they should do it without worrying about offending the Murdoch family or their apologists.
I don't get it? That's a laugh. You are the one who can only see this in terms of some battle with the left wing. I am very middle of the road pragmatist as far as politics are concerned. I do believe strongly though that nobody should be above the law. Whether they are the head of a media company or a rioter.
See it's you who doesn't get it. People who want to see somebody who for years has been above the law held to account have an agenda according to you. It's all the usual Murdoch apologists who are jumping in to this thread to stick up for them and who are supposedly outraged by somebodies forthright questioning of him. Do they not have an agenda?
Before they start feeling sorry for the Murdoch's because somebody has apparently insulted them perhaps the apologists should show a little outrage about Milly Dowler's mother being ecstatic on finding messages had been deleted from her daughters phone because she thought that meant she was still alive. Then I might take their synthetic rage a bit more seriously.
When you've finished your nonsensical rant, point out where I have condoned or apologised for News International or its share holders. I have just questioned the abuse of Parliamentary procedure, by those with an obvious agenda and how such abuse negated the spot light on the Murdoch's.
When you've finished your nonsensical rant, point out where I have condoned or apologised for News International or its share holders. I have just questioned the abuse of Parliamentary procedure, by those with an obvious agenda and how such abuse negated the spot light on the Murdoch's.
Your posts are always along the lines of "it's all a left wing plot". Tell that to the hacking victims. It would be nice to see a bit more sympathy for the victims of NI and a bit less for the Murdoch's. If they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen.
Perhaps I should count up the number of times you have used the term left wing in your posts in Murdoch threads. It's nothing to do with left or right wing. It is about what is morally right and morally wrong.
Your posts are always along the lines of "it's all a left wing plot". Tell that to the hacking victims. It would be nice to see a bit more sympathy for the victims of NI and a bit less for the Murdoch's. If they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen.
Perhaps I should count up the number of times you have used the term left wing in your posts in Murdoch threads. It's nothing to do with left or right wing. It is about what is morally right and morally wrong.
Your posts are always along the lines of "it's all a left wing plot". Tell that to the hacking victims. It would be nice to see a bit more sympathy for the victims of NI and a bit less for the Murdoch's. If they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen.
Perhaps I should count up the number of times you have used the term left wing in your posts in Murdoch threads. It's nothing to do with left or right wing. It is about what is morally right and morally wrong.
It is also more likely that other newspapers have been guilty of hacking and one of them is likely to be The Daily Mirror. So will Shaun W still call it a left wing plot then?
I use the term left wing because Jonnie Marbles and Mr Watson are left wing.
There are Tory and Lib Dem MPs on the committee's and its now widely regarded that they have been the most potent in putting JM on the spot (without theatrics).
Why have people not looked at the Mirror and Mail more closely Peter, is it a coincidence that they where anti merger, you tell me ?.
I use the term left wing because Jonnie Marbles and Mr Watson are left wing.
There are Tory and Lib Dem MPs on the committee's and its now widely regarded that they have been the most potent in putting JM on the spot (without theatrics).
Why have people not looked at the Mirror and Mail more closely Peter, is it a coincidence that they where anti merger, you tell me ?.
Because it doesn't suit the Guardian's left-wing agenda to expose them (yet)?
I use the term left wing because Jonnie Marbles and Mr Watson are left wing.
There are Tory and Lib Dem MPs on the committee's and its now widely regarded that they have been the most potent in putting JM on the spot (without theatrics).
Why have people not looked at the Mirror and Mail more closely Peter, is it a coincidence that they where anti merger, you tell me ?.
The fact is at the moment it is about proof I suppose and until there is solid proof that other newspapers have been involved we won't have enquiries. Sure it is sad that despite what has happened at News International politicians still seem to be far too influenced by what newspapers say.
Because it doesn't suit the Guardian's left-wing agenda to expose them (yet)?
Er... The Guardian has probably been more vocal over The Daily Mail over the years than the Murdoch press. How could The Guardian's left wing agenda stop them reporting on the very right wing Daily Mail?
I feel Tom Watson had a right to say what he said in the Parliament committee. Considering when this investigation started News International had PIs' following those around who are on the Parliamentary Committee to see if they could get some dirt on them.
Er... The Guardian has probably been more vocal over The Daily Mail over the years than the Murdoch press. How could The Guardian's left wing agenda stop them reporting on the very right wing Daily Mail?
Because, as I alluded to, it clearly doesn't fit their strategy at this time.
Comments
A judges integrity should be above that of the man in the dock.
Lets face it Mr Watson's integrity is a little coloured, Tony Blair would tell you that.
