|
The Media
|
|
Topic Started: 1 Nov 2017, 11:12 PM (581,189 Views)
|
|
Smiley
|
13 Nov 2017, 12:51 PM
Post #461
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 14,803
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #33,119
- Joined:
- 9 December 2013
|
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
People have been saying the BBC is not impartial for decades, most loudly the Tories. Like all news organisations, the BBC is a business. It sells things to other countries. It sells box sets. Rupert Murdoch was stated as being ready to bin Sky News the other day as part of his merger bid. Sky News makes a loss in millions a year. So if a commercial news channels is making a loss in millions a year, it could be reasonable to guess the BBC is too, with no advertising, so they make money in programming. As to why it's all happening now with Weinstein, maybe it's one step too far for some person, maybe someone was going to leak it and someone wanted to take control of a situation rather than be another victim, maybe he didn't hold power the way he used to. Who knows, but these things happen. As for the Panama Papers, it'll take years to go through all that stuff no doubt. There are 11.5million of items of information. So things are going to keep emerging. The other day it was Alex Ferguson. From the Guardian: "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning. Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time." So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin). He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut). To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned. The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see.
Some decent points. Here's the thing though - in media - because it's big business - "these things happen" doesn't wash. Jimmy Saville was known for decades to be up to no good. He was protected. Likewise, Weinstein (who has yet to be tried of anything btw) may well also have been protected, to some extent. That protection may well have been removed somehow. He may have had an infrastructure which also protected him - but something has changed that has meant he's now fair game. Same with Spacey. I'm not buying that it's just something that's happened, as if it was, it could have an arguably should have happened a long time ago, if some reports are to be believed. Maybe it was just the right time? Maybe - but I tend to think some of these things are bit more orchestrated. Plenty of huge stories reach the light of day, but end up getting swept under the carpet - but this one hasn't, and it could be hugely financially damaging for some firms, such as Netflix. When mega bucks is involved, I don't buy the "these things happen" argument. With all of those cases to avoid the risk of being sued to oblivion you need lots of evidence, lots of time to collate it, a journalist or journalists willing and able to take on a massive amount of work, and an editor prepared to face down his or her own lawyers to prevent them stopping it being published.
With Harvey Weinstein journalists repeatedly did try to expose him, pardon the pun, for years. He actively had them shut down in various nefarious ways. If Ashley Judd started the ball rolling then perhaps it was different this time - perhaps she couldn't be bought off, perhaps the news organisation who stood it up had the time and some corroborating evidence, perhaps the editor refused to be bought off by Weinstein. Once the ball was rolling there was safety in numbers, which is sad when you think about it.
Incidentally it's probably easier in the US accuse someone of something like this, in the UK the press are at a massive disadvantage because of our robust libel and defamation laws. If you want to accuse someone of being a beast then it's the police or not much else.
|
|
|
| |
|
Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
|
13 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM
Post #462
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,079
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,576
- Joined:
- 11 June 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Billy McNeill
|
- Asgardstreasure
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
People have been saying the BBC is not impartial for decades, most loudly the Tories. Like all news organisations, the BBC is a business. It sells things to other countries. It sells box sets. Rupert Murdoch was stated as being ready to bin Sky News the other day as part of his merger bid. Sky News makes a loss in millions a year. So if a commercial news channels is making a loss in millions a year, it could be reasonable to guess the BBC is too, with no advertising, so they make money in programming. As to why it's all happening now with Weinstein, maybe it's one step too far for some person, maybe someone was going to leak it and someone wanted to take control of a situation rather than be another victim, maybe he didn't hold power the way he used to. Who knows, but these things happen. As for the Panama Papers, it'll take years to go through all that stuff no doubt. There are 11.5million of items of information. So things are going to keep emerging. The other day it was Alex Ferguson. From the Guardian: "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning. Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time." So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin). He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut). To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned. The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see.
