
but if we all lose interest, he'll basically get away with it. While mostly everyone is watching, he doesn't.
Suppose he will in the end anyway though. Plenty enough viable scapegoats to go round I suppose.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:48,
archived)
Suppose he will in the end anyway though. Plenty enough viable scapegoats to go round I suppose.

its like i never understand why stuff like the Maddy thing is was in the news for so long - loads of people go missing and / or die every day. Its not relevant, its not important, its just people being nosey, and their noseyness just fuels the story and how much they milk it.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:50,
archived)

I can't be arsed either. but in this case, I think rich bastards should pay me to stop being a cunt.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:05,
archived)

people like being nosey.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:07,
archived)

ive only flipped through the NOTW once or twice, and it was more like a celeb gossip mag, with 'exclusive' stories like 'my husband went out with another woman' or 'i was fat, but now im thin'. What about wars? Natural disasters? Important news that other papers were covering got pushed to the side in favour of trashy 'people' stories and gossip.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:10,
archived)

I feel the same as you, but about different subjects. I don't care much about natural disasters, for instance. Sure, huge numbers of people die, but natural disasters happen all the time, geologically speaking. They aren't really news, they're expected to happen. Politics, on the other hand, contains genuinely new events (sometimes) as culture evolves.
This is all very subjective and comes down to what you think counts as "a thing".
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:15,
archived)
This is all very subjective and comes down to what you think counts as "a thing".

i just get annoyed when i read about people being cunts :-)
Momma nature isnt a cunt - it just does its thang
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:22,
archived)
Momma nature isnt a cunt - it just does its thang

That'll be news.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:26,
archived)

It's from my old English teacher (I don't have a new one). Seeing as she's probably snuffed it by now I would have to google it to find out it's original source.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:38,
archived)

I'd say even more so. Party gets into government, breaks promises, one or two scandals during their term. Rinse and repeat.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:53,
archived)

the 'general' public are being the biggest hypocrites in this entire saga judging by the general internet tone.
It's not up to Murdoch to 'get away' with anything. He hasn't been charged, or personally accused of anything.
If people watch or not, until he's personally accused of something, all he has to do is go in and answer a few questions.
At Start: General Public = 'outrage' at this NotW/News International 'Scandal' and cries of 'we never wanted all the NotWs scandal-led stories peddled on us through the years' and shock at scandal on the back of a dead person
And Now: General Public = Hoping for 'Scandal' in these hearings and blaming Murdoch et al, and trying to infer a conspiratorial link to the sad death of a journo. - i.e. wanting scandal on the back of a dead person.
Twitter did not disappoint this morning in showing how idiotic people can be.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 11:57,
archived)
It's not up to Murdoch to 'get away' with anything. He hasn't been charged, or personally accused of anything.
If people watch or not, until he's personally accused of something, all he has to do is go in and answer a few questions.
At Start: General Public = 'outrage' at this NotW/News International 'Scandal' and cries of 'we never wanted all the NotWs scandal-led stories peddled on us through the years' and shock at scandal on the back of a dead person
And Now: General Public = Hoping for 'Scandal' in these hearings and blaming Murdoch et al, and trying to infer a conspiratorial link to the sad death of a journo. - i.e. wanting scandal on the back of a dead person.
Twitter did not disappoint this morning in showing how idiotic people can be.

I've long espoused the view that no one that seeks a position of power over others is trustworthy, and that such covers the police and all politicians, as people only ever join these establishments with a view to feathering their own nests at the expense of others.
And here we are with the police in bed with the journalists in bed with the politicians in bed with the police.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:01,
archived)
And here we are with the police in bed with the journalists in bed with the politicians in bed with the police.


but anyone expecting anything other than by the numbers/by the lawyers answers is going to be sadly let down.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:10,
archived)

Bad idea to put a £10,000 bet that he'll confess to being the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll?
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:33,
archived)

but the trouble is, the person who IS implicated, Rebekah, isn't head of the paper, she's (was) CEO of Murdoch's whole company. surely that implicates ALL of his newspapers, and tv, and anything that might have used phone hacking to it's advantage?
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:10,
archived)

just News International, the UK only division of News Corp.
News Corp. is a whole lot bigger than that, and she had naff all to do with the rest.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:13,
archived)
News Corp. is a whole lot bigger than that, and she had naff all to do with the rest.

and she's still a bint.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 13:05,
archived)

/and let's not be naive here. 'If' all of his UK papers were doing it, it's a fair bet (although an assumption on my part, I'll grant you) others were doing it as well.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 13:11,
archived)

I don't buy his shit nosey rags but I think he makes a lot of money from criminal behaviour and I'd like to see some people who've been getting away with it for years go down for their crimes. And if senior figures in the MET are in with them then them too.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:18,
archived)

but there's a LOT of public comment, trending comment, being aimed against Murdoch et al with only guesswork, supposition, and an attitude of 'baiting' the big guns. It's purporting scandalous conspiracy theories
to appeal to the general mood against News Corp. and a lot of it has no foundation. It's not a great (or effective) way of going after the C*nt and his companies
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:22,
archived)
to appeal to the general mood against News Corp. and a lot of it has no foundation. It's not a great (or effective) way of going after the C*nt and his companies

Oh wait that was last year.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:30,
archived)

Forensics didn't get there until 2100BST.
Nothing suspicious here, no, no. Sleep quietly, good citizens, your government is in control.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:39,
archived)
Nothing suspicious here, no, no. Sleep quietly, good citizens, your government is in control.

but pushing for the scandalous option straight off with little to no backing doesn't help matters in determining truth,
and essentially comes back to some people finding something dodgy in it because they want to find something dodgy in it.
( ,
Tue 19 Jul 2011, 12:45,
archived)
and essentially comes back to some people finding something dodgy in it because they want to find something dodgy in it.