How strange!

The BBC are reporting as headline news that John Major's evidence at the Leveson Inquiry contradicts Rupert Murdoch's; the implication being that Rupert Murdoch lied. This is part of the BBC's build up to David Cameron's giving of evidence, the narrative has been set.

Meanwhile the BBC are not reporting with anything like the same enthusiasm that Ed Miliband's evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, as well as much other information, contradicts Gordon Brown's evidence; the clear implication being that Gordon Brown lied, indeed apparently perjured himself at the Inquiry.

Why the difference in the treatment of these two almost identical stories?

The one hundred and sixty fifth weekly "No shit, award"

This week's award winner is Rupert Murdoch for his reported statement that Gordon Brown was not in a 'balanced state of mind' when he declared war on News International.

Gordon Brown mentally unbalanced? "No shit, Sherlock"

Tuesday morning catchup

The usual story, too many open Firefox tabs and not enough time

1) Lew Rockwell has analysed some of Barack Obama's scholastic work from his time at Harvard. He's not ery comlimentary:

'The response is classic Obama: patronizing, dishonest, syntactically muddled, and grammatically challenged. In the very first sentence Obama leads with his signature failing, one on full display in his earlier published work: his inability to make subject and predicate agree.

...

Although the letter is fewer than a thousand words long, Obama repeats the subject-predicate error at least two more times. In one sentence, he seemingly cannot make up his mind as to which verb option is correct so he tries both: "Approximately half of this first batch is chosen ... the other half are selected ... "

Another distinctive Obama flaw is to allow a string of words to float in space.'

2) Yahoo News reports that:

'Palestinians in Gaza have acquired anti-aircraft and anti-tank rockets from Libya during its six-month civil war, enlarging but not significantly improving their arsenal, Israeli officials said on Monday.

While the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi has stirred concern abroad about the fate of Libya's aging chemical weapons stockpiles, Israel has no indication Hamas or other Palestinian factions have sought these, the officials said.

Instead, Israeli officials have detected an inflow of SA-7 anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), said one official, describing an overland supply route that opened up between eastern Libya -- after it fell to the rebels -- and the Gaza Strip via Egypt.'

3) MSNBC reports that many Americans are stocking up on incandescent lightbulbs in the run-up to them being phased out. I have a large stash of 60W pearl lightbulbs that should last me 10 years or so...


4) WND
are still pushing the Barack Obama birth certificate story. It's another interesting story but I am not sure how many people are listening!


5) James Cridland wonders 'How big is Murdoch’s “stranglehold” on UK news media?' There's some interesting statistics, here's a few:

'Overall reach
How much of our news does Murdoch control, then? It’s difficult to put a figure on the above; but Sky News and online are small, and his newspapers have a roughly 20% share of all the population. Only Sky News’s deal with commercial radio boosts Murdoch’s news ‘reach’ to around 60%, and there is likely to be considerable overlap between commercial radio listeners and newspaper readers. (Commercial radio’s output is also not mainly news).

Who is bigger than Murdoch?
There’s only one contender as a bigger provider of news than Rupert Murdoch… the BBC.

Newspapers
The BBC do not operate printed newspapers.

Television news
The BBC News Channel is watched, weekly, by 15% of the population.
Additionally, BBC News content is carried on BBC ONE, BBC TWO, BBC THREE and BBC FOUR. Just BBC ONE itself attracts 83% of the population each week.
BARB Jun 27 – Jul 03 2011

Radio news
The BBC owns 50 radio stations, and BBC News content is on almost all of them (only BBC Radio 4 Extra carries no news).
BBC radio is listened-to by 68% of the population each week.
RAJAR Q1 2011

Online news
The BBC’s website attracts 19.5m adults each week – 38% of the population. BBC News makes up a high percentage of BBC website traffic.
BBC Annual Report 2010/2011

Overall reach
The BBC Annual Report says it best: “across all platforms 81% of [UK] adults consumed BBC News every week”
BBC Annual Report 2010/2011

So – Murdoch media reaches around 65% of the population, and BBC News reaches 81%.

However you examine these figures, it’s clear that the influence of the BBC is considerably larger than anything Murdoch is putting out, even after a BSkyB buyout.'

6) John Phelan at The Commentator also soes't think too much of the claims re Murdoch's 'monopoly':
'The idea that Rupert Murdoch has a monopoly of British media or is even close to getting one is nonsense. According to an Ofcom report into News International’s bid for BSkyB, television accounts for seventy-three percent of the news people receive and seventy-percent of that comes from the BBC.

In internet and radio the BBC is similarly dominant. News International, by contrast, accounts for less than thirty percent of newspapers read and Sky News accounts for just six percent of television news.

...

There’s a good reason why the left might choose to regulate Murdoch rather than compete with him; they aren’t much good at it. The BBC certainly provides stiff competition but then it is funded by a compulsory levy on all TV and radio consumers whether they listen to the BBC or not, a luxury Murdoch doesn’t have.


7) Human Events reveals that 'Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe'. It's a long article, here's an extract:

'Polar bears drowning in an Alaskan sea because the ice packs are melting—it’s the iconic image of the global warming debate.

But the validity of the science behind the image—presented as an ignoble testament to our environment in peril by Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth​—is now part of a federal investigation that has the environmental community on edge.

