Optical illusion results in incredibly honest photo of Rupert Murdoch.
Printable View
Could any brit tell me what the punishment, if any, is for lying to parliament?
Rebecca told parliament that she "knew nothing". Considering that she was known as a very controlling editor, I find that incredibly hard to believe. Is she likely to face punishment for that lie?
No idea, but she admitted to paying police for information at a previous hearing, so she's in trouble even if her bout of memory loss (contagious, see Rupert and James's performance) gets her off some of the charges. And Rupert was also known to be a very hands on manager, who loved newspapers... plus, man, he looked (acted?) rather ancient.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
And that Daily Show segment is excellent, as usual. They are having a great time along with the rest of the (non News Corp) media.
I'm no expert but I should imagine that lying to Parliament would be similar to contempt of court. I imagine the punishment would be more severe though.
Did a bit of digging...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_ParliamentQuote:
It is further contempt to bribe or attempt to bribe any member (and for any member to accept or solicit a bribe), to disrupt the sittings of the House or a committee—wherever it is sitting, to refuse to appear before a committee to testify, to refuse to answer any question put by a committee, to lie to a committee or to refuse to swear an oath when testifying, or to otherwise obstruct the business of the House.
MPs accused of Contempt of Parliament may be suspended or expelled. They may also be committed to St Stephen's Tower, although this practice has fallen into disuse in recent years. Strangers (those who are not members of the House) may be committed to prison during the life of the Parliament. The House of Lords has the power to fine as well as to order imprisonment for a term of years.
Probably filed under Obstruction of Justice, some where.
I liked it. How come the spoofs are always better than the original?
Looks like Murdoch's flagship US paper, the WSJ, may be guilty of scamming their circulation numbers. Not as emotionally resonant as hacking the phones of terrorism victims, but from a business perspective, more damning. Anybody who has worked in, around or near publishing can tell you this is poisonous stuff. You can irritate politicians all you like, but do NOT **** with the money.
The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channelling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal's true circulation.
-edit-
The bizarre scheme included a formal, written contract in which the Journal persuaded one company to co-operate by agreeing to publish articles that promoted its activities, a move which led some staff to accuse the paper's management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality.
Internal emails and documents suggest the scam was promoted by Andrew Langhoff, the European managing director of the Journal's parent company, Dow Jones and Co, which was bought by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation in July 2007. Langhoff resigned on Tuesday.
Here's the Beeb's take.
Is there anyone who didn't think Murdoch would screw up the Wall Street Journal? I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) they still haven't put topless females on page 3 yet.
Especially in this Bare market.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
...Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the News of the Weird thread. My bad.