Lord Duckhunter

According to Sky..........

Defo (alledegdly), my mate works in the media, story was going to come out around the time of his "half time walkout" at Arsenal. Story got pulled at the last min on advice of lawyers, at least that's what my mate told me.Dont suppose it'll ever come out in the present climate. I know he's married, but so was Elton John...........

However, without Rupert Murdoch breaking the print unions and Wapping, most Broadsheets would have been bust years ago. Even now the NOTW and The Sun subsidie the loss making Times.The Guardian continues to struggle to make ends meet, despite this enhancing their reputation . Hopefully this mess may lead people towards the broadsheets and therefore easing the financial burden on them.

Sky New's rolling poll has moved 5 points towards Cameron during the proceedings. It's now showing 53% in his favour, whereas at the start of the day it was 48%. It's only a snap shot and a small sample of the public, but I thought Labour misjudged it today. Last night's Newsnight had Carl Bernstein on live from USA, he made a fantastic point that sums the whole thing up. He said Murdoch took the tabloids "into the gutter" and the British public "lapped it up".

Rupert's wife is a game one, stright in with a dig. As for the proceding's, from what I saw the Tory bird hit the nail on the head IMO. It was so widespread and used by all the tabloids that nobody thought that hacking was that big a deal. It was only when it became clear that it was victims of crime as well, that the story grew and grew. She said that Pier's Morgan admitted in his book that he got a Mirror story from hacking. Of course they are not a part of the Murdoch's evil empire, so the BBC will gloss over that one.

So the Mad inventor won. Thye final was a bit of a let down in my opinion. It changed into a "Dragon's den" type of show. The business plans of all of them were pretty stupid really, and I see that Sugar is now going to ditch the chair and concentrate on Tom's nail file............

Where have I said it’s all Labour’s fault. What I don't like is hypocrites, whether they’re Labour or Tory. Brown is a hypocrite, plain and simple. Steve Coogan is a hypocrite, ranting against the Murdoch empire, whilst taking money off them to star in films. Keith Vaz is a hypocrite, fiddling his expenses whilst posturing and preening in the commons. Ed Milliband calling for a “judge led enquiry”. No judge led the enquires into Kelly’s death & sexed up dossiers. Finally Brookes should go because it happened “on her watch”. Well Tory and Labour MP’s fiddled expenses and broke the law under Cameron and Brown’s watch, why didn’t they resign?

According to Nick Clegg and Nick Robinson when Coulson resigned as editor of the News of the World the first person to call him and commiserate was Gordon Brown. Rupert Murdoch claims he was a friend of the Brown's "until The Sun withdrew it's support". I have a feeling that the hypocrites on the Labour benches may face some uncomfortable questions once The Murdoch's and Brookes have had their say.

I'm hardly Beau Brummell but I wouldn't be seen dead in brogues.. I bet you wear socks with sandals.....

I believe that Brookes has already said that she will be unable to answer certain questions, as it may be prejudicial with a police enquiry going on. It shows how far NI have fallen when Keith Vav can pose as an honourable and fair man. THis is the bloke who claimed £75,000 in expenses for a second home in Westminister when his family home was only 12 miles away. In another major devolopment Murdoch is meeting the Dowlers..........

"In December 2006, the Information Commissioner - whose job is to protect people's privacy under the Data Protection Act - published a league table of more than 30 national newspapers and magazines which had paid private investigators for personal information. It included details from police records, the DVLA, the Inland Revenue, phone companies and banks. This was the week after the News of the World's royal editor Clive Goodman pleaded guilty to hacking into the phone messages of royal staff. In a report to Parliament, What Price Privacy Now?, the Commissioner said a raid on one private detective's office in 2002 - called Operation Motorman - had uncovered hundreds of invoices to publications, identifying 305 journalists as recipients of personal information. It did not name the journalists, but did list the newspapers and magazines. The table was headed by the Daily Mail, which paid for 952 pieces of information, ordered by 58 of its staff. Next came the Sunday People, the Daily Mirror, the Mail on Sunday and the News of the World. The BBC published the list at the time, but few newspapers did, perhaps not surprisingly. The Observer and Sunday Times both appeared in the Information Commissioner's league table, not just tabloids." It really does make you wonder why nothing was ever done about it before. Gordon Brown can try and take the moral high ground about rats and sewers, but he knew all about the rats way way back. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/uk-13092573

All the bird's that have been fired have come on that show looking pretty good. It is a great show by the way, Dara O Briain is great on it.

Exactly, but that included Brown. From his speech (which was well delivered) you would have thought he had nothing to do with NI. He tried to make out he wanted an enquiry into NI, but was stopped by everybody else, whereas Bradshaw said in the week that it was a political decision not to have one. ALL govt's have been too close to NI for 35 years, including Brown's, he can not try to claim otherwise now. At least Tony Blair has kept quiet, perhaps Brown would have been advised to do the same. Perhaps this need for revenge is one of the "psychological flaws" that Campbell spoke about.

Doesn't tally with what Ben Bradshaw said on The Daily Politics, he said that they didn't want a enquiry because Brown was already seen as a weak PM and they didn't want to annoy NI. Also why, if things were so bad did he have Brookes to Chequers and attend her wedding. At least Milliband was man enough to adress the past. Brown is in denial...........

No they're complete and utter shysters. If they can get through the expenses scandal with only a few low profile "victims", they will worm their way out of this. They are all such hypocrites. When the public were calling for an election in light of the expenses scandal the line was that "they needed to stay to clear the mess up". When NI say that Brook's needs to stay to clear the mess up, they're all up in arms over it. They all bent over and let Murdoch screw them, but now are all showing us how independent they are (with a few notable exceptions)

She stayed at Chequers after an invite from Mrs Brown, are you saying that Brown was so scared of NI that he had to invite her to his house for the weekend?

There should be a fit & proper persons test, but I'm uncomfortable with politicans dictating who should own media companies. I hope this isn't the start of more meddling because after the expenses scandal, they're not exactly fit and proper people themselves.

The editor whose wedding brown attended 3 years later and who was invited to spend a weekend with Mrs Brown? Had me and Mrs Duck been so disressed about something that we were in tears, if anyone ran a story about our children after getting their medical records, I would not go to their wedding and I certainly would not let Mrs Duck invite her over for the weekend. Brown saw the oppurtunity to try and repay NI for abandoning him. The Sun would not have run this Brown is wrong splash in the present climate without being 100% sure Brown was lieing. The broader issue of press being muzzled because of a few criminal journo's is perfectly shown in this Brown episode. When he went from studio to studio telling this tale of woe, why wasn't he asked some searching questions? The first question should surely have been; If you were so upset by this, why did you attend Brook's wedding? and the second question should be; As a Govt minister and then PM surely you should have reported any illegal activety to the police, why wait 5 years to bring it up? Lets hope that this whole sorry hacking affair does not mean our politcians of all colours get a free ride.Lets not forget it was our free press that caught them all with their noses in the trough.

I went to Southport once to stay with some friends. They have a big parade where Orangemen from Liverpool march every 12th July. It was basically a big **** up, but I couldn't believe how big it was.I know it's not the same as the NI ones, but I was amazed how big a deal it was, I really had no idea.

Seems strange that nobody has posted that the Sun are running that Gordon Brown basically lied. Just seen the news and it’s all over their front page, story obtained from another parent, and Brown authorised the story. As he attended Brook’s wedding as well as inviting her to Chequers, this makes more sense. There is no way they would run a front page splash like this, without being absolutely sure of their ground. We’ll have to wait and see if Brown now takes some sort of legal action over today’s Sun story. Dragging your child’s health into a lie, to gain revenge because you lost the support of a paper is pretty low ,in my opinion

Girls night out, with Mrs Brown and the wife of Murdoch, some 3 years after Murdoch's empire had made her so traumatised..........

I just find the hypocrisy of so many people over this issue nauseating.

Whilst Murdoch's papers were Labour supporting nothing was said. Police were paid (admitted to Parliament in 2003) for information, phones were hacked (Clive goodman was jailed in 2007), medical records were obtained (Brown's son in 2006). This is what Ben Bradshaw said on Daily Politics "That was a discussion in the cabinet in the last year of the Labour government about whether to have a public inquiry . Gordon Brown had the added political difficulty that he was seen as a weakened Prime Minister. If we had gone down that route there would have been a hail storm not just from the Murdoch press but from all the other hostile media that we were just trying to find a diversion or an excuse" So the Labour cabinet, that included Ed Milliband decided against public enquiry for political reasons. Therefore, surely it is a political issue as well as a moral one, particulary when the people making this political decision are the ones doing most of the shouting against Murdoch.

Surely it is "political point scoring" to be disgusted by some investigating, but not when it concerns a "notorious tax-avoider", who just so happens to be a leftie bogeyman. Political point scoring is surely going onto the BBC, telling of your tears and distress over an incident that happened in 2006, yet in 2009 you attend the wedding of the person who caused such distress, and your wife invited the same person to spend a weekend at your holiday home, again after the event. Brown has never got over the fact that NI turned against him and he is now touring the TV studios, not because of some moral Crusade, or outrage (as Tom Watson has done), but on the basis of revenge. The whole episode has showed parts of the press in a terrible light, but it has also shown the hypocrisy at the very heart of this country. From the millions "appalled" at the behaviour of Murdoch's empire, whilst buying the Sun and watching Sky. To people like Steve Coogan, who happily take the millions on offer for starring in 20th Century Fox films. Add to that the audacity of some of Labour's good and great waging war against NI after attending weddings, parties and generally cosing up to them, makes me sick. Brooks admitted to parliament in March 2003 that the police were paid for information. No, action from a Labour Govt, no enquires, just wedding invites for Brown, Blair and Campbell. Lord Ashcroft issued a statement saying "In March 2002, Sir Nick Montagu, then the chairman of the Inland Revenue, wrote personally to me saying: “It is now clear that the caller was masquerading as you, and I am extremely sorry that we failed to spot as bogus someone who was able to give a reference number which matched your name and who displayed some familiarity with your tax affairs. Sir Nick referred the matter to the Information Commissioner and, a year later, I learnt from an investigating officer acting for the Commissioner that, in fact, five calls had been received by the Inland Revenue, between 9 and 14 February 2001, from someone who purported to be me. " Do lefties find this illegal act disgusting, or did he have it coming?