|
07 Jul 11 - 01:19 PM (#3183190) Subject: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Acorn4 Great news that the "News of the Screws" is no more but doesn't there need to be something like an ASBO to stop these people ever starting up a newspaper again? Murdoch closes the News of the World |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:29 PM (#3183200) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: SPB-Cooperator Is RIP appropriate,surely more like R.I.H. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:31 PM (#3183202) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Will Fly When I heard that Ford and Sainsbury's and others had pulled out, I thought, "That's it...". Great! |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:35 PM (#3183206) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Richard Bridge Acorn, there is. It's just that governments have been to scared of Murdoch's propaganda powers properly to control him. Can we maybe get a boycott of other Murdoch media together and bring the whole evil empire down? |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:36 PM (#3183208) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,TIA I am in! Not buying anything advertised in or on a Murdoch medium. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:37 PM (#3183210) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: VirginiaTam Just cutting off a bit of the Murdoch media empire isn't enough to kill it. Got to dismantle the whole stinking rotten thing and make certain the principal players are never permitted near an editor's desk again. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:41 PM (#3183214) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: VirginiaTam Richard you pipped me at the post. TIA the problem with boycotting companies advertising in Murdoch publications is that you have to buy the publications to find out who is advertising in them. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:49 PM (#3183223) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,livelylass A journalist on a sister paper was interviewed on Radio 2 earlier this evening. He said the staff will be retained and The News of The World will reappear in the autumn repackaged and under a new title, so hold the champagne. Rupert is clearly a sharper cookie than any of you care to accept. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:52 PM (#3183227) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Peter K (Fionn) There was already a thread running on this. NewsCorp apparently registered the domain name "Sun on Sunday" a couple of days ago. I've heard from someone at News Inernational's Wapping fortress that this Murdoch initiative is perceived by staff as sacrificing the current (innocent) team to save the necks of guilty former staff who are now their bosses. It won't work. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:53 PM (#3183228) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: SPB-Cooperator What would be more effective would be a boycott of companies that advertise with Murdoch |
|
07 Jul 11 - 01:54 PM (#3183230) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Will Fly Rupert is clearly a sharper cookie than any of you care to accept. Oh, I think that outcome was pretty much predictable. We heard the news in the pub about an hour ago, and that option immediately came to the fore. He's good, but he's not that good... Anything that Murdoch is associated with is dubious and subject to scrutiny. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 02:44 PM (#3183255) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Q (Frank Staplin) A "boycott of companies that advertise" with Murdoch is, of course, nonsense, since his companies are major publishers of both national and local papers around the English-speaking world. England is the home of low quality tabloids, others are as bad or worse. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 02:44 PM (#3183256) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,TIA No need to buy. Just flip through on the newstand! |
|
07 Jul 11 - 02:46 PM (#3183257) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,Shimrod I have to say I am very dismayed at the whole affair. It was wrong, it was underhand and it was sickening. One point which can't be ignored is Rebekah Brooks. She may be guilty or she may not, but you can't escape the fact she is one fine piece of ass. I suggest she does a centrefold spread in the last issue of the News of the World, Basque, stockings, suspenders and heels. Come on, what men among you wouldn't buy that issue. http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/Pictures/web/v/n/r/Rebekah_Wade_mw.jpg |
|
07 Jul 11 - 03:00 PM (#3183269) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Alan Day Sorry mate they picked me instead !! Al |
|
07 Jul 11 - 03:38 PM (#3183306) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Dave MacKenzie So, the 'News of the World' is having a publication holiday, then coming back as the 'Sunday Sun'! |
|
07 Jul 11 - 03:48 PM (#3183313) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: John MacKenzie She's married to a soap actor. No further words are necessary! |
|
07 Jul 11 - 03:53 PM (#3183319) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Peter K (Fionn) I'm not sure a soap actor is that much worse than a folksinger? It's not true anyway. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 03:55 PM (#3183321) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Rapparee I can understand how unfair these decisions may feel. Particularly, for colleagues who will leave the Company. Of course, we will communicate next steps in detail and begin appropriate consultations. Can't the many write complete sentences? Does he know how to use "the" in any way not followed by the word "Company"? |
