Politician's and Rupert..

A place to socialise and share opinions with other members of the BGAFD Community.
Lizard
Posts: 6228
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Politician's and Rupert..

Post by Lizard »

A group of them have decided that Mr Murdoch is not a 'fit and proper person' to run a corporation...LOL, a bit rich coming from those thieving, lying, cheating, corrupt, self serving arrogant bastard's. There not fit to wipe his arse.

[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
Sam Slater
Posts: 11624
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politician's and Rupert..

Post by Sam Slater »

Except a lying, corrupt politician will be held accountable come an election. Not so with Rupert. I'm 36 and he's chosen every PM since I can remember.

A fucking real life Darth Sidious.

[i]I used to spend a lot of time criticizing Islam on here in the noughties - but things are much better now.[/i]
andy at handiwork
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politician's and Rupert..

Post by andy at handiwork »

It is a fit and proper response by a parliamentary body trying to deal with the toxin in our political system that is Murdoch. And well spelt, punctuated and written I bet.
Jonone
Posts: 2939
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politician's and Rupert..

Post by Jonone »

Would that they had passed the same public judgement on the abilities of people helming financial institutions.
Essex Lad
Posts: 2539
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politicians and Rupert..

Post by Essex Lad »

Lizard wrote:

> A group of them have decided that Mr Murdoch is not a 'fit and
> proper person' to run a corporation...LOL, a bit rich coming
> from those thieving, lying, cheating, corrupt, self serving
> arrogant bastards. They're not fit to wipe his arse.
>
>

No, what they actually said was that he was not "a fit person". They didn't say that he was not "fit and proper" and even then it was divided on strictly party lines...
Lizard
Posts: 6228
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politicians and Rupert..

Post by Lizard »

"But the Guardian has seen a copy of papers circulated to committee members on 20 March that first set out the Labour MP Tom Watson's amendment, including the conclusion that Murdoch was "not a fit and proper person to have the stewardship of a major international company".

From the Gaurdian..



[_]> No Liberals were harmed during the making of this post.
spider
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politician's and Rupert..

Post by spider »

Bit of topic I know, but does anyone else think Louise Mensch is hot?

Shame she's a Murdoch supporting Tory!


jimslip
Posts: 3913
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Re: Politician's and Rupert..

Post by jimslip »

It would appear that that ghastly Aussie megalomaniac has been more or less running the UK for decades. I wonder if Tony Blair when he became leader of the Labour Party in 1994 was summoned to a grovelling audience with Murdoch and ordered to ditch Clause IV from the Labour Party's constitution?

Ie:

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Because it would appear that from hereafter The Sun supported and nurtured Tony Blairs's rise to fame and personal fortune. It continued to pat him on the head even when he started his vile warmongering adventures in the Middle East. Gordan Brown must have also done Murdoch's bidding and now this tradition of not so much "Brown nosing" but "Whole body immersion in a bath of Murdoch's fermenting shit" has continued through to this present day, with David Cameron.

<http://www.jimslip.com>
Winner "Best Loved Character"TVX SHAFTAS 2010
Winner of "Best On-Line scene & Best Gonzo Production" at UKAP Awards 2006
Winner of Best TVX series 2011, "Laras Anal Adventures"
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Jimslip

Post by David Johnson »

I am delighted to see that you are proving an apt pupil.

I explained to you below last night why the Labour government did not re-nationalise the water utilities. I explained to you what had happened about Clause 4.

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=256426&t=256395

First thing this morning, you chirp up with

"I wonder if Tony Blair when he became leader of the Labour Party in 1994 was summoned to a grovelling audience with Murdoch and ordered to ditch Clause IV from the Labour Party's constitution?"

Now all you need to do is to get rid of all the bonkers conspiracy theories you come up with
David Johnson
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am

Another lesson for you, Jim

Post by David Johnson »

Since you are clearly in a receptive mood for learning from me - see my post above, I will seize the moment.

1. The Twin Towers were not blown up by the CIA in order to blame the Muslims.

2. Osama Bin Laden is not alive and well and living in Cleethorpes.

3. There is no evidence that Labour MPs bought millions of shares in the water companies which is why they didnt re-nationalise these companies.

Test at the end of the week to see how much you have learnt!
Locked