Why Murdoch is Not a Fit and Proper Person

by craig on July 23, 2011 12:21 pm in Uncategorized

Hateful lying racist propaganda. That’s the real reason.

Tweet this post


  1. ‘”Al Qaeda” is really the perfect, all-purpose, ready-made culprit. It’s fascinating to watch the pundits falling into lockstep so quickly, rushing towards the desired foregone conclusions long before there is any real evidence to incriminate any organisation at all. Which is precisely what they scoff at “conspiracy theorists” for allegedly doing.’

  2. That headline is literally criminal. The Sun should be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act, because it is not a newspaper, it is a propaganda sheet, as well as for libel against a particular group of people (Muslims, not Al Qaeda) and under laws against inciting racial and religious hatred. I’m not a lawyer, you know, so this is probably impossible, since the law generally protects the powerful and squashes the weak, but basically, anything that’ll stick and bring the bastards down, crawling in the racist mud where they belong. I think the Murdochs and their Empire should be brought down now. James Murdoch allegedly may have lied before the limp Parliamentary Select Committee. My view is that they are likely to have lied systemically for many years about everything. Stick them in jail, sequester their assets. If they were a Trade Union, all of this would have been done years ago.

  3. Who wrote this crap? I think everyone, en masse, should write to the (admittedly toothless) ‘regulatory body’ and to the Sun’s editorial team to complain about the headline and the article. There needs to be a public investigation of this specific headline. Thousands of letters flooding in to both offices. Do it, now!

  4. “I believe the Sun is the best paper on the planet. It is a privilege to take over as editor and I cannot wait to get started,” Mohan said yesterday. !!!!!!!!!

  5. A few more exclamation marks.
    ‘Brooks said he had an “unrivalled understanding of what makes the paper tick and a real grasp of what makes a great Sun headline”.’

  6. Dominic Goebbels.

  7. As you know, Craig, I posted that front page here last night around 2.30am on the ‘Decades of Bailout’ thread.
    At that time, Twitter was already alive with news of the arrest of the blond Norwegian 32-year-old. Prior to that there was NO information as to who was responsible for the massacre. So the Sun’s front page is pure invention.

  8. Surely “Norway’s Oklahoma” would be more accurate.

  9. Dreoilin –

    I didn’t know, but that’s what you get for off-thread posting!!!

  10. The reports now coming in are really very affecting and it seems very likely that this event will have defining consequences for Norway and perhaps elsewhere, in the future.
    I too saw all the early Al Quaeda reports and was slightly perplexed, simply because it was so early in the timeline.
    (How quickly did the ‘explanations’ start to roll into the main news outlets?)

    Of course spurious ‘explanations are not new nowadays. It now seems par for the course. Many recent events have been wildly misreported and it is difficult to define exact reasons. Is there some kind of hair trigger hysteria in news reporters who wish to amplify their role and therefore their reputation as a central player, and their personal reward?

    In the one news event I was part of in my life, the mainstream journalists just seemed to make stuff up.( It was a non-political story so there was no political motive) . It was very surprising to me at the time but I realized eventually that a particular reporter was busily mining the story for every penny he could get, and could not care what rubbish he spouted, as long as he was getting attributions, and I presume, fees, for getting his reports into the main news services, which were then picked up by individual outlets. For him, It was like finding a one-armed bandit with a jackpot psychosis, and the reporter could not stop, equally manically, pulling the arm until the machine was completely emptied.

    One of the surprising aspects of living abroad, is that the myth of the BBC very quickly unravels. Its influence and presence in the UK is quite overwhelming but it looks decidedly feeble from a distance and second rate, and the widespread acceptance of its authority that it enjoys in Britain looks likewise, rather feeble. While the demise of Murdoch may seem welcome. it is (or was) just one of the more extreme manifestations of what seems to be a very cohesive industry. One of the curiosities fog the Murdoch scandal has been the role of the Guardian. More and more its coverage looks less like a call for a radical re-assessment of the media but a commercial move, a radical re-assessment of its position, in the cosy relationship that exists between the news industry and politics.
    In other words it is a ‘circulation’ /commercial battle in a technically unstable period. and Rusbridger just wants to be the new ‘Broomks’, who slips into the back door of Downing street, has slumber parties at Chequers, or who provides an endorsement for his ‘insider’ in government. Will Marina Hyde be punted for a role in the press team in Downing Street?

    Curiously, Cameron has apparently offered every assistance in rooting out ‘the evil’ (of terrorism i assume). If so, he may have misread this moment, quite seriously. He might have offered the utmost sympathy safely enough, and any help the Norwegians might need, but rushing to define this hideous event in such a simplistic, dualistic way seems already mistaken.

    Is he now going to unleash the power of the state on the “right wing/religious fundies? He will maybe not have far to look, a good deal less than he may find comfortable. I suspect there are some elements of the Tory party and even the government, which are not so far removed from the ‘evil’.
    The ‘evil’ he may yet discover, has links and connections to us all, in ways we (and certainly not Cameron) don’t fully understand. As Craig reminds us in his post, the evil is ‘within’ in our rush to lash out stupidly before knowing anything.
    Cameron, to me, at the moment, just looks like a creature looking in the water, at his reflection, and finding it not as beautiful as he believes it to be, and gets furiously angry. It is a perfect illustration of the underlying narcissism of our leaders and the current way we do the ‘democracy’ enterprise.
    Is he now going to get even more intolerant in seeking tolerance and ever more authoritarian in imposing goodness?

  11. I’ve complained to the independent Press Complaints Commission complaints@pcc.org.uk regarding the Sun and asked for a front-page apology in the same-size font as their disgusting headline. Hope many others do too.

  12. I agree that Rupert Murdoch isn’t a fit person (although he’s in good shape for an 80-year-old). I think his wife’s quite fit, though!

  13. “Dreoilin –
    I didn’t know, but that’s what you get for off-thread posting!!!”
    There was no later thread up at the time :(

  14. “I think his wife’s quite fit, though!”
    I bet you say that about Sarah Palin too.

  15. Notice how the equally dissgusting Mail is using the same vocabulary here –
    ‘Norway’s 9/11’: At least 80 feared dead in double attack on Norwegian capital and holiday island
    By Paul Harris
    Last updated at 10:45 AM on 23rd July 2011
    In what was being described as ‘Norway’s 9/11’, more than 80 were feared dead yesterday in a co-ordinated double terror attack.
    A massive car bomb ripped through the government district in Oslo killing seven

    btw Mrs Louise Mensch was on Newsnight last night naming the Express and the Rothermere press for the same privacy invasion crimes as Murdoch. She is correct on this. What Price Privacy. 2003 Information Commissioner.
    She wriggled out of answering questions about her spat with Piers Morgan (he has called her a liar) and preferred to shelter behind her parliamentary privilege.

  16. Right, let’s just say it how it is. ‘Al Qaeda’ is a C.I.A./Mossad inspired media fiction and DOES NOT EXIST. Anyone who thinks otherwise has floated down on the last drop of rain and needs their tinfoil hat confiscated from them. I don’t know how many times I can keep spelling it out for media brainwshed people before giving up in frustration. All one needs is two brain cells to rub together to figure it out for themselves. I will try again for the unsure.
    Firstly, isn’t it incredibly odd that both the U.S. and U.K. each had one ‘spectacular, coordinated attack’ and nothing else since? Complete carnage and zilch follows other than messages from Bin Laden. Oh and many Hollywood style ‘foiled plots’ of course. And let’s not forget the Patriot Act and RIPA that both followed in the wake of these ‘events’.
    Secondly, how many illegal immigrants get into the U.K. every single day of the year? Plenty as everyone knows. And yet this Spectre-esque ‘Al Qaeda’ never gets through our borders to hurt us? Just think of the carnage one suicide operative could create once he got into the country on his own with minimal imagination! There are thousands of things one could do.
    Finally, I could go on and on, but i’ll finish with this. Why, as Aaron Russo questioned, didn’t the failed shoe bomber use the plane toilet? Just what the hell! This well trained operative, who worked for the deadly ‘Al Qaeda’, decided to sit there lighting his shoe in front of passengers? Ok, we’ll let him off then. It was just one of those things! However, one would think his successor, the even more lethal pants bomber, would have learned from his amigo’s failure. Did he use the toilet though? No, he too sat in front of his fellow passengers and tried to light his pants! Perhaps all the toilets were engaged or there was a floater he didn’t like the look of. Seriously, you couldn’t even make this stuff up for Jackanory. They were two wasters who were picked up by the C.I.A., drugged and given basic hypnotism, then marched on to the airplanes to do their deeds. Funny how those airport body scanners were all ready and waiting to be wheeled out eh…
    ‘Al Qaeda’ DOES NOT EXIST. Plain and simple.

  17. And is the headline of The Sun on Monday going to read – ‘Update – It Was Actually A Masonic Massacre’. Are Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy et al all going to stomp on air and declare a ‘War On Masons’? Are they going to invade every country where masons operate? I don’t know and am just asking the question. If I was a mason i’d be bloody crapping it and tripping over my dodgy Ebay robe as I legged it from the local Lodge. We must all leap to the defense of the the masons to ensure that they don’t soon become poor victims like the muslims have… :-(

  18. If I recall, Mary, on Newsnight last night. Mensch, although sheltering behind parliamentary privilege, said that Piers Morgan used the present tense for the Mirror (that is the guidelines in force today) in accusing her of being a liar. Morgan was one of the better Fleet Street editors for me because he fervently and genuinely opposed Blair’s War on Iraq. I thought Mensch did not come across as being very creditable when it was revealed she had recently been exposed in the Mail, and, whatever we may think of the Mail, it did stink of revenge.

  19. Not only is the story a load of mis-informed crap, but the inclusion of the story alongside a cheap camping holiday offer is wholly inappropriate and pretty sick. Wish this paper would go the same way as the NOTW.

  20. How about ‘Norway’s Dunblane’, or ‘Norway’s Columbine’, or ‘Norway’s Winnenden’, or ‘Norway’s Alabama’, or ‘Norway’s Cumbria’, or ‘Norway’s Hungerford’…?

    There are plenty of such examples, yet the first one the MSM went for en masse did not even include any of these. How shameful, yet how typical.

  21. John Goss, good on you! Let the complaints flood in en masse.

  22. ‘Deepgreen’, thanks. David Cameron is a man seriously out of his depth.

  23. Complications for Morgan:
    “Phone hacking also rife under Piers Morgan at Mirror, claims ex-reporter”
    Former City Slicker reporter offers evidence for public inquiry, alleging phone hacking was widespread at Mirror and People

  24. Roderick Russell

    23 Jul, 2011 - 6:13 pm

    As a point of clarification, may I just offer a quote on the Norwegian massacre that describes the suspect as being far-right.
    Quote from Canada’s The Globe and Mail “A suspected far-right gunman in police uniform killed at least 87 people in a ferocious attack on a youth summer camp of Norway’s ruling Labour party, hours after a bomb killed seven in Oslo. Witnesses said the gunman, identified by police as a 32-year-old Norwegian, moved across the small, wooded island of Utoeya in a lake northwest of Oslo on Friday, firing at young people who scattered in panic or tried to swim to safety. Police detained the tall, blond suspect, named by local media as Anders Behring Breivik, and charged him for the killing spree and the bombing of government buildings in Oslo.”

  25. John Goss I have written to the PCC asking them to take action against the editor Dominic Mohan and the proprietors News International.
    Your recollection of Newsnight and the Mensch segment is probably more accurate. Here is the recording beginning at 14mins 15secs in. Only available for six more days.
    A piccy of Wade/Brooks arriving with Mohan at a Freud party.

  26. Thanks for that link Mary. I’ve re-watched it. Piers Morgan said at no time had he hacked any phone, never asked anyone else at Mirror Group Newspapers to hack any phone and made no mention in his book of being involved in phone-hacking during his time at Mirror Group Newspapers. If the book referred to is ‘The Insider’ (2005) I cannot find any reference to ‘phone hacking’ and the only reference to paying the Police for information is p.382 before a former Culture and Media Select Committee in March, 2003
    ‘Later Rebekah excelled herself by virtually admitting she’s been illegally paying policemen for information. I called her to thank her for dropping the tabloid baton at the last minute. She apologised: “That’s why I should never be seen or heard in public.”‘
    For her ‘present tense’ argument Mensch referred to a statement made to Newsnight by the current Mirror Group, but I doubt she’s any concrete evidence of phone-hacking by Piers Morgan at the Mirror. In fact she’s not very convincing at all, and did not perform well against a former hack, Wensley Clarkson, who quite fairly asked why she had such a gripe against Piers Morgan. So my recollection wasn’t as good as it should have been.

  27. I’m sure, as Dreoilin’s link shows, phone-hacking went on under Piers Morgan, but he’s not likely to put it in writing, or go on record in any other way.

  28. White Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism in Norway


  29. The Sun may have been premature in equating the atrocity in Norway with 9/11, but were they wrong in thus indicating that it was a false flag state terror op?