|
07 Jul 11 - 03:57 PM (#3183322) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: autolycus None of this affects the fact the the buyers of the Screws and other NI oeuvres are still in place. Still, a small step in the right direction. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 05:24 PM (#3183393) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Dave Sutherland "So, the 'News of the World' is having a publication holiday, then coming back as the 'Sunday Sun'!" No - "The Sunday Sun" has been the Sunday paper in the North East of England for many years (long before I was born)and it is still going. It used to carry a folk music column way back in the day.... |
|
07 Jul 11 - 05:48 PM (#3183403) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Richard Bridge Oh, passing off? |
|
07 Jul 11 - 06:49 PM (#3183434) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Teribus I can remember being utterly slagged off on this forum for my opinion of British journalism and the standards they hold to. The relevations regarding the "News of the World" back up everything I ever said. Good riddance. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 07:22 PM (#3183450) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Peter K (Fionn) As I said in the other thread, Dave Sutherland, the website domain "sunonsunday" was registered to an un-named company two days before Daddy's Boy announced closure of the NOTW. And I'd be surprised if there was to be any holiday. Expect to see the Sun on Sunday on the news stands the week after next. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 07:53 PM (#3183461) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Q (Frank Staplin) This was the most popular paper in England. The vacuum will be filled. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 10:16 PM (#3183512) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,Roger Knowles Now all that has to happen is the cessation of 'The Sun' & 'The Star', all other 'red labels', and all of the cheap 'celeb news' magazines. After that, literacy can re-emerge on the news stands. |
|
07 Jul 11 - 10:28 PM (#3183519) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Rapparee Literacy has to re-emerge everywhere else first. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 01:26 AM (#3183564) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Sandra in Sydney well said, Rap Our local version of News of the World is The Daily Telegraph, aka. Telecrap (bumper sticker says it all "Is that the truth or did you read it in The Telegraph?) Stangely enough it is a Murdock paper! who would have thought it??!! (insert innocent smiley face here) The only good thing in the Tele is a word puzzle that I did last week when I found a copy in the train! I really must look in the newsagent for a booklet of those puzzles, I really enjoyed working on it. sandra |
|
08 Jul 11 - 04:20 AM (#3183599) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Dave MacKenzie I don't know why I typed 'Sunday Sun'. I remember it well from my years in Newcastle. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 06:21 AM (#3183641) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Geoff the Duck Am I the only one who who gets the feeling that it is all about destroying the evidence of criminal activity which might be found on the premises, and scattering anyone who might know a snippet of info which would tie the culprits to the crime? I think that the police ought to be in there preventing ANYONE touching documents, computers, answerphones or anything else for that matter. Quack! GtD. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 06:56 AM (#3183658) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Gervase So, 500 people - copytakers, secretaries, sub-editors, sports hacks, feature writers etc - lose their jobs to protect the gilded arses of the guilty. Murdoch announces something that has been weeks in the planningm, leaving him with a leaner, fitter and more profitable organisation, and people are saying hooray. The public really does get the press it deserves. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 07:52 AM (#3183670) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: autolycus Rebekah no longer married to a soap actor. We might as well get OUR facts straight. Geoff's point about the destruction of evidence is one I hadn't heard before. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 08:41 AM (#3183689) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Peter K (Fionn) The ripples have spread much wider so I started another thread: Cameron's Iraq moment |
|