Special agents from the Interior Department​’s inspector general's office are questioning the two government scientists about the paper they wrote on drowned polar bears, suggesting mistakes were made in the math and as to how the bears actually died, and the department is eyeing another study currently underway on bear populations.

Biologist Charles Monnett, the lead scientist on the paper, was placed on administrative leave July 18. Fellow biologist Jeffrey Gleason, who also contributed to the study, is being questioned, but has not been suspended.

The disputed paper was published by the journal Polar Biology in 2006, and suggests that the “drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open-water periods continues.”

It galvanized the environmental movement that led to the bear’s controversial listing in 2008 as threatened, and it is now protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Although the four dead bears cited in the paper were observed from 1,500 feet during flights over the Beaufort Sea, and the carcasses were never recovered or examined, Gleason told investigators it is likely the creatures drowned in a sudden windstorm that produced 30-knot winds, not for lack of an ice pack.

“We never mentioned global warming in the paper,” Gleason told the investigators, according to the transcript.

“But it’s inferred,” responded investigator Eric May. “That’s why the world took it up as a global warming tangent.”

Gleason told investigators that reaction to his and Monnett’s paper was overblown and spun out of context.

“I think these sorts of things tend to mushroom, and the interpretation gets popularized,” Gleason said. “Something very small turns into this big snowball coming down the mountain, and that's, I think, what happened with this paper.”

Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming.

“As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said.

Monnett now manages $50 million in studies as part of his duties as a wildlife biologist with the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement.

Investigators are also examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada's University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department's inspector general’s office.'

Do read it all, and as always it's best to 'follow the money'.

Is Piers Morgan leaving himself 'wriggle room'?

I see it reported that Piers Morgan has said that:

"To reiterate, I have never hacked a phone, told anyone to hack a phone, nor to my knowledge published any story obtained from the hacking of a phone."

Hmm, I wonder if Piers Morgan will confirm if he ever told his journalists and others not to hack phones or have them hacked.

I further wonder wonder if when presented with a story Piers Morgan always asked how the story had been sourced. If he did not then might Piers Morgan not be possibly guilty of "wilful blindness" as Mr Adrian Sanders accused James Murdoch of being during the Murdoch's appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport committee:

'Q269 Mr Sanders: Finally, are you familiar with the term "wilful blindness"?

James Murdoch: Mr Sanders, would you care to elaborate?

Q270 Mr Sanders: It is a term that came up in the Enron scandal. Wilful blindness is a legal term. It states that if there is knowledge that you could have had and should have had, but chose not to have, you are still responsible.

James Murdoch: Mr Sanders, do you have a question? Respectfully, I just do not know what you would like me to say.

Q271 Mr Sanders: The question was whether you were aware—

James Murdoch: I am not aware of that particular phrase.

Q272 Mr Sanders: But now you are familiar with the term, because I have explained it to you.

James Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Sanders.

Rupert Murdoch: I have heard the phrase before, and we were not ever guilty of that.'

I wonder which journalist will be first to raise this point with Piers Morgan? I doubt it will be the BBC as whilst they were keen to report every accusation being thrown at News International and the Murdochs, they are reporting the accusations against Piers Morgan from the angle of his denial and argument against the accusations. Anyone might think the BBC were interested in the whole phone-hacking affair purely as a way of protecting their excessive news market share from competition from a non-left wing biased organisation...

An idea for a catch-weight boxing bout - Wendi Murdoch vs John Prescott

In the blue corner, Wendi Deng seen throwing a fine right cross at her husband's pie throwing assailant today at the House of Commons Culture Media and Sport committee on phone-hacking. Well done Wendi, very quick reactions and very protective of her husband, Rupert Murdoch.


In the red corner John Prescott seen here throwing a fair straight left whilst on walkabout in 2001


Obviously John Prescott would have a massive weight advantage but Wendi Deng/Murdoch is much younger and fitter. Who would win? There's only one way to find out..... "fight"


Here are the two possible opponents

Wendi vs John
Beauty vs brains...John

Saturday evening catch-up - A News International and Gordon Brown special (with a little Ken Livingstone added)

Yet more Firefox tabs that need closing.

1) The American Spectator have a fascinating piece about Rupert Murdoch and his left-wing opponents, here's one key paragraph from a must read piece:

'Media Matters, funded by left-wing gazillionaire George Soros , hates Fox News . (And all things conservative, but they love to hate Fox News especially. If your side was pumping out partisan gas disguised as news at places like the broadcast networks, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post -- to name a few -- unchallenged, for decades and decades...well, you'd hate Fox News and the Fair and Balanced crew too.) But it’s not possible for rabid lefties to hate Fox News without really hating Rupert Murdoch and the News Corporation. Murdoch, of course, is the media entrepreneur who will be forever regarded in America as the man who made it possible to break the liberal media monopoly.'

2) The Guardian properly report something that the BBC have tried to hide away:

'Rupert Murdoch attacks Gordon Brown in first interview since NoW closed

Speaking to Wall St Journal, media tycoon defends News Corp's handling of scandal and says MPs' comments are 'total lies'

...