Throughout all the criminality and shenanigans that has unfolded over at aye-brokes over the last several years I cannot recall any senior Rangers (IL) OR sevco figures being 'jumped' by the BBC or any other SMSM outlet in similar manner to the way in which DD was accosted by Daly. Even the GASL with his long-as-your-arm schedule for tax evasion has never been given a hard time by SMSM. Don't recall anyone shoving a camera in his face about his extensive record for dishonesty....and he was taking over a club whose predecessor stiffed british tax payers for tens of millions. The various figures at the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie for example. Has Daly or anyone else sought to ambush him in the street? Actually I cannot recall a previous club chairman ever being ruffled by SMSM in the manner that Daly approached DD. It was in the style of one of these consumer protection shows when the con-man behind some dodgy scheme is outed on camera. And not because he was defrauding the tax payer, or breaking the rules to give a club a euro licence, or any other corrupt activity. It's because he has some off-shore investments which are perfectly legal and not so distasteful as to dissuade the royal household from getting in on the act.
Daly accosting an Irish citizen who is not accused of any criminal offence on the streets of Glasgow is disproportionate.
It would be entirely proportionate to doorstep a football club chairman who has been called a glib and shameless liar by a Judge particularly if that chairman providing interest free loans is the only thing saving the football club from insolvency.
But not only has the chairman never been door stepped no one at Former Rangers or Current Rangers with the exception of the panto villain patsy has ever been treated like this.
It's mudslinging in the hope that something sticks
|
|
|
| |
|
Ned Rise
|
13 Nov 2017, 02:50 PM
Post #463
|
These boots were made for hunbustin'
- Posts:
- 9,160
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #30,170
- Joined:
- 12 January 2012
|
- Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
- 13 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM
- Asgardstreasure
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep"Are all people who use offshore structures crooks? No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning.
Are some people who use offshore structures crooks? Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time."
So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin).
He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut).
To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned.
The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see.
Throughout all the criminality and shenanigans that has unfolded over at aye-brokes over the last several years I cannot recall any senior Rangers (IL) OR sevco figures being 'jumped' by the BBC or any other SMSM outlet in similar manner to the way in which DD was accosted by Daly. Even the GASL with his long-as-your-arm schedule for tax evasion has never been given a hard time by SMSM. Don't recall anyone shoving a camera in his face about his extensive record for dishonesty....and he was taking over a club whose predecessor stiffed british tax payers for tens of millions. The various figures at the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie for example. Has Daly or anyone else sought to ambush him in the street? Actually I cannot recall a previous club chairman ever being ruffled by SMSM in the manner that Daly approached DD. It was in the style of one of these consumer protection shows when the con-man behind some dodgy scheme is outed on camera. And not because he was defrauding the tax payer, or breaking the rules to give a club a euro licence, or any other corrupt activity. It's because he has some off-shore investments which are perfectly legal and not so distasteful as to dissuade the royal household from getting in on the act. Daly accosting an Irish citizen who is not accused of any criminal offence on the streets of Glasgow is disproportionate. It would be entirely proportionate to doorstep a football club chairman who has been called a glib and shameless liar by a Judge particularly if that chairman providing interest free loans is the only thing saving the football club from insolvency. But not only has the chairman never been door stepped no one at Former Rangers or Current Rangers with the exception of the panto villain patsy has ever been treated like this. It's mudslinging in the hope that something sticks It's two different things.
And nothing is 'going to stick' because the tax affairs of an individual are different to the tax affairs of Celtic Football Club, which are in turn different to the shenanigans over the former RFC which led to their demise. Any fears on that are entirely in the mind of people on this thread I think because I've not seen or heard it alluded to anywhere else. (I'm obviously going to discount the insane ramblings of Zombie Media or FF or the likes, just as I do with any of the tripe they post about anything, so there's no point in flagging up examples, should they exist).
Maybe Dave King's name has yet to surface from the 11.2million documents.
Edited by Ned Rise, 13 Nov 2017, 02:53 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Torquemada
|
13 Nov 2017, 03:02 PM
Post #464
|
Off treasure hunting in Holland
- Posts:
- 12,932
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #216
- Joined:
- 15 September 2004
|
- Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
- 13 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM
It's mudslinging in the hope that something sticks In one.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ned Rise
|
13 Nov 2017, 03:17 PM
Post #465
|
These boots were made for hunbustin'
- Posts:
- 9,160
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #30,170
- Joined:
- 12 January 2012
|
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 09:47 AM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
People have been saying the BBC is not impartial for decades, most loudly the Tories. Like all news organisations, the BBC is a business. It sells things to other countries. It sells box sets. Rupert Murdoch was stated as being ready to bin Sky News the other day as part of his merger bid. Sky News makes a loss in millions a year. So if a commercial news channels is making a loss in millions a year, it could be reasonable to guess the BBC is too, with no advertising, so they make money in programming. As to why it's all happening now with Weinstein, maybe it's one step too far for some person, maybe someone was going to leak it and someone wanted to take control of a situation rather than be another victim, maybe he didn't hold power the way he used to. Who knows, but these things happen. As for the Panama Papers, it'll take years to go through all that stuff no doubt. There are 11.5million of items of information. So things are going to keep emerging. The other day it was Alex Ferguson. From the Guardian: "Are all people who use offshore structures crooks?No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning. Are some people who use offshore structures crooks?Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time." So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin). He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut). To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned. The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see.
Some decent points. Here's the thing though - in media - because it's big business - "these things happen" doesn't wash. Jimmy Saville was known for decades to be up to no good. He was protected. Likewise, Weinstein (who has yet to be tried of anything btw) may well also have been protected, to some extent. That protection may well have been removed somehow. He may have had an infrastructure which also protected him - but something has changed that has meant he's now fair game. Same with Spacey. I'm not buying that it's just something that's happened, as if it was, it could have an arguably should have happened a long time ago, if some reports are to be believed. Maybe it was just the right time? Maybe - but I tend to think some of these things are bit more orchestrated. Plenty of huge stories reach the light of day, but end up getting swept under the carpet - but this one hasn't, and it could be hugely financially damaging for some firms, such as Netflix. When mega bucks is involved, I don't buy the "these things happen" argument. Well, things do happen and, no doubt, other things are orchestrated. Every company has a PR department who wants to get their story out so they, and you probably if you're an employee, must all be complicit in whatever big game is afoot.
Alluding to Netflix, yes, it's cost them money. Do you think that another TV company is behind this? It's not just Netflix Weinstein was involved in.
As for Jimmy Savile, yes, he looks as if he was protected. And by police and possibly government. Who knows where that begins and ends. But Louis Theroux did ask him about paedophile allegations in 2000 on a BBC documentary and Savile himself says the 'salacious tabloids' had been at him for a while. Why wasn't he lifted, while being easily convicted post mortem, is probably the bigger question.
But that's kind of getting away from the nub of this, which is should someone like Dermot Desmond be exempt while plenty of other non-UK domiciled folk, who also 'haven't broken the law' are getting plastered all over the papers?
Was there any need to jump him on the way to a game? Arguable, as it would appear that several other attempts to speak with him hadn't worked.
|
|
|
| |
|
Oscar Strummer
|
13 Nov 2017, 03:31 PM
Post #466
|
The Artist Formerly Known As lubomir25
- Posts:
- 5,307
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #3,991
- Joined:
- 5 June 2006
|
- Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
- 13 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM
It's mudslinging in the hope that something sticks
Something sticks with HMRC ?
Something sticks with the Procurator Fiscal ?
Something sticks with the Police ?
Or something sticks with thick Huns ?
|
|
|
| |
|
Kollontai
|
13 Nov 2017, 07:34 PM
Post #467
|
- Posts:
- 45
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36,017
- Joined:
- 8 November 2017
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
Phil MacGiollaBhain was saying a journo got doorstepped the other morning. I take it this was Daly? Dermot sending the heavies round?
|
|
|
| |
|
Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
|
15 Nov 2017, 01:36 AM
Post #468
|
Everyone's Fantasy Football first pick
- Posts:
- 2,079
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,576
- Joined:
- 11 June 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- Billy McNeill
|
- Oscar Strummer
- 13 Nov 2017, 03:31 PM
- Broadly Equivalent Bhoy
- 13 Nov 2017, 01:32 PM
It's mudslinging in the hope that something sticks
Something sticks with HMRC ? Something sticks with the Procurator Fiscal ? Something sticks with the Police ? Or something sticks with thick Huns ? None of the Above
The target demographic is people who read headlines rather than full stories
Associating Celtic with a tax scam perpetuates the "each as bad as the other" narrative
|
|
|
| |
|
Corky Buczek
|
15 Nov 2017, 01:57 PM
Post #469
|
- Posts:
- 8,240
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,021
- Joined:
- 26 May 2005
|
- Smiley
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:51 PM
- BombJack
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:25 PM
- Ned Rise
- 13 Nov 2017, 12:06 PM
Quoting limited to 3 levels deep"Are all people who use offshore structures crooks? No. Using offshore structures is entirely legal. There are many legitimate reasons for doing so. Business people in countries such as Russia and Ukraine typically put their assets offshore to defend them from “raids” by criminals, and to get around hard currency restrictions. Others use offshore for reasons of inheritance and estate planning.
Are some people who use offshore structures crooks? Yes. In a speech last year in Singapore, David Cameron said “the corrupt, criminals and money launderers” take advantage of anonymous company structures. The government is trying to do something about this. It wants to set up a central register that will reveal the beneficial owners of offshore companies. From June, UK companies will have to reveal their “significant” owners for the first time."
So we have a right to know which group these powerbrokers and elites in our society belong to. Saying 'There's no suggestion that [insert name] broke and laws' could be just a good way of covering your arse until you find out one way or another, and the way to do that is by asking questions. It looked to me like Daly went into the offices first to try to get answers from Desmond/his representatives (just as he did with some oil executive who came out of his office to talk to him in a very strained conversation, where both parties looked to be dancing on the head of a legal pin).
He didn't get answers and so he jumped him at Celtic Park. It may seem tasteless but it didn't appear to be his first port of call and so the framing of the shot wouldn't have happened. Regardless of his citizenship or where he pays his taxes, Dermot Desmond's name is going to ring bells here. Similarly, Donald Trump, aside from being the unstable President of the US, would have got more publicity here because of his business interests, regardless of where he pays his tax. International celebs, sporting stars, with no connection to the UK, are making the news. Justin Trudeau too (what's a nice leader like that doing mixed up in all this murky business, tut tut).
To me, it would have been remarkable if Desmond's name had come up and it hadn't been mentioned (as it was it seemed part of a larger story involving the Isle of Man, aircraft and taxes). And if Desmond is mentioned, it would be amazing if his interest in Celtic wasn't mentioned.
The zombies who stop their car and roll down their window to shout 'see it wasn't just us with the tax-dodging' are misinformed, just as they are with Pacific Shelf and a whole host of other shampooe they regularly spout. It's easy to ignore them. There's no equivalence and no attempt to draw any as far as I can see.
Some decent points. Here's the thing though - in media - because it's big business - "these things happen" doesn't wash. Jimmy Saville was known for decades to be up to no good. He was protected. Likewise, Weinstein (who has yet to be tried of anything btw) may well also have been protected, to some extent. That protection may well have been removed somehow. He may have had an infrastructure which also protected him - but something has changed that has meant he's now fair game. Same with Spacey. I'm not buying that it's just something that's happened, as if it was, it could have an arguably should have happened a long time ago, if some reports are to be believed. Maybe it was just the right time? Maybe - but I tend to think some of these things are bit more orchestrated. Plenty of huge stories reach the light of day, but end up getting swept under the carpet - but this one hasn't, and it could be hugely financially damaging for some firms, such as Netflix. When mega bucks is involved, I don't buy the "these things happen" argument.
With all of those cases to avoid the risk of being sued to oblivion you need lots of evidence, lots of time to collate it, a journalist or journalists willing and able to take on a massive amount of work, and an editor prepared to face down his or her own lawyers to prevent them stopping it being published. With Harvey Weinstein journalists repeatedly did try to expose him, pardon the pun, for years. He actively had them shut down in various nefarious ways. If Ashley Judd started the ball rolling then perhaps it was different this time - perhaps she couldn't be bought off, perhaps the news organisation who stood it up had the time and some corroborating evidence, perhaps the editor refused to be bought off by Weinstein. Once the ball was rolling there was safety in numbers, which is sad when you think about it. Incidentally it's probably easier in the US accuse someone of something like this, in the UK the press are at a massive disadvantage because of our robust libel and defamation laws. If you want to accuse someone of being a beast then it's the police or not much else. Correct. You also need probably at least three victims to have the courage (and it is a helluva brave thing to do) to come forward.
After the NYT broke the Weinstein story, he hired the law firm that brought down Gawker. You don’t need millions to hire this firm but multi-millions apparently. They will go through all the victims private lives and that of the journalists and paper editors. Add to that the spouses and relatives of the aforementioned.
Now after the NYT published, the dam broke and dozens of others came forward and Weinstein will have a legal bill to pay with nothing to show for it.
Remember expensive lawyers can make a massive difference. The Maxwell brothers were found not guilty of pension fraud after their father won numerous libel battles over the previous decades. The most expensive Legal team assembled in UK history convinced a jury that those who run the News of the World knew nothing about how they were getting their stories despite authorising massive payments.
That kind of legal team is what whistleblowers in many circumstances are up against.
|
|
|
| |
|
Corky Buczek
|
15 Nov 2017, 01:58 PM
Post #470
|
- Posts:
- 8,240
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,021
- Joined:
- 26 May 2005
|
- Kollontai
- 13 Nov 2017, 07:34 PM
Phil MacGiollaBhain was saying a journo got doorstepped the other morning. I take it this was Daly? Dermot sending the heavies round? or perhaps Phil is making it up and if at some point DD does decide to take legal action, he will say he had the exclusive.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dubz
|
16 Nov 2017, 10:50 AM
Post #471
|
- Posts:
- 4,757
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #27,189
- Joined:
- 7 November 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Daniel Fergus McGrain
|
- Corky Buczek
- 15 Nov 2017, 01:58 PM
- Kollontai
- 13 Nov 2017, 07:34 PM
Phil MacGiollaBhain was saying a journo got doorstepped the other morning. I take it this was Daly? Dermot sending the heavies round?
or perhaps Phil is making it up and if at some point DD does decide to take legal action, he will say he had the exclusive. Your lucky Dhenbhoy doesn't venture this far up the board.
Edited by Dubz, 16 Nov 2017, 10:51 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
timbojon
|
16 Nov 2017, 11:01 AM
Post #472
|
- Posts:
- 1,895
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #33,854
- Joined:
- 9 October 2014
- Favourite all-time player
- king kenny
|
- Dubz
- 16 Nov 2017, 10:50 AM
- Corky Buczek
- 15 Nov 2017, 01:58 PM
- Kollontai
- 13 Nov 2017, 07:34 PM
Phil MacGiollaBhain was saying a journo got doorstepped the other morning. I take it this was Daly? Dermot sending the heavies round?
or perhaps Phil is making it up and if at some point DD does decide to take legal action, he will say he had the exclusive.
Your lucky Dhenbhoy doesn't venture this far up the board. Pie &Bovril , The Bralt Thread , go back a few hundred pages and you'll see Dhenbhoy in all his hunskelpin glory
|
|
|
| |
|
weebaldy
|
16 Nov 2017, 03:49 PM
Post #473
|
We Won the Big One-They Never Will!
- Posts:
- 2,229
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #28,009
- Joined:
- 22 February 2011
|
Daily Record going with "Old Firm players on World Cup collision course". Unsurprisingly its just the Record trying make the huns look important but, not surprisingly, only one of their players might be involved (Alves) whereas we have three players definitely involved and another four possibilities.
|
|
|
| |
|
Corky Buczek
|
16 Nov 2017, 05:21 PM
Post #474
|
- Posts:
- 8,240
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #1,021
- Joined:
- 26 May 2005
|
- Dubz
- 16 Nov 2017, 10:50 AM
- Corky Buczek
- 15 Nov 2017, 01:58 PM
- Kollontai
- 13 Nov 2017, 07:34 PM
Phil MacGiollaBhain was saying a journo got doorstepped the other morning. I take it this was Daly? Dermot sending the heavies round?
or perhaps Phil is making it up and if at some point DD does decide to take legal action, he will say he had the exclusive.
Your lucky Dhenbhoy doesn't venture this far up the board. It was classic Phil. All done in a way he could deny or later claim credit. Given DD’s propensity for litigation in these matters, I wouldn’t be surprised if he attempts some form of legal action. And at that point - if it happens - Phil will come along with the I told you so.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gothamcelt
|
16 Nov 2017, 07:49 PM
Post #475
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 10,924
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,222
- Joined:
- 12 June 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Sir Kenny Dalglish
|
STV Tonight at 10:40pm have an interview with Kenny Dalglish.
He talks about his family,Celtic, Liverpool, Hillsborough and there's clips from a film about him.
|
|
|
| |
|
Kollontai
|
16 Nov 2017, 07:53 PM
Post #476
|
- Posts:
- 45
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36,017
- Joined:
- 8 November 2017
- Favourite all-time player
- Henrik Larsson
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/11/15/martin-oneill-managed-ireland-undercurrent-animosity-now-might/
“Yet, much like the English, the Irish have an inflated opinion of how good their players are and a strange sense of entitlement”
From the Torygraph, but accurate.
|
|
|
| |
|
Govan Super Casino
|
16 Nov 2017, 09:41 PM
Post #477
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 11,491
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #29,578
- Joined:
- 23 September 2011
- Favourite all-time player
- Paul McStay
|
- Kollontai
- 16 Nov 2017, 07:53 PM
Yep, Ireland have over achieved for years yet many seem to think we should be doing better. The knives are out for MON big time, it's ok to accept shampoo football if we win but not when we lose. There was an article about this on RTE earlier, suggests maybe having the Dundalk manager as the new national team coach.
|
|
|
| |
|
Gothamcelt
|
17 Nov 2017, 09:06 PM
Post #478
|
Retired and now a BT Sports pundit
- Posts:
- 10,924
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #26,222
- Joined:
- 12 June 2010
- Favourite all-time player
- Sir Kenny Dalglish
|
All the others will be suffering as well. Will the media soon consist of only TV?
Rupert Murdoch says his newspapers are struggling in digital age Speaking at News Corp AGM, Murdoch hails Times, Australian and Wall Street Journal as successes but says company has ‘hands full’ keeping print viable
Spoiler: click to toggle Rupert Murdoch say News Corp is not looking to expand its newspaper empire, conceding digital advertising “has been tremendously damaging to print” and some of his papers were struggling. Analysis Are the Murdochs at war over the future of their media empire? Rupert Murdoch’s relationship with younger son James questioned after news that 21st Century Fox considers selling film studio and stake in Sky to Disney Murdoch, speaking at News Corp’s annual general meeting in Los Angeles on Wednesday, praised chief executive Robert Thomson for challenging digital giants Google and Facebook for allowing free access to the company’s content. “So far I think we have done pretty well in replacing lost advertising revenue in the major papers, but it continues to be a big problem,” Murdoch told shareholders. The meeting took less than 30 minutes, a far cry from past AGMs. Murdoch faced just three questions. In response to a question about the company potentially purchasing more newspapers, the 86-year-old News Corp executive chairman said: “Not really. No. Our hands are pretty full making our existing papers viable. “I think the big three successes we have are the three big national papers: the Wall Street Journal, the Times in London and the Australian. “The other papers, a lot of them are still very viable, but they are struggling.” News Corp publishes Australian newspapers including the Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun and Courier Mail; as well as the New York Post and, in the UK, the Sun. Murdoch, his sons Lachlan and James, and other News Corp directors seeking re-election received “a majority” of electoral votes from shareholders according to the preliminary report, Murdoch said. The final results will be released in a US securities and exchange commission filing. Meanwhile a shareholder proposal calling for Twenty-First Century Fox Inc – also controlled by the Murdoch family – to scrap its dual-class share structure was rejected on Wednesday. Fifty-seven per cent of votes cast sided with the position of Fox’s board, which argued that the current share structure provided flexibility and enhanced the company’s ability to focus on long-term results, a Fox regulatory filing said. The majority of Fox shares traded publicly are class A shares, which have no voting rights. The Murdoch family owns about 39% of the class B voting shares. Critics argue that the set-up concentrates too much power with the Murdoch family. Forty-three per cent of votes cast were in favour of eliminating the two classes of shares and giving all shares a vote, and more than half of shareholders outside of the Murdochs’ control voted in favour. At the 26-minute annual meeting on Fox’s movie and television studio lot in Los Angeles, shareholders also re-elected Murdoch and his two sons to the company’s board, suggesting continued support for the family even as its Fox News division is recovering from a series of costly sexual harassment settlements. Australian Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/16/rupert-murdoch-newspapers-struggling-digital-age
|
|
|
| |
|
murphio
|
17 Nov 2017, 09:23 PM
Post #479
|
Could start a row in an empty room
- Posts:
- 47,800
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #127
- Joined:
- 2 September 2004
- Twitter Name
- @murphio1888
|
- Kollontai
- 16 Nov 2017, 07:53 PM
Absolute bollocks.
|
|
|
| |
|
san meegs
|
19 Nov 2017, 10:47 AM
Post #480
|
- Posts:
- 3,885
- Group:
- Snr. Member
- Member
- #25,143
- Joined:
- 13 January 2010
|
Another sob story from a person who is only sorry they get caught out. Absolutely no sympathy for her.
A row over a Celtic cake saw Rangers fan Ruth Gilfillan demoted from rank of Detective Chief Inspector
Spoiler: click to toggle A row over a Celtic cake saw Rangers fan Ruth Gilfillan demoted from rank of Detective Chief Inspector A senior detective at the centre of a religious bigotry row has been demoted to constable after an inquiry. Detective Chief Inspector Ruth Gilfillan was one of Police Scotland’s most highly rated rising stars at the time of the incident in August 2015. But after a colleague complained about a sectarian remark, she has lost three ranks and faces a massive financial penalty. Friends say that she has been “absolutely devastated” by the demotion ruling. At the time of the incident, mother-of-four Gilfillan was head of Police Scotland’s human trafficking unit. The 45-year-old law and politics graduate will see her salary plummet from £55,000 a year to £38,000. And it means she could lose as much as £100,000 in future pension payments when she retires. The row erupted after one of a group of colleagues in her company had a Celtic birthday cake. Gilfillan exchanged banter about refusing to eat the detective’s cake. Top police officer charged with bigot slur crime after an argument with a colleague But she was also accused of making a joke about children being at risk of abuse in Catholic schools. She was informed of the demotion decision at a disciplinary hearing earlier this month. Gilfillan refused to comment but a friend said: “She is devastated by the decision and is struggling to come to terms with it. “She understands that what she said was wrong and she is extremely apologetic. “She wanted to say sorry in person to her fellow officer at the outset but was advised not to by the people carrying out the investigation. “Ruth Gilfillan is highly respected as a detective by people she has worked with from all religious backgrounds. She is almost universally popular. “The remark that she made was wrong but Ruth and the majority of her colleagues believe the punishment was excessive. “There is also disquiet about the way the investigation was carried out, with the deliberation taking just over an hour.” Gilfillan initially faced a criminal charge but that was dropped and she did not appear in court. It is understood the charge against her at the disciplinary hearing was conduct unbecoming of a police officer. The Scottish Police Federation said yesterday that they plan to appeal the decision by senior officers to demote her. The row has caused a rift between officers, with many of Gilfillan’s colleagues believing she has been harshly treated. The colleague who made the complaint has been relocated following a backlash from other officers. Another source said: “It is a really bad case and has caused a real split among a group of officers who were very close. “The person who made the complaint has suffered as well in career terms. “It is understandable that a complaint was made. But the feeling is that it could have been handled better. “Ruth is a big Rangers fan and everyone in the force is aware of this. “Ruth apologised and was deeply sorry. “She regularly worked 80 hours a week and was involved in numerous murder inquiries. “This is an officer who has been dedicated to her job. “She accepts that what she said was wrong but her punishment is too severe.” Gilfillan led a team of officers who targeted prostitution and modern-day slavery and has been involved in operations against firms and individuals who are suspected of using smuggled workers. While at the helm, she changed how the force dealt with people trafficking and made Police Scotland proactively identify victims while targeting organised crime groups. She also introduced a policy that women working in the sex industry were no longer to be automatically arrested. She has been ordered out of the elite Scottish Crime Campus in Gartcosh, Lanarkshire, and is thought to be performing administrative duties at the force’s HQ in Glasgow’s Dalmarnock. Another source said: “Ruth made a difference while she was a detective. “She worked hard and was always willing to learn. Ruth is a tough cop and had her run-ins with other officers over the years.” Police Scotland have repeatedly stated their determination to tackle sectarian abuse and offensive behaviour. A Crown Office spokesman said yesterday: “The procurator fiscal received a report concerning a 43-year-old woman in relation to an alleged incident on August 20, 2015. “After careful consideration of all of the available evidence, Crown counsel instructed that there was insufficient evidence in law to take criminal proceedings in the case.” It is understood that after prosecution was ruled out, the Crown Office then referred the case back to senior officers at Police Scotland for possible disciplinary action. David Kennedy, deputy general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, said yesterday: “The Scottish Police Federation will be appealing the decision on behalf of Constable Ruth Gilfillan.” It is understood that Gilfillan’s appeal will be heard by an assistant chief constable within the next 60 days. If the decision is upheld, she can then take her challenge against the demotion to the police appeals tribunal. Police Scotland said last night: “This matter remains a live internal conduct process and as such, it would be inappropriate to comment further.” The allegations against Gilfillan were investigated by the Police Scotland Professional Standards Unit (PSU). They are responsible for probing allegations of misconduct by police officers and support staff. The PSU also investigate complaints made by the public about officers and handle cases where potential criminal behaviour has already been established. Their role is different from that of the controversial former Counter Corruption Unit, now called the Anti-Corruption Unit. They investigate allegations against officers and police staff suspected of being involved in criminal behaviour or organised crime. After the allegation of sectarianism was made against Gilfillan, all witnesses to the alleged remarks were interviewed. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/devastated-top-cops-career-tatters-11545665
- Quote:
-
The 45-year-old law and politics graduate will see her salary plummet from £55,000 a year to £38,000.
My heart bleeds
|
|
|
| |
| 3 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
|