08 Jul 11 - 09:31 AM (#3183713) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: goatfell Just cutting off his nose to spite his face. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 09:57 AM (#3183728) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,BusyBee Paul at work I agree, everyone here going on and on as if they scored a point over Rupert. He is having the last laugh. He has been working on binding the Sun and News Of The World since last November. You can say all you want, but him and his family have done very well for themselves in business, that you have to admire. It seems that anyone who is successful in business is fair game for the Looney lefties on threads here. Also, people buy the news they want to read, The News Of The World was the most popular Sunday paper, not everyone wants to read a boring broad sheet with a free classic CD. Half of those that buy the Sunday Times do so thinking they are impressing the newsagent or neighbours. Clearly the red tops are popular in the UK, so what do you suggest, people read the newspapers you select ? Make your mind up, either you want a free society embracing the working class, (as long as they read the quality press) and continue to mock and despise those who create employment and put food on their tables. By the way, I agree, I would love to see a centrespread of Rebekah, a very classy powerful lady with stunning looks, what more could a man want. Breaking news, the offices of the Daily Star just been raided. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 10:54 AM (#3183753) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Brian May I find it very hard to find sympathy for the 'innocent' staff. They might not have been directly involved, and I suspect the vast majority weren't. However, they all applied for and were happy to work in jobs that facilitated that rag ruin peoples' lives. Their methods (NoW) were questionable 30 years ago, let alone recently, and there is seldom smoke without fire. I do NOT believe staff are actually THAT naive when it comes to 'unnamed sources'. I have a lot more sympathy for those innocents who were abused by this rag in an attempt to score points and make money. To some extent, those 'in the public eye' have chosen to be there. Victims' relatives most certainly did NOT. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 11:15 AM (#3183758) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Fred McCormick I was laughing sandbags and dancing a jig of delight until I realised the ramifications. Step 1. We close the News of the World. Step 2. We wait a few weeks. Step 3. We re-open as The Sun on Sunday. Step 4. We go laughing all the way to the bank. The catch, which few people seem to have caught on to, is that it's cheaper to run a seven days a week newspaper than it is to run a six days a week newspaper and a separate one on Sundays. I'll bet Murdoch has been looking for the perfect excuse to rationalise that bit of his empire for ages, and along it has come - on a plate. Not even Mel Brooks could have dreamed this one up. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 11:25 AM (#3183766) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,999 The king is dead. Long live the king. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 11:30 AM (#3183768) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,999 Problem--as always--is supply and demand. As long as people want that "kind of "news" and are willing to pay for it, there will be those who pimp it. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 01:08 PM (#3183819) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: autolycus Murdoch seems to be becoming the one under scrutiny. For 30 years, the British press and politicians were scared of him. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 05:20 PM (#3183952) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: YorkshireYankee Have also posted the following on the BS: Hacking a murdered girl's phone thread, but it is extremely relevant to this one too: For those of you who don't subscribe to BBC Radio 4's "PM" (M-F hour-long news magazine programme, anchored by the wonderfully acerbic Eddie Mair) newsletter, here is today's effort, which I personally considered to be a masterful summation of the situation: "Hello. "Tonight will be the last edition of PM. "The programme has a fine tradition dating back to 1970 of fighting crime, exposing wrongdoing and getting people to send in photos of their kitchens. "But it is now clear to me that when PM agreed to pay off Nils Blythe and send him to a job at the Bank of England, I was not in full possession of my faculties. It is a matter of serious regret. "Of course I didn't know anything except what I did know and that is quite clear. Things were wrong yet much was right. I introduced a new code of practice 20 minutes ago and have now torn it up. "I'm afraid that since we started co-operating with the police - five minutes ago - it has become clear that we, and by we I don't mean me, must apologise to you. The only sensible way to show you how seriously I take this is to fire the entire PM production team and carry on and sort this mess out. "Thank you." =============== Brilliant, yes? |
|
08 Jul 11 - 06:14 PM (#3183977) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Press freedom from government is an important keystone of a free society. However, only governments can truly regulate. A bit of a catch 22. What went on is despicable and phone tapping is not the nadir of journalism but a sick example. The papers that are being holier than thou also employ people to sift through dustbins and camp out on the street outside bereaved families. The press have a responsibility to both inform and provide scrutiny. Both include a sense of entertainment, otherwise people wouldn't buy their product. But by dragging the watchdog of government so low, Murdoch is in danger of giving governments the moral high ground and that is a scary thought for advocates of a free society. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 07:58 PM (#3184039) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Joe_F I propose a duel to the death between Murdoch & Berlusconi. |
|