In his first interview about the crisis that has engulfed his media empire, Murdoch said some MPs' comments on the scandal were "total lies" and singled out Brown for criticism over the former prime minister's accusation that News International was guilty of "law-breaking on an industrial scale".

The media baron said Brown "got it entirely wrong" when he alleged that Murdoch's British papers had used "known criminals" to get access to his personal information when Labour was in power.

"The Browns were always friends of ours" until the Sun withdrew its support for Labour before the last general election, he told the Wall Street Journal, his flagship US paper.

On Twitter, Murdoch's biographer Michael Wolff said he "seemed genuinely distressed about Gordon Brown not liking him anymore."'

3) Guido Fawkes also reports The Guardian's apology and has his own take on it.


4) Allison Pearson in The Telegraph is not impressed by Gordon Brown's protestationa and complaints:

'Spare us Gordon Brown. You sacrificed your morals to Rupert Murdoch long ago

For Gordon Brown to complain about the invasion of 'private grief' is like Faustus moaning that someone had forged his signature with the Devil.'

She asks some really pertinent questions, ones that the BBC are completely and deliberately ignoring as they ceaselessly attack News International and promote their beloved Labour party:

'Here’s one you might like to try at home. If a person betrays a distressing secret concerning your child, possibly obtained via illegal means, and reduces you and your spouse to tears, how would you behave towards that person in the future? Would you:

a) Sever all connections with them and contact your lawyers or the police?

b) Pay a visit to them taking an electric hedge-strimmer?

c) Invite them to a sleepover party and attend their wedding?

Incredibly, Gordon and Sarah Brown went for option c. The former prime minister told a BBC interviewer that he cried in 2006 when Rebekah Brooks, then editor of the Sun, rang the Browns to say that her paper knew their son Fraser had cystic fibrosis and was planning to run a front-page exclusive. You can imagine the way Brooks’s call combined that wheedling, insidious tabloid blend of sympathy and threat. It was heartless behaviour at a time when the Browns were still coming to terms with the fact that their new baby faced grave health problems.

Truly shocking, but then I think back to the jolt I felt when I heard that, four years earlier, the Browns had invited several tabloid editors to the funeral of their daughter, who tragically died at 10 days old.

What on earth can they have been thinking? One of the invited journalists told me how incredulous he was that Gordon Brown felt it was appropriate to ask high-profile movers and shakers to such an agonisingly personal event.

For Brown to complain about the invasion of “private grief” was like Faust moaning that someone had forged his signature on the pact with the Devil. Brown told the BBC, “There was nothing you could do, you’re in public life.”

Actually, there were plenty of things that Brown, as a senior member of the New Labour government, could and should have done. He could have told Brooks that it was a private medical matter under Press Complaints Commission rules and she would not have been able to print a word. Or he could have gone completely crazy and put moral principle before political advantage – a quality he extols in his book Courage. But the fact is Gordon wanted to help Rebekah Brooks out. However upset he and Sarah were, the thought of upsetting the Murdoch empire was worse.

Brown’s attack in the Commons yesterday on News International’s “lawbreaking on an industrial scale” would have been magnificent had he made it when it might have personally cost him something.

Spare us the righteous indignation of politicians who suck up to hacks when it suits them and then play the avenging angel as soon as the moral weather changes. Let me put it another way. Sarah and Gordon Brown were so devastated by Brooks’s exposure of their baby’s illness that they invited her to a girly sleepover at Chequers. The other guests included Wendy Deng, the present Mrs Murdoch, and Rupert’s daughter, Elizabeth. These people weren’t just getting into bed together; they were throwing a pyjama party, for heaven’s sake. '

5) Toby Young in The Telegraph is also not impressed by Gordon Brown, his headline of 'Gordon Brown's marvellous display of classic, Presbyterian hypocrisy ' tells you where he stands on the story. Here's Toby Young:

'What a performance! Gordon Brown raised himself up to his full height in the House of Commons yesterday and delivered a thunderous sermon about the sinful behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and the “rats” who work at his British newspapers. These lowlifes had “descended from the gutter to the sewer”, we were told. They intruded on the “private sorrows” of “innocent men, women and children” – his own family, no less – and treated their “innermost feelings” as the “public property of News International”. Unlike his predecessor and his successor, who both allowed themselves to be seduced by this modern-day Mephistopheles, he had been desperate to order a judicial inquiry into the “criminal” behaviour of Murdoch’s employees, but had been cruelly thwarted by Sir Gus O’Donnell, the slippery head of the civil service. Had he been re-elected – which he surely would have been if the minds of the electorate hadn’t been poisoned by this Australian schlockmeister – he would have seen to it that the British Isles were cleansed of every trace of Murdoch’s vile presence.

It was marvellous stuff, a fitting climax to the high drama of the past week. But it does raise one or two awkward questions.

1. As Jacob Rees-Mogg asked when Brown allowed him to get a word in edgewise, if he found the methods of the gutter press so abominable why did he employ both Charlie Whelan and Damian McBride who routinely spread lies and misinformation about the ex-Prime Minister’s political opponents in Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers?

