BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 17 May 11 - 10:38 AM

Are we to assume the Portugese police authorities are willingly going to give "Plod" unfettered access to all associated material in their possession, much of it now questionable due to the passage of time?

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 11 - 03:59 PM

And that is the really scary part. Control the media and you control the voters. Well, those who can't be bothered to think for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: Bill D
Date: 16 May 11 - 12:24 PM

Murdoch has a LOT of money. Extremists with lots of money are always dangerous, in that they buy favor in places...and Murdoch, controlling so many media outlets, is especially so.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 May 11 - 11:42 AM

Murdoch isn't half as dangerous as the mindless morons who believe the garbage he spews.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:50 AM

Very. The majority of politicians are in thrall to Murdoch; if they aren't they're soon sorted. Just witness the love-ins of politicians of all parties with members of the Murdoch brigade. If Murdoch wants to ruin your life, then he will; if he can't find anything, then he'll make it up. Libel - of course, but even if you can afford to sue the Murdoch press, they can afford to pay the damages many times over and they'll issue a tiny apology somewhere on page 14 or so. Read the Guardian and Indy and listen to the BBC news. The McCanns need the money: Murdoch needs some brownie points following the phone hacking and now a contempt of court action. Cameron and most MP's will dance to Murdoch's tune.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 May 11 - 07:05 AM

I think you are probably right about this one, Richard. I simply suggested another possible scenario in endeavour to be quite fair, but agree with you that most politics are, if not actually corrupt, then anyhow a bit venal. One of the paradoxes of government to me has always been that I feel that anyone who wants to make a living by politics is not someone I would wish to be governed by; but OTOH politicians have children who need to be shod and fed like anyone else!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 May 11 - 06:55 AM

If Cameron agreed with the McCanns all along, why did he wait until Murdoch told him to jump before asking "How high?". This has all the hallmarks of corrupt abuse of power. Par for the course.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 16 May 11 - 06:22 AM

Somebody is selling a book.
No other comment.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 16 May 11 - 05:18 AM

One can't be sure MTGM but my guess is that the McCanns would have exhausted their possibilities through official channels before writing to Murdoch.

I would also guess that they wrote to Murdoch believing he could achieve something that they could not.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: Lox
Date: 16 May 11 - 05:10 AM

Not sure about this matter, but not too bothered either.

Much more important is how Murdoch deliberately and knowingly misinforms people on just about every subject from celebrity private lives to matters of serious political significance.

By the way, I wonder what the letter said? ....

... I suspect something along the lines of "it could be good for your popularity if you are seen to show a human interest in the McCann case"

That seems realistic - note: I didn't say whether it was right or wrong, just that that is probably what he said.

Subject: RE: BS: How dangerous is (Rupert) Murdoch?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 May 11 - 03:03 AM

It is of course just possible that the PM took the action he did because he agreed with Murdoch, & had done so all along, rather than that this proves he is 'in thrall' to him. And the police were not obliged to listen to Cameron, but appear to have decided that the advice (which, at least arguably, was all it was) he gave was good and such as should be heeded.

I speak purely in general terms in saying that one should not inevitably impugn the motives of those with whom one does not see eye-to-eye on some, or even most, matters. Why not give Murdoch, Cameron & the Fuzz the benefit of the doubt as to their motivations?

~Michael~

Subject: BS: How dangerous is Murdoch?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 May 11 - 02:14 AM

The McCanns write to Murdoch. Murdoch writes to Cameron. Cameron tells Scotland Yard to re-open their enquiry into the death of Madeleine McCann.

Well, it may lead to justice for the McCanns (one way or another) but I find it really alarming that the pm is so in thrall to Murdoch that Murdoch now decides how public funding for the police is spent and can overrule prior policing decisions.