08 Jul 11 - 08:01 PM (#3184044) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Those who are worrying about the current "innocent staff" should give a little more thought to the situation. Since the families of Servicemen killed in Afghanistan have been hacked, and most probably that means "are still being hacked", who are these innocents. Only the typesetters and printers could be unaware of the sources, and even that is unlikely given the way that the "grapevine" works. Rebekah Brooks is busy now, making sure that the few staff who aren't found jobs elsewhere in the organisation will get a superb redundancy package. After all, if they aren't happy, they'll be selling their stories to the Telegraph, and BOY, do they have stories to sell!! Don T |
|
08 Jul 11 - 08:09 PM (#3184050) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Dave MacKenzie "I propose a duel to the death between Murdoch & Berlusconi." of both of them? |
|
09 Jul 11 - 03:24 AM (#3184176) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Dave Hanson It's always the same innit, the innocent are sacrificed to protect the guilty. Dave H |
|
09 Jul 11 - 03:56 AM (#3184186) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Richard Bridge Assuming, Fluids, that that is really you, you have not done your homework on medial plurality. Historically, governments required, not so much that some things were done and some not done (well, since the Lord Chamberlain stopped censoring plays - although they made some of the laws of obscenity, contempt of court, defamation, etc) but required owners of broadcast media to be fit and proper persons and restricted the ownership of broadcast media where it would lead to the excessive concentration of media power. Of course the first villainess was the bitch Thatcher when she recast the independent UK television industry simply to get back at Thames TV for making and broadcasting "Death on the Rock" and since then it has been downhill all the way to the extent that the post-Tatcherite twit Mark Reckless could not long ago write to me asserting that giving Murdoch yet more power would increase the competitiveness of UKTV. Obviously he has never seen a Sky TV commissioning contract. What the government must do is re-establish the necessary control over the tendency to monopoly. Now, while Murdoch is weakened, may be the time. |
|
09 Jul 11 - 09:34 AM (#3184292) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: akenaton Does anybody really still believe that the political class want free and independent news media.......hahaha, of course not....much too dangerous! |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:28 AM (#3184361) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,Ralphie I would have thought that three days after the announcement of the NOTW closure in the morning....Every single computer will have been scrupulously cleaned, A bit like the Nazis burning all the files about "The Final Solution" before that particular balloon went up. Every shred of evidence will have been destroyed...Maybe an odd memo fallen behind a filing cabinet might be found, but, that'll be it. NOTW will return, under a different name when the dust settles....It's too much of a cash cow for Murdoch to leave that hole unfulfilled. And the practices that caused it's demise this time will continue. They'll just be a bit more careful as to how they do it. I can understand underhand journalists...Quelle Surprise! But, Police taking payments for information? Everyone is keeping very quiet about that bit....Wonder why? Which Policemen, What information? Which investigative reporter is commenting on that situation??? Deafening silence... I rest my case... |
|
09 Jul 11 - 11:36 AM (#3184371) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: autolycus Apparently emails a-plenty have been deleted. isn't there a crime to do with destroying evidence or aren't the police investigating? |
|
09 Jul 11 - 12:24 PM (#3184417) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Dave Hanson No because that fucking arsehole Cameron is delaying the start of the Inquiry, and still won't appoint a Judge to do it. Dave H |
|
09 Jul 11 - 01:31 PM (#3184455) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: McGrath of Harlow Do we need two threads about this, without any discernible difference of focus? |
|
09 Jul 11 - 08:02 PM (#3184623) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Joe_F Dave MacKenzie: If possible. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 01:51 AM (#3184704) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: autolycus From: GUEST,BusyBee Paul at work - PM Date: 08 Jul 11 - 09:57 AM ----You can say all you want, but him and his family have done very well for themselves in business, that you have to admire. It seems that anyone who is successful in business is fair game for the Looney lefties on threads here. "What is true is that honesty is incompatible with the amassing of a large fortune." [Gandhi;'Non-Violence in Peace and War', 1948]. ----Also, people buy the news they want to read, The News Of The World was the most popular Sunday paper, not everyone wants to read a boring broad sheet with a free classic CD. Half of those that buy the Sunday Times do so thinking they are impressing the newsagent or neighbours. Pornography, gambling, drunkenness and violence are also popular. Popularity isn't inherently a virtue. And about your Sunday times assertion, evidence would be a step forward. ---Clearly the red tops are popular in the UK, so what do you suggest, people read the newspapers you select ? Make your mind up, either you want a free society embracing the working class, (as long as they read the quality press) and continue to mock and despise those who create employment and put food on their tables. 