2. As Nadhim Zahawi pointed out, if Brown was so morally disgusted by the behaviour of Rupert Murdoch and his minions, why did he allow his wife, Sarah, to invite Rebekah Brooks, along with Murdoch’s wife Wendi and his daughter Elisabeth, to a “slumber party” at Chequers in 2008? And why did he and Sarah attend the wedding of Rebekah and Charlie Brooks in 2009?

3. If Brown and his wife were “in tears” and “incredibly upset” when the Sun called them in 2006 to ask them about their son’s cystic fibrosis, why didn’t they apply for an injunction to stop the Sun running the story? Why did they, instead, try to ensure the story got the widest possible coverage? According to yesterday’s edition of the paper:

The Sun ran the story after speaking to Mr Brown and wife Sarah. She gave us their consent to run it.

We agreed not to publish until they were ready to go public.

They also asked that the story be allowed to run in other newspapers. We agreed. In the following months the Browns showed no sign of any discontent with The Sun.

They attended a number of functions with The Sun’s then editor Rebekah Brooks and the paper’s owner Rupert Murdoch.

Not only that, but Brown gave his first ever interview as Britain’s Prime Minister to one George Pascoe-Watson of the Sun, the very same journalist who wrote about his son’s illness nine months earlier.

4. If, as Brown claims, the Cabinet Secretary obstructed his efforts to order a judicial inquiry into the dastardly goings-on at News International, why did Sir Gus O’Donnell issue a denial immediately after the speech claiming that the decision not to launch an inquiry was Brown’s and Brown’s alone? Sir Gus is now seeking permission to publish the confidential advice to rebut the allegation.

5. Could it be that Brown’s unhappiness with Murdoch doesn’t date from 2006, when the Sun broke the story of his son’s illness, but from the Labour Party Conference in 2009, when, on the eve of Brown’s keynote speech, Murdoch’s British papers decided to withdraw their support from the Prime Minister and throw it behind David Cameron instead? On Monday, Andrew Neil wrote the following Tweet: “Labour Conf ’09. Brown calls Murdoch to stop Sun deserting to Tories. Fails. “I will destroy you,” says Brown. Slams down phone.”

I hope that Gordon Brown, or anyone who thinks he delivered a “powerful speech” yesterday and believes his “moral outrage” is “justified” (see today’s leader in the Guardian), can answer these questions. Because on the face of it this looks like a classic case of Presbyterian hypocrisy. A son of the manse indeed.'

6) Andrew Gilligan in The Telegraph links Ken Livingstone to the News International story thus with a report about questions to the London Mayor, Boris Johnson:

'Andrew Boff (Tory AM): I think it’s very important to ensure that the mayoralty cannot be compromised by undue influence. Bearing in mind when [the hacking] took place [during Ken's term of office], can I ask the mayor to look into the meetings the previous Mayor had with News International?

Boris (grinning broadly): Is this the guy who’s been popping up attacking me for having meetings with journalists?

Boff (innocently): Oh, I wasn’t aware – did he comment?… Could you also, Mr Mayor, look into any contracts that may have been entered into with the Murdoch dynasty?

Boris (mock surprise): Contracts? Involving taxpayers’ money?

Boff: Yes, contracts with the Murdoch dynasty, with Freud Communications [owned by Murdoch’s son-in-law].

Boris (mock incredulity): You’re joking!… I think it would be unbelievable and monstrously hyprocritical, would it not, if the previous Mayor, having broken bread with the hirelings and the leaders of Rupert Murdoch’s group, were then to attack any other person for doing so…wouldn’t it be an unbelievably opportunistic thing to do?

Boff: I think, I’m not sure, that the contract includes a jolly to China that the previous Mayor took.

Boris: Was GLA taxpayers’ money being paid to the Murdoch dynasty?

Boff: I think it was, Mr Mayor.

Boris: That’s unbelievable. What, you mean the thing I terminated as soon as I got in? I think you’ve opened a very fruitful avenue of enquiry! (Laughter)

Labour’s Len Duvall pointed out that what he called “Fraud Communications” was not part of News International. But then in came Dick Tracey on Ken’s relationship with NI itself.

Tracey: Talking about boot-licking News International, do you know there have been 26 bylined articles in NI newspapers since the hacking scandal broke in July 2009? The byline, Mr Mayor, is Ken Livingstone.

Boris (putting on serious expression): You’re joking. I sincerely hope no payment was received! It would be unbelievable, would it not, if cash actually went from agencies of the Murdoch empire into [Ken’s] pockets. Do you think that can have happened?'

Somehow I doubt that the BBC wil be interested in examining Ken Livingstone's previous links to News International. The BBC have adopted a 'year zero' approach to this as with many other stories.'

Wednesday morning catch-up

Usual story, too many open tabs in Firefox and not enough time:

1) RiaNovosti report that:

'Greece is planning to expand military-technical cooperation with Israel, Defense Minister Panos Beglitis said.

"We will soon sign an agreement on military cooperation which will mainly involve defense industry and supply of armaments," Beglitis said at a session of the Greek parliament on Thursday.

The minister emphasized the importance of closer military ties with Israel, but said bilateral cooperation with Tel Aviv would not affect Greece's relations with Turkey and Arab countries.'

As Turkey moves closer to Islamic rule this a good move by Israel, although I would hate to be the person who has to run the credit check...