Would that I could see the world through such tainted glasses. You don't give a damn about people breaking the law and acting in a corrupt way and encouraging others too also. Let somebody stand up to them though and he is pursuing a vendetta. It's beyond belief.
It's clear that some people want to discuss anything but what NI have got up to. Luckily not everybody wants to see it swept under the carpet.
You don't get it do you ? that's twice now the Murdoch's have been under scrutiny and the left have taken the shine off the proceedings and stolen the headlines, whether it be a foam pie throwing loon or a pizza pie guzzling (on expenses of course) grandstanding MP.
Have you got any actual evidence of Tom Watson claiming Pizza on expenses or are you just making clap trap up because you don't like him? :rolleyes:
Agreed, no matter what his personal thoughts or opinion of Murdoch he should never had said that. Watson came over as being very unprofessional and amateurish for a person holding that post.
That clap trap as you put it, is freely available in the public domain.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: back at you.
Mr Watson also featured in the Telegraph's MPs' expenses scandal disclosures.
Mr Watson, the minister for digital engagement, spent the maximum of £4,800 in a single year on food, and had his expenses cut after buying a set of dining room chairs that exceeded the limit set by the fees office.
He was forced to defend the appearance of a receipt for a "pizza wheel" on a Marks & Spencer receipt he submitted, saying it was given as a free gift after he went on a £150 spending spree at the store.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5429883/MPs-expenses-Tom-Watson-to-resign-from-Government.html
They were ALL at it so that won't work with me. Claiming all sorts.
I notice no other MP's on the committee slap him down for the Mafia comments. I was actually watching it.
You insinuated I was making the clap trap up.
Maybe the other Committee members had a greater degree of integrity and rebuked him in private, not wishing to use the political procedure for self grandioseness.
I sincerely hope that any future investigations into media wrong doing does not let NI off the hook using your yardstick of "they where all at it", or is such an excuse reserved for the hero's of the Anti Murdoch agenda ?
My understanding is that the "people" you refer to have not been proven to have broken any laws.
No one is sweeping anything under the carpet, the matter is being investigated.
Unfortunately Watson's actions are undermining the investigation.
The members of the committee are not judges though are they. Given the seriousness of what they are investigating they should do it without worrying about offending the Murdoch family or their apologists.
I don't get it? That's a laugh. You are the one who can only see this in terms of some battle with the left wing. I am very middle of the road pragmatist as far as politics are concerned. I do believe strongly though that nobody should be above the law. Whether they are the head of a media company or a rioter.
See it's you who doesn't get it. People who want to see somebody who for years has been above the law held to account have an agenda according to you. It's all the usual Murdoch apologists who are jumping in to this thread to stick up for them and who are supposedly outraged by somebodies forthright questioning of him. Do they not have an agenda?
Before they start feeling sorry for the Murdoch's because somebody has apparently insulted them perhaps the apologists should show a little outrage about Milly Dowler's mother being ecstatic on finding messages had been deleted from her daughters phone because she thought that meant she was still alive. Then I might take their synthetic rage a bit more seriously.
When you've finished your nonsensical rant, point out where I have condoned or apologised for News International or its share holders. I have just questioned the abuse of Parliamentary procedure, by those with an obvious agenda and how such abuse negated the spot light on the Murdoch's.
Your posts are always along the lines of "it's all a left wing plot". Tell that to the hacking victims. It would be nice to see a bit more sympathy for the victims of NI and a bit less for the Murdoch's. If they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen.
Perhaps I should count up the number of times you have used the term left wing in your posts in Murdoch threads. It's nothing to do with left or right wing. It is about what is morally right and morally wrong.
I agree.
There are Tory and Lib Dem MPs on the committee's and its now widely regarded that they have been the most potent in putting JM on the spot (without theatrics).
Why have people not looked at the Mirror and Mail more closely Peter, is it a coincidence that they where anti merger, you tell me ?.
Because it doesn't suit the Guardian's left-wing agenda to expose them (yet)?
Indeed, he did, DANCE OF DEATH. It turns out that the distinguished journalist Carl Bernstein, who jointly uncovered the Watergate scandal, compared News Corporation to a "Mafia outfit" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7gIb3oMjG0 http://www.mediaite.com/tv/carl-bernstein-compares-murdoch-hackings-to-watergate-news-corp-to-mafia-outfit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediaite%2FClHj+%28Mediaite%29&utm_content=Google+UK because of their appalling conduct. As we now know, the News of the World hacked into a murdered girl's phone giving the poor family false hope that she was still alive and it also disrupted the police investigation that was ongoing at the time. Therefore, Tom Watson's comments are quite understandable.
Because, as I alluded to, it clearly doesn't fit their strategy at this time.