'Either you want a free society .....' Something missing there, beginning ' or....' I want a free society, and if people make lousy choices in that free society, we're free to criticise/advise. -----From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie - PM Date: 08 Jul 11 - 06:14 PM ----Press freedom from government is an important keystone of a free society. ----However, only governments can truly regulate. I don't think that last sentence is true. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 06:05 AM (#3184753) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie I reckon it is true. The public regulate to a degree in that if it is crap they won't buy it but media in the widest sense tell us what we want. The iPad was the wonderful invention that nobody needed. I'm glued to my bugger now. Governments alone can truly regulate. Ask any despot. Speaking as an advisor to a government regulator in a different field perhaps my use of the word was in the technical rather than the broad sense. The dilemma being a free press within a regulatory framework is not a free press. It is free within the constraints of the regulator and whilst we can be fairly comfortable with that, my point was that events such as this result in tighter control and regulation so the press freedom is chiselled away at. Laws do exist to prevent monopoly situations as the bloke with the fluids fixation tells us, and when Murdoch brags that he decides who forms the next government he ain't joking. But conversely how do you scrutinise government without freedom of your own business? The fifth estate indeed. Oh, Thatcher was the first villainess, correct. But not the first villain. Assuming villainess is a word. I assumed villain to be gender neutral but there you go. Learn something every day. Even if the source is suspect. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 07:43 AM (#3184792) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: autolycus You American, Paul? |
|
10 Jul 11 - 07:49 AM (#3184794) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Peter the Squeezer Two letters from yesterday's Grauniad "Reflecting on the role of Rebekah Brooks at the News of the World, it struck me that one is a Wapping based red top with a curious grasp of what's fit to print, whereas the other will appear for the last time this Sunday." and "A note to Rebekah : if the Murdochs suggest a yachting weekend, don't go." |
|
10 Jul 11 - 08:16 AM (#3184799) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: David C. Carter Paul,I take it as an insult that you attack people like my brother,who was born blind and later in life was nearly killed in a car crash.He wasn't in either car,just a victim of a couple of assholes who couln't give a flying fuck about anyone else.He lost the use of both legs,and right arm.I imagine that you would find it not quite to your taste that he received compensation.He is not "loafing on incapacity benefits"as you would have it!And people aren't exactly queing up to employ him. Perhaps you,who appears to have all the answers,and feel qualified to criticize everyone else,could tell me why that is. I am not a "middle aged folkie",nor am I one of the "looney lefties". But I'm certainly not one the RABID RIGHT! You call yourself Busy Bee,at work.You still find time to log on to the 'cat. I'm out of here. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 10:11 AM (#3184821) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: goatfell good riddance, the best thing this 'paper' has done good |
|
10 Jul 11 - 11:02 AM (#3184847) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Smokey. Tsk, so many negative comments.. Not only was it more absorbent, but it smelled nicer than 'Izal Medicated'. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 01:28 PM (#3184920) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Rusty Dobro Until today, I'd never bought a copy of the 'NOTW' in my life, but I have fond memories of holidays at my grandmother's farmhouse in the '50's, where the lodger had it delivered on Sundays. It was whisked out of the way of us children, but once in a while we found it. I had no idea that scoutmasters got up to such things. Apparently, there was a loophole in the law that prevented vicars from suing for libel, which explains why they too featured regularly. Happy and more innocent days. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 01:50 PM (#3184933) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: The Sandman i would like to say good riddance to the organ grinder not just the monkeys, i mean murdoch and sky news, and the sun. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 03:43 PM (#3184996) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: DrugCrazed Blah. If you read NoTW then you deserve everything you get? |
|
10 Jul 11 - 04:25 PM (#3185022) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: BTNG one zombie will fall and another will rise in its place |
|
10 Jul 11 - 04:30 PM (#3185027) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Richard Bridge Interesting to see the advice of Lawrence Abramson at Harbottle & Lewis. In context. Read it carefully. As much as for what it carefully does not say as for what it does. I don't feel that the original Harbottle, or the original Lewis (with whom I was mildly matey at times) would have written in exactly those terms. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 04:37 PM (#3185034) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,The Observer "Harbottle, or the original Lewis (with whom I was mildly matey at times)" Up your own arse again tonight Richard I see. A wannabe who just didn't make it.
-Joe Offer- |
|
10 Jul 11 - 06:06 PM (#3185090) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: DrugCrazed I posted this in the other thread as well, but it's still worth mentioning. Brooks did admit that she'd paid police. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 06:15 PM (#3185093) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Richard Bridge Dear Guest - check your facts. |
|
10 Jul 11 - 08:41 PM (#3185148) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Wesley S "one zombie will fall and another will rise in its place" Agreed. Well put. People will always want trash. It's human nature. Not the nature of anyone HERE of course. None of US care for that stuff. But until the desire to read trash disappears there will be someone around to make up stories and sell them to folks. Think of it as heroin in print. If one dealer dies another takes his place in a few days. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 11:25 AM (#3185457) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Doktor Doktor Ah .............. it's the end of an error, truly. What with the Sunday Sport gone, there's nobody to write the really great headlines - at least until the Sunday Sin makes an appearance .. where will I get my fix of "Nude Bishop in Three in a Bed Murder Threat Bribery Scandal"s now? Sigh ....... |
|
11 Jul 11 - 12:29 PM (#3185500) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: John MacKenzie Aleksey Polikovskiy in Russia's Novaya Gazeta (Owned by Alexander Lebedev): "With such a scale and tempo of snooping, every person on the British Isles could have been exhibited naked in their moments of love or grief in front of his countrymen. Certainly Murdoch is no more guilty than the two-and-a-half million people who rushed to the trough called the News of the World once a week in order to eat their fill. Everyone has his own freedom" |
|
11 Jul 11 - 12:51 PM (#3185516) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: BTNG aye, the Russians knew all about snooping in other people's lives didn't they? More than likely they still do, nothing changes. "Everyone has his own freedom" Oh right, sure!! |
|
11 Jul 11 - 01:12 PM (#3185525) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: GUEST,Folkiedave I feel sorry for people who lose their jobs. But in this case they will be going on to £50,000 houses and cars supplied by the taxpayer and enormous weekly benefits that the unemployed get. Won't they? |
|
11 Jul 11 - 03:25 PM (#3185616) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Richard Bridge Richard. Bridge was SO last troll. Richard, Bridge is not me either. But without the News of The Screws to print pictures of -er- embonpoint I suppose that that sort of person has to fetishise somewhere. Sort of care in the community. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 07:04 PM (#3185737) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: BTNG From Yahoo News A plan is underway to re-launch the News of the World newspaper just one day after the title was closed by owner Rupert Murdoch. According to reports in The Independent, Susan Douglas, a former editor of the Sunday Express and deputy editor of The Sunday Times, is at the centre of a consortium of media and business figures attempting to put a rescue package together. "What we are talking about is saving the freedom of the press for ordinary people, who are not going to read the Financial Times, or even The Independent or The Guardian. I think it's really important and worth doing," she said. Reports claim that Ms Douglas has already been involved in talks with leading media owners and venture capitalists. She urged that a rescue attempt would need to be made quickly before the opportunity to save the title is lost. Part of Douglas' plans would involve recruiting former News of the World staff – who have been invited to apply for roles within News International. |
|
11 Jul 11 - 07:09 PM (#3185739) Subject: RE: BS: RIP 'News of the World'. From: Don(Wyziwyg)T It is reported here that Murdoch withdrew, in addition to his suspect assurances, his demands for immediate acquiescence in the purchase of BSkyB, asking for it to be referred to the Competition Commission, which will take at least six months, more probably twelve. He thinks that insisting on an answer now will dish the whole deal, and is hoping it will all blow over by the time the CC announces its decision. This is a measure of the devious nature of the man. We however have at least six months to impress upon the government, the cost in votes of making the wrong decision now. That should be enough. Don T. |
