Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, doing a little research onto this... (look here for what I looked at).


Initially, Murdoch's right wing rags 'switch' allegiance from Labour, giving their support (and thus the vote of the million of mouth breathers who read such tat) to Cameron's Tories. Meanwhile, it's also been campaigning heavily to have the BBC's License Fee scrapped or reduced, and the pay of the Broadcaster's biggest starts made public. (Murdoch of course owns Fox, Sky and varoius other commercial broadcasters). Oh, and the papers also campaigned most vehmently to avoid a 'hung parliament', citing Rioting in utterly unrelated countries in a childish scaremongering.

THEN, having got Cameron elected (but thankfully not avoiding a Coalition Government) guess who comes a-knock-knock-knocking on Cameron's door? WHY, it's his old chum Rupert Murdoch. For 'secret' meetings.

Following on, Cameron announces that his government, as part of the wider slashing of public service spending, is going to cut the BBC's license fee. Not to mention scrapping Ofcom, something else Murdoch's droogs have campaigned for on his behalf.

Now, perhaps I'm being paranoid, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps I'm being just a little bit too left wing for some....BUT....

Surely no Prime Minister of Britain should ever be allowed to keep secret the subject of meetings with a non-Citizen Industry Leader? Especially when said non-Citizen backed his campaign so solidly? And is it not a tad suspicious that suddenly, everything the git ever wished for has come true?

Following on, Cameron announces that his government, as part of the wider slashing of public service spending, is going to cut the BBC's license fee.

How does reducing the license fee and at the same time curbing waste at the BBC add up to a BAD thing? This is nothing new - the Tories have been talking about it for the last few years.

Not to mention scrapping Ofcom, something else Murdoch's droogs have campaigned for on his behalf.

He's not scrapping Ofcom, only trimming the fat. Quite right, although if he did scrap it I doubt we'd miss it. It'd be money well saved, and one less group of New Labour-created undemocratically-elected bureaucrats who get to direct and administer government policy without being accountable to the people of this country. The head of Ofcom earns more than the Prime Minister.

If you want to define 'dodgy', look into Ofcom.

Mr Mystery wrote:Now, perhaps I'm being paranoid, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps I'm being just a little bit too left wing for some....BUT....

In the lead up to the Iraq every Murdoch paper in Australia, the UK and the US came to the independant decision all by themselves to support the invasion. All 170 odd of them. Following the invasion, in all three countries attempted or successfully passed legislation reducing media ownership rules.

The saddest thing is that Murdoch has all this power, he could be using it to advance political causes or build a one world government ruled by his cold and bony hand. But he's using all that political influence to make more money. It's so... petty.

Mr Mystery wrote: Now, perhaps I'm being paranoid, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps I'm being just a little bit too left wing for some....BUT....

And is it not a tad suspicious that suddenly, everything the git ever wished for has come true?

Pointless personal attack that contained no actual argument removed. Debate the point don't slag off the poster.

Far as I'm concerned Murdoch can go rot. He makes comments that in the resession it's wrong that you should be forced to pay for the TV licence fee... but happy for the low income masses and unemployed to pay for his services.

He forgets to mention that:

a. The BBC has a royal charter and by law has to cater to a broad spectrum of viewers
b. Is supposed to be balanced (don't even go there as start the usual crap about them not being so, as there is a least a system in place to review any complainants that they are failing in this).
c. Make their own stuff or commission it. Sky has made a handful of original shows, all the rest is imported. How many Sky shows have been taken up by other countries? None I would imagine.

The man is a money grabbing, power hungry arse.

Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.

We had 13 years of labour, 3 of the 4 MPs facing criminal charges are labour, and they were just as (or more) sickeningly corrupt, arrogant, incompetent and allergic to referendums as any administration we have ever had.

Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git? And why is he one? He seems a fair minded enough bloke to me, he just seems like he is trying to balance the books which is going to annoy everybody, but why do you have such a hatred for him where you will sit and effectivelly call him names? Due to the fact he had a good education? Is that an acceptable reason to loathe somebody?

This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.

The simple fact of the matter is that this nation is bleeding money and its needs to be addressed urgently. The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.

mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum. .

No it wouldn't have been.

Yelling "class warrior" and insulting the other poster is not in any way an attempt to debate.

Do better.

The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.

Oh, the irony...

mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.

We had 13 years of labour, 3 of the 4 MPs facing criminal charges are labour, and they were just as (or more) sickeningly corrupt, arrogant, incompetent and allergic to referendums as any administration we have ever had.

Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git? And why is he one? He seems a fair minded enough bloke to me, he just seems like he is trying to balance the books which is going to annoy everybody, but why do you have such a hatred for him where you will sit and effectivelly call him names? Due to the fact he had a good education? Is that an acceptable reason to loathe somebody?

This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.

The simple fact of the matter is that this nation is bleeding money and its needs to be addressed urgently. The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.

I've heard rumours from a mate who's ex 29 Commando, that they are looking at screwing over the Marines again. Will he still not be a "git" then? If I remember correctly the last times the Tories did this sort of thing the Falklands got invaded. By the way this isn't a round about way of supporting Labour, but just pointing out I'd trust Dave as much as I'd trust any politician.

mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.

We had 13 years of labour, 3 of the 4 MPs facing criminal charges are labour, and they were just as (or more) sickeningly corrupt, arrogant, incompetent and allergic to referendums as any administration we have ever had.

Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git? And why is he one? He seems a fair minded enough bloke to me, he just seems like he is trying to balance the books which is going to annoy everybody, but why do you have such a hatred for him where you will sit and effectivelly call him names? Due to the fact he had a good education? Is that an acceptable reason to loathe somebody?

This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.

The simple fact of the matter is that this nation is bleeding money and its needs to be addressed urgently. The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.

He didn't insult Cameron, he was calling Murdoch a "git", not Cameron.

He also didn't complain in the post about the balancing of the books, merely commented that immediately after Murdoch's papers changed their votes and possibly won the election, the changes that Murdoch would wish to happen, look to be happening.

And surely it is slightly wrong that shortly after an undisclosed meeting in the Aegean sea in the med, hundreds of miles from Britain, changes in favour of one of the Tories' largest/most influential backers, are set to occur.

mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.

I didn't see the comment before it was banned but gnashing your teeth over left wing bias on dakka is very, very funny.

Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git?

He called Murdoch a git. Learn to read.

This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.

That you've confused a genuine concern about the power of media moguls to offer support to politicians in exchange for favourable legislation for vitriolic dislike of anyone fortunate enough to be wealthy is a sad reflection of the state of political debate. There is a real issue of political corruption here, and as I've pointed out above Blair's Labour govt did it too, and it deserves more than some tired old factional crap.

Do better.

What's '29 Commando'?

By Git, I was referring to Murdoch, not Cameron. Didn't vote this time, so I don't get a chance to whinge about who's who in Government at the moment.

My entire point is that he is having 'secret' meetings with a non-UK Citizen, that is not part of a foreign political party. So what right does this meeting have to secrecy, especially given how many things have been ticked off Murdoch's wishlist?

Bit of clarity please or we're back to New Labour.

So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

Albatross wrote:What's '29 Commando'?

29 Commando Royal Artillery

But aren't they in the army?

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

Private Citizen to Private Citizin, no of course not. Thats going just a little too far.

But, Prime Minister and the man whose Media Empire helped him into power, then benefitted directly from certain decisions? You better believe it.

This is not about the meetings in the Aegean, but the one(s) in Downing Street. http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/david-cameron-has-secret-downing-street-meeting-with-rupert-murdoch

Albatross wrote:But aren't they in the army?

148 Battary / 29 Commando, attached to Royal Marines, based at Poole Royal Marine base. Forward observers.

Mr Mystery wrote:

My entire point is that he is having 'secret' meetings with a non-UK Citizen,

Do you not think Prime Ministers, indeed all politicians in any position of power, meet a considerable number of people where they discuss all manner of things ? It's not going to be especially practical to list them all.

And, to be blunt, this has come as no surprise whatsoever if you've paid the slightest attention to anything that has happened in UK politics for about 20+ years.

And it's not really unique to the current administratiuon either. Granted it might wind up being a bit ..err..."stronger" ( ? ) in overall affect than in the past thsi time however.

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

You don't think it's a good thing for dealings between heads of state and extremely powerful private citizens to be made public?

Shriek! Screwing the Marines again! I hate him!

I dislike almost all politicians, to be sure, but my point is, i dont see what he personally has done to provoke the vitriol against him by all the class warrior types.

Of course ill be dismayed if they screw the Royal Marines, but the fact of the matter is, the cupboards bare. Did you see that slimeball Milliband saying Cameron "disrespected" the troops? The bloke doubled the OA within a week of taking power, there is a reason that many military people vote conservative.

And dont even get me started on Liam Byrne. He left a note on Osbournes desk saying "THERES NO MONEY! LOLZ!" and then marched out to slag the conservatives off for not paying for some community projects. Effectively playing politics with the hopes of communities, promising things he KNEW he wouldnt be able to deliver and upending the monopoly board for the new guys. The mans a snake.