  30. We don’t know that – I mean that is was a flase flag operation – yet, Quark, do we? I too have speculated on this blog about this posibility (eg. CIA, etc.). Let’s see what transpires. The MSM will never acknowledge the existence of contemporary false flag operations in the West (they have no diffiulty suggsting that such ops occur in, say, Russia), even though there is widespread and solid evidence that such ops have occured in the West for decades.

  31. “We don’t know that – I mean that is was a flase flag operation ”
    I wasn’t speculating. I thought the Sun was. Or are you saying that 9/11 really was the work of 18 Arabs who didn’t know how to fly?

  32. John Goss and Mary hats off for action.
    From the Sun March 8th 2011:
    PREVIOUSLY unseen video of the 9/11 attacks has been leaked on the internet.

    Audio Snippet:
    “The whole tower, it’s gone, holy crap, they knocked the whole fricking thing down.”
    Another cop says bewilderedly: “How could it go down?”
    It is not known who leaked the video on to the web.
    Hmmmm = get the contradiction – read the psychology?? Spread the message loud and clear.

  33. As a conspiraloon I really have no words – I cannot convey my feelings. Everything is off the scale. I am filled with ire.

  34. “Or are you saying that 9/11 really was the work of 18 Arabs who didn’t know how to fly?”
    Nobody at all says that Quark. It was 19 Arabs and at least four of them did know how to fly. I know that some people like yourself guffaw at the very idea of Arabs flying planes but that’s because you’re a racist cock.

  35. “As a conspiraloon I really have no words”
    Wish that were true.
    “I cannot convey my feelings.”
    Now that is true.
    “Everything is off the scale.”
    Probably meaningless.
    “I am filled with ire.”
    Only if that is correctly spelt “BS”.

  36. “Hateful lying racist propaganda.”
    I don’t understand what is racist about the Sun’s headline. It may be wrong but that is hardly the same as “racist”.

  37. Angrysoba:

    The Sun’s headline cleverly, but to me very obviously, stokes anti-Muslim feelings by prematurely and at high volume, attributing the recent atrocity to ‘Al Qaeda’, associating it immediately with ‘9/11’, etc. They may not be saying “Look! Here’s what to think, here’s the default position: A bunch of Dastardly Muslim Ragheads did this!”, but in the current climate, that is message conveyed by the headline. It may not contravene any laws – hence my earlier frustration, but in some ways, it is worse, actually, than being straighforwardly racist/ bigoted, etc. I think ethically it is wrong.
    In essence, it is similar to those who talk about “genocide” in the context of immigration and then refuse to acknowledge the significance and consequences of their position and rhetoric.
    These are not matters of pure philosophy or logic in that sense, nor need they be constrained by matters of dictionary definition. Words are extremely malleable, their meanings change constantly depending on the context of their use. These are matters, really, of what is called ‘PR’, which really is simply a modern term for propaganda.
    Because of the pattern of immigration, in Europe, it is likely that the vision of a ‘Muslim’ is that of a brown-skinned person and of course, globally, the majority of Muslims are brown-skinned. Now, in the past, racist publications used to refer to ‘the Jews’ as ‘Cosmopolitans’. Everyone knew what it meant and because of prior propaganda conditioning, it conjured up stereotypical pictures of swarthy, hook-nosed, money-grabbing ‘Shylocks’, basically. Strictly-speaking, linguistically, philosophically, etc., they were not being racist. ‘Cosmopolitan’ is not itself a racist word (unlike, say, ‘nigger’). But really, politically and in the public sphere, they knew perfectly well what they were doing and what they were doing was racist. Such material, coming as it did on a background of 1500 years of Anti-Semitism in Europe, stoked anti-Semitism to the point where Kristallnacht and the Holocaust became possible.

    So, in my view, in this headline, in this context, The Sun was being racist. It would not stand up in court, damn it, I realise that, but we not concerned here with legal issues, we are concerned with matters of public discourse and propaganda. The Sun is visceral, but clever, propaganda. And unless people confront and oppose it on every level, it will continue to instill its poisonous propaganda into the public consciousness and one day someone of unstable personality will pick up a gun and…
    Such things have real consequences. That is why words are critical.
    That, surely, is why we blog/post here, because words are critical.
    All good wishes to you, btw.

  38. Yes, well done for putting Soba in his place Suhayl. He often shoots wide of the mark. Try and go easy on him though as, i’m not sure if you were aware, he did seem to be having a bit of a meltdown on the boards earlier in the year. :-(

  39. “The Sun’s headline cleverly, but to me very obviously, stokes anti-Muslim feelings by prematurely and at high volume, attributing the recent atrocity to ‘Al Qaeda’, associating it immediately with ’9/11′, etc.”