2) CatchKevin claims to have a scoop. He claims that:

'Just when you thought all the talk about Barack Obama usurping the Constitution to bring the United States into compliance with the UN and the Sharia-dominated New International Order was little more than right-wing conspiratorial propaganda—Think Again! The “Appointed One,” in cunning Islamic style, is covering all the bases by laying the foundation, including placing an ally in the United States Supreme Court!

...

Elena Kagan’s views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Sharia law into national Constitutions and legal systems. It’s unprecedented in American history. We now have a liberal, pro-Sharia justice sitting on the highest court in the land. And is it any wonder? After all, as Obama’s Solicitor General, it was Kagan who blocked as many as nine lawsuits from being heard by the Supreme Court. Although the nine cases listed on the high court’s docket had nothing to do with Obama’s eligibility issues, there is no arguing Kagan’s advocacy for Islamic rule and Sharia Law as evidenced below. What do you want to bet that she refuses to recuse herself on any Sharia-related decision and instead leads the charge to legitimize Sharia law in America?'

If true, this is fascinating and I am sure will not be explored by the BBC or mainstream American media to whom nothing Barack Obama does is to be questioned.


3) Ed West in The Telegraph writes a piece under the headline 'If Rupert Murdoch is too powerful, then so is the BBC'. This is something that I have raised before, albeit mainly in the comments at Biased-BBC. Here's some of Ed West's piece:

'In all the furore over the size and influence of Rupert Murdoch’s empire, let’s not forget one crucial fact: that the greatest concentration of political power remains with the BBC.

Contrary to the idea that Right-wing press barons set the agenda, television and radio are far more powerful in influencing politics than newspapers. And the further down the newspaper market one goes, the less politics matters: the Sun and News of the World might be nominally Right-wing, yet during the 1980s a majority of Sun readers voted Labour; not only that, but a majority of Sun readers thought that their paper supported Labour. How much influence do downmarket newspapers really have? After all, British tabloids are universally hostile to immigration – and a fine load of difference that has made in recent years.

...

In contrast, the BBC and its house newspaper, the Guardian, wields huge power, both through its biased news coverage and its Left-leaning television making. As Michael Buerk wrote: “What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, where the centre of gravity of an issue lies, are conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it.”'

Very true and this helps to explain why the BBC/Guardian nexus have been all over the News Of The World 'hacking' case, they see this as their best opportunity to a) destroy the hated Murdoch, b) keep their left-wing control of the British media, c) rehabilitate Gordon Brown's reputation and d) end this Conservative government as soon as possible.


4) Front Page look at the amount of money the Palestinians have received over the years and wonder a) where it went and b) are they really poor. Here's a few extracts from a must read piece:

'But do “Palestinian People” really need billions more in aid? The World Bank report for 2011 found that only 16 percent of the West Bank under PA control was living below the poverty line.

How serious is a 16 percent poverty rate? It’s better than the poverty rate in Washington D.C. which hit 18.9 percent. That means that politicians in Washington D.C. are diverting money that could have been used to help needy Americans a few miles from their offices, to help the comparatively better off terrorist populations in the West Bank.

Contrary to the barrage of news stories on the suffering of the Palestinians, the poverty rate for America and the West Bank aren’t that far apart. The California poverty rate is at 15.3 percent. And the national average at 14.3 percent is hardly that much better.

...

Many of the PA’s chief donors have poverty rates in the same range. Some are even worse off. Greece’s poverty rate is at 20 percent. Spain’s is nearly as high. And 17 percent of the EU population is considered to be at risk of poverty. Even Germany’s strong economy still has a 15.5 percent poverty rate. A few percentage points away from the West Bank.

But most damningly Israel’s poverty rate is nearly 24 percent. Worse than in the Palestinian Authority. About half those numbers come from its Arab population, which unlike their cousins in the Palestinian Authority, aren’t the beneficiaries of vast amounts of aid.

...



The Palestinian Authority payroll stands at over 150,000 people. That’s in an area with only 840,000 adult males and 1.5 million adult males and females. That’s one government worker for every 10 adults in the West Bank. 1 government worker for every 5 males.

...

Last month the PA passed a law putting all imprisoned terrorists, even members of Hamas, on its payroll. Now the Palestinian Authority is having payroll problems and expects foreign donors to bail it out– so it can continue paying money to convicted murderers.

And what else is all that money paying for? 1.3 million to computerize the records of the PA’s Religious Courts. So no offenders against Sharia law can hope to dodge the Islamic justice system. Plus another 29 million to construct “model buildings” for religious courts.'

5) WarChick has an interesting theory about what happened to the 2006 docudrama titled The Path to 9-11 which

'was released for public viewing. It was produced by the Disney Corporation. When aired the first night on ABC, it was the second most watched show on television; soon, it became the number one watched television show—number one on the second evening to be exact. Over 25 million viewers in two nights sat around their televisions and embraced as a nation the reality of the sequenced events that led up to the most devastating attacks against the United States since Pearl Harbor.'

Here's Warchick's explanation which if true is incredibly scary:

'Disney is being crippled by current economic hard times. They can make millions of dollars though via the release of DVD sales for the series The Path to 9-11. Michael Moore’s anti-Bush propaganda titled Fahrenheit 9-11 broke records in DVD sales with over 2 million sold on the first day of release. Imagine what The Path of 9-11 would sell if Disney stopped playing politics?
That’s correct, Disney is playing politics. CEO Robert Iger is a major contributor to the Clintons—something Brit Hume discussed several years ago on his Fox News television show. But even when Iger gets challenged about his decisions not to release The Path to 9-11, he cowardly evaded truth—something he obviously hates.'

The conspiracy theory of the day!

'Under British law, Stephens explained, all of the assets of the shuttered newspaper, including its records, will be transferred to a professional liquidator (such as a global accounting firm). The liquidator’s obligation is to maximize the estate’s assets and minimize its liabilities. So the liquidator could be well within its discretion to decide News of the World would be best served by defaulting on pending claims rather than defending them. That way, the paper could simply destroy its documents to avoid the cost of warehousing them—and to preclude any other time bombs contained in News of the World’s records from exploding.'

Alison Frankel at Reuters has an interesting piece of news:

'Here’s some News of the World news to spin the heads of American lawyers. According to British media law star Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (whom The Times of London has dubbed “Mr Media”), Rupert Murdoch’s soon-to-be shuttered tabloid may not be obliged to retain documents that could be relevant to civil and criminal claims against the newspaper—even in cases that are already underway. That could mean that dozens of sports, media, and political celebrities who claim News of the World hacked into their telephone accounts won’t be able to find out exactly what the tabloid knew and how it got the information.

If News of the World is to be liquidated, Stephens told Reuters, it “is a stroke of genius—perhaps evil genius.”'

True? Wow, if so?

The 'News of the World' is on its way out, so what will replace it?

I was quite shocked to hear that this Sunday's News of the World will be the last ever issue. However it seems beyond belief that a replacement paper will not be brought out by News International. So what will the paper be called? well domain names may give us a clue...The Sun's URL has the definite article so how about those?
Domain name: thesundaysun.co.uk
Registrant: Bridgeport Enterprises Limited
Domain name: thesunonsunday.co.uk
Registrant: Mediaspring

I wonder if one of those might be a clue. well there is no company registered at Companies House with the name Bridgeport Enterprises Limited

 We won't have long to wait. The News of the World sold in huge numbers and Rupert Murdoch will not want them to move to another organisation's paper. The problem News International will have is in convincing people that any new paper is not just The News of the world Mk2.

Some questions for Vince Cable

Most of the media, especially the BBC with articles like this one, seem to be concerned with Vince Cable's disquiet over being secretly recorded, they seem relatively unconcerned by what he said and the implications of what he said.

So here are some questions for Vince Cable that he might care to answer:

1) You were recorded saying that you had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch, was that a true reflection of your position on this matter or were you lying to your 'constituents'?

2) If this was a true reflection of your position then were you planning on declaring this position before or after you decided on Rupert Murdoch's takeover of BSkyB, or were you going to make a quasi-legal decision from a position of prejudged bias?

3) How do you reconcile your then role as independent arbiter on a major financial takeover with your declared position of being at war with one of the parties? Do you consider that position reasonable or moral?

4) Are there any other businesses, UK based or otherwise, that you consider you have declared war on?

A thought on the Vince Cable affair

The BBC, and much else of the media, are spinning this story as a Tory/Lib Dem feud story but I think that the real story is about the fitness for office of Vince Cable. Now I know that to the BBC he is Saint Vince but were his words those of a saint?

Vince Cable was the Secretary of State for Business and had under his department Ofcom. Ofcom was at the time considering the takeover of BSkyB by Rupert Murdoch's organisation. It seemed, based on previous Ofcom comments and decisions, that Ofcom would not adversely report on the takeover; remember that Ofcom have already decided (re ITV) that having 25% of a media company means that you have sufficiently significant influence over editorial content to cause a regulatory issues. Vince Cable's comments showed very clearly that he had made up his own mind re the issue without waiting for the Ofcom report and that he was in opposition to the likely conclusions of the said report. I believe that as a matter of administrative law Vince Cable was not permitted to do that. Thus to leave Vince with the power to block the Murdoch takeover would likely have led to a law suit, one that Rupert Murdoch was very likely to win.

It seems to me therefore that Vince Cable's words put into question the whole legal process and thus his fitness for government.

Robert Peston opines

Read Robert Peston's words of wisdom re Vince Cable and ask yourself whether Robert Peston ever asked if the last Labour government were in any way 'repaying the support given to the Labour Party by Mr Murdoch's newspapers' in the general elections of 1997, 2001 & 2005? You might also wonder

Vince "I have declared war on Mr Murdoch" Cable

I fail to see how this man can keep his government job other than because he is a useful fig leaf.

Will this put Vince Cable back in the BBC's good books?

It is being reported that Vince Cable stated that "I have declared war on Mr. Murdoch."


If true this might get him back in the BBC's good books, having blotted his copybook by going into coalition government with the evil Tories. However if the Business Secretary did say that then he should be fired.

Mind you I doubt that The Sun or The Times will be reporting this news particularly favourably!

The Times behind the 'pay wall'

Today The Times disappears behind a pay wall... The front news page now looks like something from 10 years ago and if you click on any headline you get this

'To see the page you've chosen, register now

To access the great content on our sites, just register your details and we'll give you an exclusive free preview for a limited period - starting today. No payment details required.'

Good luck with that Rupert, I'll stick with the Telegraph, the BBC and the blogosphere.

The eighty-fifth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's prize goes to The Press Gazette for the staggering news that: '90% won’t pay for new Times websites'. Who'd have thought it, most people won't pay for something they get for free now - "No shit, Sherlock".

Because having the BBC onside is not enough for Gordon Brown, he needs all the world's media

The Guardian's completely unbiased Roy Greenslade reports that: 'Gordon Brown has hinted for the first time at a possible conspiracy between the Conservative party and Rupert Murdoch's UK-based media divisions, BSkyB and News International

In an interview with the London Evening Standard's editor Geordie Greig, published today, Brown says:

When you look at the Conservative party's policy position on the future of the digital industries, and when you look at the News International policy position, they are very similar, and I think I would be very worried if I were any other media company...

You've got to be in a position that guarantees to the public
100% digital access, otherwise there's basic human equalities being denied to people.

Brown also registers his upset at being ditched by The Sun during the Labour party conference last autumn. He said:

What The Sun did on the day of my conference speech was to come out against me in the most deliberate way, so they could ruin any good impact from the speech.

But that was their decision and I'm not going to get into talking about any personal campaign mounted against me.'

Ah diddums, 11 years of an all but totally tame UK press: The Guardian, Independent, FT, Mirror, plus Rupert Murdoch keeping the Times and Sun pro-Labour, the Mail under the spell of Gordon Brown and even The Telegraph not being 100% pro Conservative. Over 20 years of the BBC cheering every Labour move and denigrating every Conservative and now that Rupert Murdoch has spotted that Labour are losers and has moved to the winning side (I hope) Gordon Brown decides to whine like the bully who is no longer getting his way, that he is.

Well boo-hoo Gordon Brown, boo-hoo Roy Greenslade and boo-hoo The Guardian who if the Conservatives get in to power are pledged to remove public sector advertising from their pages. Another reason to vote Conservative; you might kill off The Grauniad and help to right the wrongs done to this country by their espousal of political correctness.

The Sun and Gordon Brown

The Sun have the knives out for Gordon Brown.

In February I blogged that:

"Rupert Murdoch likes winners, that's why he swapped from Conservative to Labour prior to 1997 and why the Sun (and to a lesser degree The Times) has been shifting away from Labour over recent months. Today Trevor Kavanagh has an article that is the closest yet to a call to vote Conservative - it's actually a call for Gordon Brown to resign:

"WHY is Gordon Brown still Prime Minister?

After the events of last week, why has he not resigned? And if he won’t go of his own accord, how long before he is hounded out by voters whose homes, pensions and jobs he’s put in peril?"

Today I see that The Sun have a piece by Trevor Kavanagh:

"IT’S bad enough when senior Cabinet ministers line up to tell Gordon Brown to say sorry.

It’s worse when his instructions to stop leaking such hurtful stories are plastered all over the following day’s papers.

But when ex-minister Peter Hain pops up with helpful advice on winning an election, Gordon must surely know Labour are doomed.

His stricken, rudderless Government is falling apart at the seams and heading for oblivion. Half the Cabinet could end up as ex-MPs.

We may be about to witness the total eclipse of a domineering political clique after 13 years of unbridled power.

For the surviving rump, the only question is who will lead once Gordon is gone.

Those jostling to succeed are outnumbered only by others trying to ensure they are on the side of the winner.

Brazen Harriet Harman was first out of the traps and there can’t be a political journalist in the land who isn’t silently muttering, “Go, Hattie, go!”

If this really is “her moment”, we’ll never be short of a juicy story from the Hattie House of Horrors.

Never willingly undersold, she has even begun describing herself as Deputy Prime Minister, perhaps hoping to convey an aura of entitlement. Sadly, a new poll shows she is as unpopular with her own party as she deserves to be. But Harriet has tapped into a resurgence of the Labour Left, where her views on “wimmin” and “social justice” strike a chord.

With Tony Blair’s champagne socialism leaving a sour taste, there is a growing appetite for the real thing.

The fight for the leadership will be a titanic struggle between Old and New Labour. "

Go and read the whole piece and pay special attention to its ending:

"Flying home from Washington last week, the PM turned on journalists who asked him to apologise for his part in the Great Recession. But once Gordon started saying sorry, where would he stop? Would he apologise for turning Britain into a giant welfare state, with 12million adults dependent on taxpayers, either for their salary or benefit?

Is he sorry for opening the door to millions of unchecked migrants now in cut-throat competition for British jobs?

Is he sorry for selling off our gold at rock-bottom prices and wrecking private pension savings while bloating the public sector’s.

Will he apologise for refusing to build nuclear power stations? Or new prisons to hold those dangerous criminals now roaming free?

Does he regret the failure of schools to educate our youngsters properly for the tough times ahead?

No. After 12 years in charge, he can’t say sorry.

That would be to confess Labour has misspent more than a decade in power.

Yes, I know.

But once Gordon put his hands up, the only honest course of action would be to call an immediate election.

Kicking out this tired, tatty Government is precisely what Britain needs. And it is precisely why Gordon won’t give us the chance. "

Rupert Murdoch is moving his forces away from New Labour and that is the biggest signal that he has read the mood of the Country and he is moving to align himself with winners not losers.

The Sun may be about to swap sides in preparation for the next election

Rupert Murdoch likes winners, that's why he swapped from Conservative to Labour prior to 1997 and why the Sun (and to a lesser degree The Times) has bee shifting away from Labour over recent months. Today Trevor Kavanagh has an article that is the closest yet to a call to vote Conservative - it's actually a call for Gordon Brown to resign:

"WHY is Gordon Brown still Prime Minister?

After the events of last week, why has he not resigned? And if he won’t go of his own accord, how long before he is hounded out by voters whose homes, pensions and jobs he’s put in peril?

After all, he sacked his multi-millionaire banking pal and key adviser Sir James Crosby the moment he was exposed as a dud.

Yet Crosby’s offence — destroying bank giant HBOS — pales by comparison with Mr Brown’s sins and omissions.

The career of Sir James, knighted by the PM and handed a top job at the shambolic Financial Services Authority (FSA), is a mirror image of Gordon’s.

He was the bullying intellectual powerhouse behind the spectacular rise and fall of HBOS.

He ruthlessly exploited weakness in his opponents and brooked no criticism.

And he ignored warnings from his own whistleblower that he was taking too many risks with other people’s money.

Crosby pressed ahead regardless, leaving HBOS a crippled wreck and taxpayers with the £17billion tab for his reckless incompetence.

How did he land HBOS in such a mess — leaving Britain needlessly exposed to the worst of the world’s economic meltdowns?

Sure, this recession is global. Yes, it started in America.

But there are many countries, unlike the UK, where prudently regulated banks will still be standing when it’s all over.

We’ll be paying huge bills long after everyone else has pulled out of this slump.

The seeds were sown by Mr Brown on his first day as Chancellor, when he handed the Bank of England control over inflation — but took away their role as City watchdog.

In a fatal error, he shared out that task between the bank, the Treasury and the new but toothless FSA. Nobody was in charge of this clattering train.

Bank governor Eddie George warned Brown was putting the economy at risk of “systemic failure” — bank jargon for “boom and bust”.

Like Sir James Crosby, the Chancellor ignored him.

Instead, he threw open the casino, welcomed the biggest losers in UK banking history — and gave them our money to play with.

Tories accuse Mr Brown of failing to fix the roof when the sun was shining.

It was much worse.

He demolished the load-bearing walls and propped up the rafters with broomsticks.

Why? Because he wanted those City high-rollers set free to make billions for Labour’s binge on public services.

Even the timid FSA saw the risk. Each year from 2002 it warned Crosby that HBOS and other banks were over-lending.

Did Gordon know? Like Sauron in Lord Of The Rings, the Chancellor watched everything that moved on the economy.

In June 2006 — before Northern Rock crashed in flames — the Bank of England briefed journalists that High Street lenders did not have enough in the kitty to balance their books. Any jolt to the economy could bring disaster.

The Chancellor, who received regular Bank updates, would have known this far sooner than a bunch of newsmen.

Yet, as HBOS headed for the buffers, he knighted Crosby and made him deputy chairman of the FSA... the fox in charge of the hen coop.

When that “jolt” arrived with the credit crunch it was Crosby who persuaded Mr Brown to put up £100billion of our cash to bail out the banks — including his old firm HBOS.

It was Crosby who urged Gordon to bully Lloyds TSB into a catastrophic merger to save HBOS.

Lloyds was Britain’s only really solid bank. Today it is just another wreck, dragged to the bottom by the dead weight of HBOS.

Thanks to Gordon Brown, taxpayers face losses and liabilities worth countless billions. Take in the Royal Bank of Scotland and the sums escalate into trillions.

Co-conspirator Ed Balls predicts we will be paying that off for the next FIFTEEN years.

If that’s true, today is not a moment too soon for Mr Brown to say sorry to the British people.

And walk out of Downing Street for good."

If it was indeed "the Sun what won it" in 1992 then I wonder if it will be again in 2009/2010.

Does Trevor Kavanagh read my blog

I only ask because last week I blogged that:

"I was going to write something about how I wanted to see the same bewildered look that appeared on Nicolae Ceauşescu's face as he realised that the formerly submissive crowd were turning on him, on the face of Gordon Brown and soon. Then I spotted that the man who ushers Ceauşescu away is a dead ringer for John Prescott, very odd."

Today in The Sun Trevor Kavanagh writes:

"A FEW years ago, TV cameras captured the face of doomed Nicolae Ceausescu as the Romanian people turned fatally against him.

Arrogance dissolved into terror as he realised the game was up.

There is something of that today in Labour’s response to public fury over their 11 years of unbridled power.

Nobody is threatening Gordon Brown with a firing squad — though The Sun poll showing Labour on 23 per cent is effectively a death sentence. Rattled ministers are pleading for mercy."

Maybe it is just a coincidence, but whatever the reason I am glad that Rupert Murdoch's tabloid paper is finally turning against Gordon Brown and the Labour party. Maybe the powers that be realise that Labour are a dead duck party. Read the whole article it's not the article that a Labour supporting paper would carry.