To think those boycotting anything to do with Murdoch are mugs

[Chestnutx3]

what the hell do you think you will achieve. So far lots of journalists and all their support staff have been made unemployed. Do you want the people at Sky and all the other Murdoch companies in the UK to lose their jobs too. You are not punishing Murdoch you are purnishing largely innocent people. Get a grip.

Boycotting can achieve a great deal. Firstly, Ofcom was besieged by furious members of the public after it became known that Milly Dowler's phone had been hacked by the NOTW. It had the very real effect of knocking 4% off the share price of BSkyB - a total of £562 million from its value. This was before the politicians found their collective balls and called on Murdoch not to go ahead with the takeover.

Secondly twenty years after The Sun lied that locals attacked and urinated on dying people as they lay on the ground after the Hillsborough tragedy, the paper they call 'The Scum' is STILL boycotted in Liverpool.

www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/apr/18/hillsborough-anniversary-sun-newspaper

OP are you or family employed by Murdoch by the way?

My first too. How exciting! You could've been a bit more subtle though. Fwiw, I haven't bought anything Murdoch-owned for at least 15 years, not from a sense of moral outrage, but from not liking his control of the media in this country. As for what that Brooks creature did to her "friend" Sarah Brown, that was invasion of privacy dressed up as "in the public interest". Utter bullshit.
Get thee back under the bridge.

OP is a now out of work Page 3 "Lovely". Used to be seen flashing her chestnuts in nightclubs all over Ibiza (it's international, innit).

Do you read the news? Do you have any interest in a decent honest press? One that doesnt not seek to place completely false stories out there and single handedly help to distroy a person just because they dont fit with his master plan? Obvioulsy not you foolish baboon.

Have a .

YES!

Read all about it....

Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation announces that it is dropping its planned bid to take full ownership of BSkyB

Some of us are unhappy that the Sun not only breached Gordon Brown's privacy in 2006 when publishing details of his medical condition, but have done so a second time when repeating the story to rebut Gordon Brown's allegations.

the irony of providing anonymity to protect the identity of the person purporting to have passed information about Fraser Brown, who was then four months old, is astonishing.

If you agree that it is unacceptable for a newspaper to intrude on a child's privacy in such a manner please complain to the PCC. The relevant clauses that have been breached are clause 3 (i) respect for private life and health and clause 6 (v) Editors must not use the fame, notoriety or position of a parent or guardian as sole justification for publishing details of a child?s private life.

The PCC usually only investigates complaints if you have a direct relationship with the story but I would contend that we all have a responsibility to protect children - imagine if someone did that to your child, published intimate details of his or her medical condition on the front page of a newspaper.

And if you want to read more of my opinion about this issue please go to this blog article - I'm not a journalist, not paid, just a citizen blogger. www.heraldscotland.com/bloggers/kate-higgins/the-sun-should-stop-fighting-over-little-fraser-brown-1.1111873

Thank you.

Thanks so much for your concern for my moral welfare, but I have been boycotting Murdoch since the Wapping disputes in the 80's. Funnily enough his actions wiped out an entire workforce then, as well.

Just to clarify, James Murdoch made the extremely cynical decision to cut loose the NOTW and it's workforce not as an act of moral heroism, or because we all decided to boycott it, but in order to try and distance News International from the case as quickly as possible. This was so that it could press on unhindered with the planned BSkyB buyout.
Thankfully (although regrettably for the NoTW staff) it was a gamble that failed to pay off and the bid has been blocked by cross party agreement.
Thank God for small mercies. Oh, and have one of these

Ah yes, that's right, blame the public for refusing to buy into a company that uses illegal means, rather than blaming the company which broke the law. Totally logical.

Murdoch made those people unemployed because he chose to sacrifice them. He thought if he did then all this crap would go away.

Because he thinks we are all stupid.

Clearly some people are as your OP shows.

The rest of us recognise that the man has allowed and encouraged criminal and unethical practices to go unchecked for years and years and years.

He has done this to acheive power and make shed loads of money.

He doesnt care about his employees and he certainly doesnt give a big flying fuck about you.

You are all being manipulated by politicians and the press
Er, no, OP, you are being manipulated by politicians and the press.
Why isn't that clear to you?

Really interesting article by Robert Fisk comparing Murdoch to an Eastern despot. And it's fair to say Fisk has met a few of those in his time.

Agree with you OP - the boycott is a total joke. Do these people think the bloody Guardian is going to fill the void left by Murdoch's rags? Methinks not. Fools, the lot of 'em.
Cloudbase - re wapping, Murdoch did the right thing - the print unions were truly taking the piss during that period. They had it coming to them. If you read the facts instead of following the left wing press you might realise that.

maurice - you're right re Wapping (and I think even dear Alan Rusbridger would agree with you on that); but boycotting Murdoch shite doesn't mean resorting to Guardian. Why should it?

OP, you're mad. It is one of the only ways we have, en masse, of registering our disapproval of a company's actions, and is our democratic right.

As everyone else says, there's not one of us who sacked any of those NOTW workers. If you think we are responsible then you are suffering from seriously twisted logic, and a rather juvenile idea of morality. It was a thoroughly cowardly decision and absolutely in line with the way the immoral bastards have always behaved.

I too, don't believe you do anything remotely like running a large company, otherwise you'd have a much better idea of what you're talking about. Unless you are, of course, Rebekah or Murdoch fils.

I'm going to say "off you fuck, and when you get there, fuck off some more" because I've always wanted to, and this is the perfect opportunity.

"maurice - you're right re Wapping (and I think even dear Alan Rusbridger would agree with you on that); but boycotting Murdoch shite doesn't mean resorting to Guardian. Why should it?"

What is with this assumption that everyone boycotting NI are Guardian readers?

Well, exactly, Empusa...
Come out from whereever you are, maurice - We need to know.

Maurice

'Murdoch did the right thing - the print unions were truly taking the piss during that period'

Yes they were, and of course the move to electronic press was a good and necessary thing which would have happened eventually anyway -it's progress and the unions could never have fought that (or should have). But the dispute was far worse and had far more casualties than it needed to because of Murdoch's methods. He lied to his workforce right up until the 11th hour about what his spiffy new plant was for, and then when the unions exercised their right to strike, he sacked 5,000 of them overnight. He then held his journalists to ransom (Come with me and get a £2K pay rise, or you're sacked too). None of that exactly screams ethical and responsible management practice to me. Of course, Murdoch doesn't give a hoot about ethical management practice, but a lot of lives were ruined because of that dispute, not just the print unions, and Murdoch pretty much sat back and let it happen. It was also the first of many concerted powerplays that let everyone in Fleet Street know exactly who was in control.

'If you read the facts instead of following the left wing press you might realise that'

How exceptionally patronising, and not exactly a debate winning argument. You know which newspapers I read how exactly? Or is it just the fact that I disagree with you that means I must be written off as a left wing Guardian reader? Please explain your peculiar and patronising assumption. Enquiring minds wish to know.

It would be pretty hard to fully boycott anything to do with RM since News Corp own 20th Century Fox, a whole heap of TV channels and obviously Fox news etc. But if people want to boycott The Sun, The Times and cancel Sky etc then fair enough.

Just because I won't be doesn't mean I think they're mugs. Rude!

Have to agree with the majority of comments I've read. I don't knowingly fund anything to do with News International, since I've been keeping up-to-date via the web for the last 10 years and via teletext in the 15 or more years before that, so as far as newspapers are concerned, only the free ones come into my home.

It's up to people to decide which causes they support and firms they boycott, and whether you consider they have no effect or not, OP, is frankly immaterial.

Try finding someone reading The Sun in Liverpool, and you'll find it very difficult (I don't think many newsagents even bother to have copies).

Boycotts by individuals may appear ineffective, but when one heard that at least a dozen advertisers had pulled out, and others were waiting to find out what their customers thought, it didn't take long for the decision to be made to close, because they knew that they could keep publishing but would have dwindling sales and dwindling advertising, and would just lose money until they pulled the plug anyway.

Taking the decision to close was one way to try to be "seen doing the right thing" but they even messed that up, because the chief exec was protected and the innocent (and not so innocent) staff paid the price.

You (OP) seem to feel that a boycott is bad because the employees will have it tough. Yes, in the short term, but the who are hard working and have been honest during their careers (ie not making up stories, the way some journalists have on some rags) will move on quite easily.

"it's unfair not to levy the same disdain at the public who salivates over this scummy slop."

Agree in relation to newspapers, especially as the journalists/editors always claim that they are providing material that the public "wants". Ummmm, no, I think people buy a paper and then see what's inside. It gets to be a habit to buy a paper, I suspect, and just like many won't switch bank, many continue to buy a paper until such time as they see sense.

However when some business gets exclusive rights (eg Sky Sports outbidding other channels in many cases), then it holds some of the public 'to ransom'.

Personally I am lucky enough to be able to watch snooker on the BBC (OK, not all that one could watch, but the most important events in the snooker calendar).

I don't follow cricket or football, but can understand how Sky is popular in about a third of UK households. The decision to cancel Sky might be more likely to be from the price going up and up rather than a wish to boycott.

Sky puts prices up from time to time but even if they lose around 10% of their customer base, the increases usually more than cover the loss of that income. Virgin will be the winner, at least in cities where people do have the option to switch.

YABU and a prick.

I have never bought anything from NI nor will I. Nothing to do with "media manipulation", just a general loathing of the whole business and its owner. I don't read any paper in particular and am not left wing - but I would avoid that pile'o'shite at all costs.

long time no see, how are you?