  40. Ah, here, at last, is ‘The Laughing Policeman’. He would say that, wouldn’t he? He should be ashamed of himself. Stoking Far Right hate ideology on the web is precisely what appears to have contributed to this act of horror. And all he writes is the equivalent of ‘Look what a reasonable gentleman that nice Mr Nicholas Griffin of the BNP is; he believes in everything you believe! Why, you could go and vote for him and save the British Race from genocide!” There ought to be some humility and considerable shame.

  41. Here’s something interesting on Canspeccy’s site. SCADs – State Crimes Against Democracy, by Prof Lance de Haven-Smith:

  42. Re:

    “‘The Sun’s headline cleverly, but to me very obviously, stokes anti-Muslim feelings by prematurely and at high volume, attributing the recent atrocity to ‘Al Qaeda’, associating it immediately with ’9/11′, etc.’
    Well probably correct, actually. The Sun’s staff were likely on autopilot when they wrote that nonsense.
    But the big question is what motivated this atrocity.
    My initial reaction was that is must be a psyop intended to discredit entirely legitimate opponents of mass immigration.
    Now, I am not so sure! It seems at least conceivable that Breivik is more or less entirely sane and that his action was the shot intended to launch a civil war between the crusaders and multi-culturalists.

  43. There were two versions of the Sun ‘editorial’ it appears. One for the online reader
    and another for the hard copy reader. They are completely different. The rag gets thrown away. The online remains on the record.

  44. Suhayl: “The Sun’s headline cleverly, but to me very obviously, stokes anti-Muslim feelings by prematurely and at high volume, attributing the recent atrocity to ‘Al Qaeda’, associating it immediately with ’9/11′, etc.”
    I think the Sun’s headline was trite and boring and – as we have seen – it was not at all clever but I think it was more sensationalist than racist. It was basically the same deal as when the Oklahoma bombing was initially thought to have been an attack by Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, I think there was a newspaper headline emblazoned above a picture of a firefighter holding a baby which screamed, “In the name of Islam!” or “In the Name of Allah!” I’ve been trying to find the headline somewhere. I seem to recall it may have been on the New York Post which was and still is a Murdoch paper.
    I don’t agree with your analysis here, though. I could of course be wrong and there may well be racist intent involved with this headline but I think that it would be wrong to assume that the headline is anymore racist than when some boring hack writes, “This is X’s Waterloo” or “This is X’s Watergate”.
    I do agree that there is something such as dog-whistle racism which is intended to be deniable and in fact one particular word we used before such as “niggardly” is probably used by a lot of people with an inner smirk because they are trying to be provocative. Same with “genocide in Leicester” but in that case there was more to it given that the proponent of the genocide in Leicester theory kept slipping up by making it obvious he was really talking about the colour of people’s skin.
    Anyway, the Sun is trash and it may well be worth opposing at all times but let’s at least keep our feet on the ground when we do so.
    A small bit of pedantry here:
    “Because of the pattern of immigration, in Europe, it is likely that the vision of a ‘Muslim’ is that of a brown-skinned person and of course, globally, the majority of Muslims are brown-skinned. Now, in the past, racist publications used to refer to ‘the Jews’ as ‘Cosmopolitans’. Everyone knew what it meant and because of prior propaganda conditioning, it conjured up stereotypical pictures of swarthy, hook-nosed, money-grabbing ‘Shylocks’, basically. Strictly-speaking, linguistically, philosophically, etc., they were not being racist. ‘Cosmopolitan’ is not itself a racist word (unlike, say, ‘nigger’). But really, politically and in the public sphere, they knew perfectly well what they were doing and what they were doing was racist. Such material, coming as it did on a background of 1500 years of Anti-Semitism in Europe, stoked anti-Semitism to the point where Kristallnacht and the Holocaust became possible.”
    As far as I understand, the word “cosmopolitan” was mostly used by Stalin (combined with “rootless”) as a “dog-whistle” racist term during his final days when he started believing in a plot by his doctors to kill him. He was an old man and suspicious that he seemed to be getting sicker in the way that paranoid people often do. But obviously this couldn’t have led to Kristallnacht and the Holocaust as those events had already happened.

