Org Mobile Site
Thread: News Of The World
Just watching it now. It's like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Strength is always perceived to be seen as never backing down, never sacking people. It seems having the human trait of making a mistake is just not possible. That they look more weak and out of touch when they belatedly bin them seems to be a lesson they don't want to learn.
But being on a boat with someone is not a crime, is it? If front benchers think they can be booted for being in the same place as a certain person they'd either rebel or be too scared to do anything, lest they are tarred with the association retrospectively.
Yes, but it was who else he was on the boat with, and the fact that it appears to have been hushed up. He deserved to lose Cameron's trust for that and the (then) leader of the opposition should have demoted him on principle to, say, Health. Or, he should have Lamonted him as Banquo said a year ago and then replaced him with Clarke. The problem with Ken Clarke is that he is (also) quite intellectually intelligent but like some others on the front bench somewhat lacking in political empathy. Saying that drunk rapists might be given a lighter sentence than hold-still-or-I-kill-you rapists is a worthwile consideration when the prisons are bursting at the seems and the latter seems more likely to reoffend or later kill someone. Unfortunately it makes a dreadful soundbite.Strength is always perceived to be seen as never backing down, never sacking people. It seems having the human trait of making a mistake is just not possible. That they look more weak and out of touch when they belatedly bin them seems to be a lesson they don't want to learn.
But being on a boat with someone is not a crime, is it? If front benchers think they can be booted for being in the same place as a certain person they'd either rebel or be too scared to do anything, lest they are tarred with the association retrospectively.
On the other hand, Ken Clarke saying exactly what he thinks of investment bankers and ratings agencies would probably play well in the domestic market at least.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
I expected a much more sophisticated strawman than that.
Sorry, I was not sure you were serious about electing policemen. It just sounds ridiculous to me. I agree that democractically accountable local politicians should be able to have a say in setting priorities and policing policies, but I think it is a very bad blurring of the lines to give them oversight of operational matters. The current case is surely a clear illustration. The personal implications for a top public figure of being arrested - a DSK, a Rebeka Woods, a Berlusconi etc - are massive and I would not want a politician anywhere near the decision-making about whether to make such arrests or even investigations. The scope for smearing your opponents (or protecting your allies) just seems too much and before long we'd be like Russia, where politicians, media, security agencies and worse are mired up together in one foul-smelling soup.I expected a much more sophisticated strawman than that.
Christ, what just happened in the Hearing?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Christ, what just happened in the Hearing?
Young man tried to push a plate of shaving foam in Wupert's face. End of hearing, at least for today. Christ, what just happened in the Hearing?
AII
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Young man tried to push a plate of shaving foam in Wupert's face. End of hearing, at least for today.
AII
Actually, it's still on, listen now. Although it does seem to have just looped back.Young man tried to push a plate of shaving foam in Wupert's face. End of hearing, at least for today.
AII
James: iwhi-ihwi-iwhi.... I've read a bit of it.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Actually, it's still on, listen now. Although it does seem to have just looped back.
James: iwhi-ihwi-iwhi.... I've read a bit of it.
Oh sure, the buck doesn't stop anywhere near Wupert. It gallops on, past James, past Rebekah, and off into London's hazy night.Actually, it's still on, listen now. Although it does seem to have just looped back.
James: iwhi-ihwi-iwhi.... I've read a bit of it.
AII
The return of the phantom flan flinger.
The Wall Street Journal has an (unintentionally) hilarious editorial today about the corruption/hacking scandal:
Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.
In other words, who you gonna blame, the hard-working criminal or the lazy beat cop who couldn't be bothered to enforce the laws? Which we happened to break?Originally Posted by Lemur:
The Wall Street Journal has an (unintentionally) hilarious editorial today about the corruption/hacking scandal:
Put me in Rebekah's dress, slap me pink and chase me out of town, but I'd have to agree with that editorial. Not because the hacking is innocent, far from it, but because the rot goes all the way to the Met's and the Yard's top. And beyond, if we are to believe some comments. Certain politicians belong in that dock as well.The Wall Street Journal has an (unintentionally) hilarious editorial today about the corruption/hacking scandal:
Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.
In other words, who you gonna blame, the hard-working criminal or the lazy beat cop who couldn't be bothered to enforce the laws? Which we happened to break?AII
Originally Posted by Adrian II:
Put me in Rebekah's dress, slap me pink AII
Do I have to pay extra for that?Put me in Rebekah's dress, slap me pink AII
From The Independent:
Originally Posted by Lemur:
The Wall Street Journal has an (unintentionally) hilarious editorial today about the corruption/hacking scandal:
Did you happen to see the Fox&Friends(I think that's what the show is called) talk about the hacking?The Wall Street Journal has an (unintentionally) hilarious editorial today about the corruption/hacking scandal:
Phone-hacking is illegal, and it is up to British authorities to enforce their laws. If Scotland Yard failed to do so adequately when the hacking was first uncovered several years ago, then that is more troubling than the hacking itself.
In other words, who you gonna blame, the hard-working criminal or the lazy beat cop who couldn't be bothered to enforce the laws? Which we happened to break?Anyway... That editorial has a scary perspective on law enforcement.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
The return of the phantom flan flinger.
Fer yer viewing pleasure.The return of the phantom flan flinger.
Youtube Video
What a waste of shaving cream. Ya shoulda used a cow pie.
Ms. Murdoch has a mean left hook.
Here's the original Phantom Flan Flinger doing a young Annie Lennox....
Youtube Video
She took it well. Not!
Youtube Video
She took it well. Not!
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Here's the original Phantom Flan Flinger doing a young Annie Lennox....
That was Blue Peter, wasn't it? Good Lord... I remember Lenny Henry joking about his days on that show. "I've done children's television, I have the T-shirt, I wear the scars..."Here's the original Phantom Flan Flinger doing a young Annie Lennox....
AII
No not Blue Peter. Tiswas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiswas
I used to watch it Saturday mornings, recovering from clubbing on a Friday night.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiswas
I used to watch it Saturday mornings, recovering from clubbing on a Friday night.
Originally Posted by Ronin:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...xrs=share_copy
ohhh this is good :D
Your link simply instructed me not to send Redcoats to the US.http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...xrs=share_copy
ohhh this is good :D
I have already contacted Butlins.
The link works for me, and I liked it.
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?
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?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.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?
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...
Did a bit of digging...
Originally Posted by :
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_ParliamentIt 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.
Here's the Beeb's take.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by drone:
I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) they still haven't put topless females on page 3 yet.
Especially in this Bare market.I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) they still haven't put topless females on page 3 yet.
...Oh, I'm sorry, I thought this was the News of the Weird thread. My bad.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO