Worst Motherfuckers on the Planet

So, UK newspaper The News of The World (NOTW) ups the ante over who gets to be called "worst scumbags on the planet." The newspaper, the government or the police? It's a close-run race...

To recap:

Several NOTW employees were jailed in 2006 for hacking into the phones of members of the Royal family. The New York Times has a decent summary.

At the time, NOTW employee Andy Coulson claimed innocence and went on to become communications director for the Prime Minister - until he was forced to resign when further information about the case came to light in January. Coulson, you may remember, was also named in an unfair dismissal case brought against the NOTW by Matt Driscoll in which it was alleged that he was responsible for "a consistent pattern of bullying behaviour." The court found in favour of Mr Driscoll and awarded him nearly £800,000.

The NOTW has a long history of using private investigators, as can be seen in the reports associated when a murder trial related to NOTW activities collapsed. Guess whose payroll the defendant was on?

The Metropolitan Police announced back in 2009 that it would not be making further investigations into phone tapping by the NOTW. The senior police officer involved in the investigation ended up in front of a House of Commons Select Committee where his contradictory evidence was described as "astonishing." Mr Yates had dinner with the NOTW's editor Colin Wyler in 2009.

Then have a look at this YouTube video where News International's Rebekah Brooks admits paying the police for information in 2003; by this year this admission had become "no knowledge of specific payments".

The Prime Minister says he's "shocked" by the affair, but considering that last Christmas he (a) was Andy Coulson's boss and (b) had dinner with News International's James Murdoch at Rebekah Brooks's house, I fully expect the NOTW to get away with little more than a slapped wrist.

Is it any wonder I list my political affiliation these days as "cynical and disillusioned"?

Chris H
Originally posted by Chris H:

Indeed. Fucking Murdoch. I don't know if it's typical British understatement, but there doesn't seem to be much outrage at the idea of a newspaper admitting to bribing police officers for stories.

And now it seems they've been hacking into the phones of the families of dead soldiers and 7/7 victims.

Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like had Keith Murdoch been shot by the French...
Of course, Murdoch can do this, and not really miss a beat. What they're hoping for is for everyone to forget about it. So Murdoch loses a few million out of his billions. Oh, dear.

Given how fucking in bed everyone is with News Corp., I don't think much is going to come from it. A few lower-level types will be scapegoated, but nothing will happen to those truly responsible. After all, one of 'em was working for Dave Cameron.
This guy. This guy and every other person like him who puts their own narrow interest ahead of group welfare.

Basically, this guy was allowed to purchase land in the Amazon rainforest and relocated there by the Brazilian government on the condition that he maintain 80% of it in its natural state. But he decided to clear-cut more land because he "needs to make a living." But he's not the bad guy: he blames the government for giving him the chance to resettle there. He has the gall to propose that, instead of being punished for destroying an incredibly fragile ecosystem, the government should give him money and let him buy more land, which he will preserve this time. He promises.
Rainforests, especially the Amazon rainforest, are very poor places for human habitation. Takes huge areas to support small tribes, and that's those that don't mind eating monkeys.

Human-agriculturally, rainforests suck. A few idiot archaeologists are now saying they've found evidence of huge ancient human populations there. Huge civilizations. They're nuts. Or Mormons.

What they found was a wide layer of dirt that contains chemical markers sometimes associated with human habitation. They don't mention that they find nothing else. No pottery shards, no trash pits, no dwellings, nothing.

The only thing rainforests are good for is being rainforests, which turns out to be something real damned important in its own right.
Living in a temperate rainforest, I'd only addend that to say they don't agriculturally support large groups of people. As an individual, there are plenty of salmon, steelhead, deer, elk, mushrooms, pheasant, quail and other flora and fauna to sustain one indefinitely, but nothing to support deforestation and corporate agriculture practices.
Ah, they're raking Murdoch over the coals. Let's see how long this lasts. My bet is that it'll get to the big parliamentary inquiry thingummy, then quietly, and suddenly, disappear, once News Corp. breaks out their emergency use only Clegg/Cameron dirt file.
As someone said, no doubt a billionaire could get a replacement jacket in a trice, but he left it off to garner sympathy.

Certainly the fucken media lapped it up and shifted all the attention to Mr Pie Dickhead instead of the substantive issues.
As someone said, no doubt a billionaire could get a replacement jacket in a trice, but he left it off to garner sympathy.

Certainly the fucken media lapped it up and shifted all the attention to Mr Pie Dickhead instead of the substantive issues.
I woke up to find out that about 100 people have died because of a right-wing terrorist in Norway.
I found out because of Twitter.
It's not being talked about on my Facebook feed, or really anywhere. Passing mention on Tumblr.
Why is no one talking about THIS?
And what about the New York Times saying this guy ISN'T a terrorist?

Why is this not worthy of mention? Why is this being ignored? I don't understand. This is wrong.
Getting xtians to admit that their religion is false on a public forum will not happen.

Getting them to admit that ALL RELIGION IS TERRORISM will not happen, either.

So they pretend it isn't happening. They're good at pretending, they start young. They pretend all sorts of things, one of which being the "floating invisible man in the sky" lie.

They probably think the floating man wanted this to happen. If not, why?

Crusades, Witch "Trials", Slavery, Fetishizing Crucification, Molestation of children on a massive scale, gang mentality, manipulation of generations of people and their wealth for political gains, Westboro church, Exclusivism and cultural imperialism...


Why are they allowed to continue existing? Are we really so weak and feeble minded?
Well, now that fucker's actions are being talked about just about everywhere. A few media channels still coy at uttering words like 'terrorist' or his apparent political leanings, while two days ago, hours after the second attack and with the smoke still in the air, they were already naming the familiar bogeyman names and claiming the reasons for the attack were clear, and obvious, no proof or evidence needed.

After skimming on analysis of the fucker's 'manifesto' and previous actions so far revealed, one feels really mind-numbed. Maybe next tuesday's appearance and statements will fill up the missing pieces on his persona, but so far, holy shit. Cut-and-paste how-to hate rhetoric, self-aggrandizing illusions of being a martyr in advance of an old 'Big Work', the desire to spark another Crusade, the implied threat of being a single cell in a continent of many other hidden ones, with resources and power: now this is quite scary. Is he a lone nut that happened to have the resources to carry out the fantasies that a million hate mongers just salivate about? A first shot on a coming war? Or maybe just another patsy, for, as even The Man himself mentioned on Twitter, there's something odd about him, a bit of photoshopped weirdeness? Maybe a puppet under hidden hands' control?
Originally posted by Boogerhead:
Hope they have the death penalty in Norway.

"A prisoner is required to spend at least 10 years in custody before becoming eligible for parole.

It means Breivik could be out as early as 2021.

However, it is technically possible for an offender to spend the rest of their life in prison, regardless of their sentence

As with the penal system here, a Norwegian prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence must show they are no longer a danger to society before being granted parole.

The nature and gravity of Breivik’s crimes suggest he would always be considered a risk. "
The only developed nations with the death penalty are the US, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.

I still haven't seen anyone, out-and-out, call Breivik a terrorist. It's been part of vague articles, yes, but in a generalised sense, as if the only way this is connected to terrorism is that it's exactly like what a terrorist would do.

There's been talk of home-grown terrorism in relation to this, but that ain't Breivik.

Add Reply

Likes (0)