  45. “Mystery ‘Murdoch Leaks’ site appears online”

  46. I find it unbelievable that the UK security services did not know what the Murdoch empire was getting upto.

  47. Guest This is a spreadsheet of the details of Police meetings with News International. I am not sure who was entertaining who. Assume NI were paying.

  48. Peter Oborne’s Dispatches tonight on How Murdoch Ran Britain was as good as his excellent exposé – Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby.

  49. Thanks for the nuanced analysis, angrysoba and for the clarification re. the use off the term, ‘cosmopolitan’ – yes I’d forgotten the precise usage wrt Stalin, the USSR, etc. ‘Dog-whistle racist term’ is a excellent phrase – I’m sure I shall use it in the future! Good point about ‘Leicester’, too. Yes, absolutely.
    Interestingly – a slight deviation here – I was reminded the other day that Napoleon liberated the Jews of Europe from ghettos, gave them equal rights, etc. And so, when the Russian armies were fighting the Napoleonic armies and trying to wrest back the Russian Empire’s then-fiefdom of Poland, one of the major propaganda anti-Napoleonic rallying cries was basically ‘Napoleon as Jew-Lover’.

    ” The first to object against the creation of the Great Sanhedrin was the Russian Czar Alexander I. He vehemently denounced the liberties given to the Jews and went further still, demanding that the Orthodox Church protest against Napoleon’s tolerant religious policy. He referred to the Emperor in a proclamation as “the Anti Christ” and the “Enemy of God”. ” (from Wikipedia).

    Alexander I was once Napoleon’s friend and relatively liberal czar, but he changed.
    I have to say that I think that 200 years on, in Anglophonia, in the popular discourses of history, we continue to receive overwhelmingly negative views of Napoleon, basically suggesting that ‘Napoleon was Hitler’. This, of course, is utterly, grossly inaccurate.
    Sorry for the slight deviation. Matters of Europe and minorities, etc., I suppose, though, so in some way still relevant!

  50. Who is there who has not been hacked?
    That includes Mark Stephens who was pn Assange’s case.

  51. I think part of Napoleon’s association with Hitler is one that Hitler himself cultivated. Napoleon would be spinning in his matchbox, I am sure, if he had known someone like Hitler would come to try and emulate him.
    An interesting point made by Dairmaird Macculloch is that after the viscious and really bloody anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, Napoleon brought back a tolerance of religion not because he had much need for it himself but because he knew how much others had a need for it. As well as extending the revolutionary concepts of liberty to Jews he also signed a Concordat with the Pope to win the favour of Catholics. Hitler of course also signed a Concordat with the Pope.
    I tend to think that instead of powerful people such as Cromwell, Napoleon, Hitler and Stalin manipulating people through religion rather it is that they know the powerful effect religion has on those they want the allegiance of and therefore they give lip service to it.
    Thanks for the interesting post. I didn’t know about Alexander I. I’ll look into him a bit more. Cheers.

  52. Angrysoba, intelligent leaders are careful not to make themselves enemies of powerful religions.

  53. “Angrysoba, intelligent leaders are careful not to make themselves enemies of powerful religions.”
    Probably. Making oneself an enemy of any powerful ideology which has a hold on the people you wish to govern is probably a bad idea if you can instead co-opt it. I’m sure that is bog-standard Machiavellianism, and religion need not be a special case, although Mao did okay.

  54. Also, interestingly, it turns out that Napoleon was 5 ‘ 7”, not 4′ 11’. In the early C19th, 5′ 7” was actually a good height. He sometimes appeared small partly because the French Imperial Guards had to be at least 5′ 8” and they wore tall, bearskin hats. The British also used this false caricature as a propaganda weapon to ridicule and belittle him.

    “The British Tory press sometimes depicted Napoleon as much smaller than average height, and this image persists. Confusion about his height also results from the difference between the French pouce and British inch—2.71 and 2.54 cm respectively; he was about 1.7 metres (5 ft 7 in) tall, average height for the period.” from Wikipedia. So then, Rupert Murdoch is even older than he claims!
    So, in a strange historical roundel, we are once again on-topic, eh? “The British Tory Press”, well, there they are again, how utterly familiar. There still here, crushing their lies like dried flowers into our brains, the people who brought us Peterloo…

  55. Didn’t James Murdoch claim that he payed out £750,000 becuase under advisement they realised they would loose at court?

    Does this mean by extroplation, that all those cases in America that were settled by the Murdoch empire, were similarly settled because the cases all had merit?


Powered By Wordpress | Designed By Ridgey | Produced by Tim Ireland | Hosted In The Cloud