Theres no money. Its that simple. If the marines get screwed then ill be pissed, but ill crack on. I think its fair to say that the blame can be laid at the feet of the anti military labour party that got us so far in debt we need to pay the piper now.

Borrowing this month is half what it was a year ago. Who do you really think is to blame if our armed forces runs out of cash? The two blokes who took over a few months back or the guys in charge for 13 years who ran us into two wars badly equipped, with no body armour for regular army grunts on the ground while they spent like desperate gamblers and their own kids got sent to private school in America?

The labour party were just as bad as the conservatives, but they are worse, because they pretended they were all "hip" and "down with the poor people" while they did all the same things the Tories were famous for. As i said, 3 of the 4 due in court are labour, i dont like getting fisted by anyone, but i prefer it off some posh gakker ive got nothing in common with that by some geezer who pretends he is "working class" like me and then sticks his face in the trough with gusto.

The Tories tell lies, the Labour party tell lies whilst being staggeringly hypocritical. And as a result its not hard for me to decide which of a bad lot i prefered to vote for.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yeah alb, 29 commando are army ranks who do the all arms commando course and then work with the RM, they have a battery attached to each commando unit to provide our artillery support. I was at 42 commando when we had 79 battery attached to us during OIF, and Its similar to 59 commando (army engineers) as some jobs are needed for the commando units but arent in the Royal Marines remit. Needless to say we dont have any artillery guns of our own.

reds8n wrote:Do you not think Prime Ministers, indeed all politicians in any position of power, meet a considerable number of people where they discuss all manner of things ? It's not going to be especially practical to list them all.

Some are of greater interest than others. The difference is normally pretty clear.

Goliath wrote:

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.

You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!

ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!

Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.

Mattrym matey...this isn't about the various Parties, but the potentially very shady dealings between our now Prime Minister, and a man who has no business mucking around in UK Politics, not being a Citizen like.

Flip it on it's head. What if Brown had pulled this one? Or Clegg?

mattyrm wrote:The Tories tell lies, the Labour party tell lies whilst being staggeringly hypocritical. And as a result its not hard for me to decide which of a bad lot i prefered to vote for.

What the sweet moogly googly has any of that got to do with Murdoch dealing with Cameron? Yes, Labour were also dodgy. Yes, there are class warriors out there ready to attack the tories for whatever.

It doesn't matter if its your Conservatives or his Labour, the matter is political rewards for favourable media. God save us all from the true believers.

@Mr Mystery - Well, didn't the Lib Dems recive money from a convicted fraudster?

Mr Mystery wrote:Mattrym matey...this isn't about the various Parties, but the potentially very shady dealings between our now Prime Minister, and a man who has no business mucking around in UK Politics, not being a Citizen like.

Flip it on it's head. What if Brown had pulled this one? Or Clegg?

Stoking the fire even more... What about the Blair - Ecclestone met? Remember that one? Not long after F1 became exempt from the tobacco ban. So in fairness it goes on and people are right to ask questions about such meetings.

Tory scum bag meets right wing media scum bag shock!

Now the new Tory scum bag PM meets right wing scum bag shock!

Where I think Mr Mystery does have a valid case for complaint is that a non national media tycoon is allowed to (potentially) have undue influence on the Goverment.

Personally I don't like any party having Murdoch as a bed fellow as a pox will fall upon all their houses.

Albatross wrote:

Goliath wrote:

Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?

No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.

You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!

ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!

Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.

Again... all 170 odd newspapers owned by NewsCorp in Australia, the UK and the US each supported the war on Iraq. Every one of them apparently came to that decision based on the independent decision making of their editorial teams. Huge coincidence.

In the wake of the Iraq war the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all drafted and attempted to pass media ownership laws that would free up assets, laws that Murdoch was expressly in favour of. Which is something of another huge coincidence.

Trying to claim that Murdoch doesn't try to leverage favourable political coverage for favourable legislation is delusional. Simply ridiculously wrong.

Ugh.. alright alright, so yes it goes on, Blair did it plenty, everyone does it..

What then is the point in the question?

All the politicians take the piss and look after their buddies and they always have done, so if we arent going to have a good old fashioned argument about politics, i dont see the issue?

Yes its probably a bit shady, but lots is when you get into politics, this stuff goes on, it always has done, people ask a few questions, and it continues. Seems a bit of a dull conversation to me, i mean, whats to debate here?

Cant we have a good old fashioned "my party is better than yours" talk now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah Chibi turned up, we can get down to business now.