Miliband says Murdoch's empire must be 'dismantled'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-phone-hacking

Quote:

---

"I think that we've got to look at the situation whereby one person can own more than 20% of the newspaper market, the Sky platform and Sky News," Miliband said. "I think it's unhealthy because that amount of power in one person's hands has clearly led to abuses of power within his organisation. If you want to minimise the abuses of power then that kind of concentration of power is frankly quite dangerous."

---

Yes, Labour destroyed this country and turned it into the mess that is only getting worse by the second with the Tories dragging it through the dirt.

Yes, Milipede has shown more leadership than Cameron over the matter but only because no-one else would.

Yes, he's a bumbling buffoon whose public appearances and interviews make him look like a robotic yapping dog.

But this comes across as out of the field. I'm far from a Labour supporter, Pirate Party UK for life, but for a prominent political figure, who has likely being bedded by Murdoch, to come out and say that he's out of order and is dangerous to the British public is kinda shocking.

Are we seeing a big movement in our politics and whose whispering in their ears? Has the News of the World scandal gone beyond News International and perhaps go on to define this year in politics and perhaps the next general election? Is Murdoch's grip of power gone for good? Will Milipede grow some charisma and save the day?

Thoughts?

lol, Miliband is just saying all this trash so that he agrees with the public's general opinion. Nothing more than bowing down to public pressure in order to gain the next set of votes. Bless him. Typical politician.

I don't agree at all, simply because I find it hard to believe that it's just the papers owned by News Corporation that have taken part the in phone hackings. If all this going to be done properly, all papers should be investigated -- though I do have a sneaky suspicion that this will happen. Much more shocking detail is yet to emerge about the phone hackings, I'm sure of that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

lol, Miliband is just saying all this trash so that he agrees with the public's general opinion

---

Yep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

lol, Miliband is just saying all this trash so that he agrees with the public's general opinion. Nothing more than bowing down to public pressure in order to gain the next set of votes. Bless him. Typical politician.

---

Yep.

Nothing's going to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

lol, Miliband is just saying all this trash so that he agrees with the public's general opinion. Nothing more than bowing down to public pressure in order to gain the next set of votes. Bless him. Typical politician.

---

It's a shame it's all words in 99% of cases.

Anyway I don't see why his company should be "dismantled", all companies probably commit crimes of some sort. Maybe we should sort out what the banks owe first, something that affects everyone in the country, rather then a company which affects a small minority.

This is the man whose government took away many of our civil liberties, allowing the government to spy on us, stifled free speech, nearly forced us to take our DNA and eye scans to fight 'terrorism', has forced airports to implement ridiculous security policies which involve feeling up old age pensioners among many other examples.. yet he and his party think that they have some sort of moral high ground on this issue.

They have as much moral high ground as the Conservative Party and the Murdoch press do; none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

This is the man whose government took away many of our civil liberties, allowing the government to spy on us, stifled free speech, nearly forced us to take our DNA and eye scans to fight 'terrorism', has forced airports to implement ridiculous security policies which involve feeling up old age pensioners among many other examples.. yet he and his party think that they have some sort of moral high ground on this issue.

They have as much moral high ground as the Conservative Party and the Murdoch press do; none.

---

What? The airport security measures are for the best BY FAR....
If it wasn't for the improved security, I'm guessing it would be easy to just carry a bomb onto a plane and set it off. It baffles me how any of this could be considered "ridiculous"....?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

What? The airport security measures are for the best BY FAR....
If it wasn't for the improved security, I'm guessing it would be easy to just carry a bomb onto a plane and set it off. It baffles me how any of this could be considered "ridiculous"....?

---

The threat of terrorism is minimal and has been greatly overblown (as an excuse to take us into foreign adventures). For that point why do we need to feel up OAPs (oh thats right! just incase they are carrying bombs!) - there has been, and rightly so, uproar in the United States with old disabled women being felt up incase they have a bomb in their diaper, I mean really. If you are fooled by all of this still, have a look at these statistics;

Quote:

---

0: People killed in the USA by terrorism/WMD in 2006.
(Thousands killed by the US and its allies in foreign countries.)

0: People killed in the UK by terrorism/WMD in 2006.

0: People killed in the USA by terrorism/WMD in 2005.

52: killed in the UK by terrorism/WMD in 2005 (all on "7/7").

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2004.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2003.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2002.

2,752: in USA killed by terrorism in 2001 (all on "9/11").

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2001.

0: People in the USA killed by terrorism/WMD in 2000.

0: People in the UK killed by terrorism/WMD in 2000.

---

Both taken from; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...71#post7199371

Quote:

---

1.2 MILLION: People in killed in road accidents EVERY YEAR.

430,000: Americans killed by cigarettes EVERY YEAR. (The equivalent of 9/11 repeated every two days forever.) Bush's response to a real threat? His election promise to stop the Justice Department's law suit against the tobacco industry.

400,000: Americans die each year from obesity (while much greater numbers around the world starve to death).

11,000: the people killed in America every year by guns, a human tragedy equivalent to a new 9/11 every 3 months.

8,437: Civilians killed by US/UK attacks in Iraq in 2003.

3,800: Civilians killed by US/UK attacks in Afghanistan by 2002.

135,000: Deaths from cancer in UK alone EVERY YEAR

3 MILLION: Killed by HIV/AIDS in 2003.

780,000,000: People starving to death RIGHT NOW.

1.2 BILLION: People "living" on less than $1 a day.

513,000,000: Number of people without access to safe drinking water.

2,500: Palestinian civillians killed "by accident" in Palestine by the Israeli army - and that's just since September 2000.

14,000: Palestinian people whose homes have been demolished by Israeli bulldozers - and that's just since October 2000. Families who do not escape in time are crushed to death - often at night in their beds.

---

..and if we were fighting this war on terror, surely the whole point of fighting it would be to defend our civil liberties which have been fought for and earnt over the centuries? so why are the likes of the Conservative Party and Labour Party sacrificing our most precious values in the name of a very very minimal threat?

I'm not fooled by it anymore, sorry - so I conclude that the above shows just how ridiculous it all is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The threat of terrorism is minimal and has been greatly overblown (as an excuse to take us into foreign adventures). For that point why do we need to feel up OAPs (oh thats right! just incase they are carrying bombs!) - there has been, and rightly so, uproar in the United States with old disabled women being felt up incase they have a bomb in their diaper, I mean really. If you are fooled by all of this still, have a look at these statistics;

Both taken from; http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...71#post7199371

..and if we were fighting this war on terror, surely the whole point of fighting it would be to defend our civil liberties which have been fought for and earnt over the centuries? so why are the likes of the Conservative Party and Labour Party sacrificing our most precious values in the name of a very very minimal threat?

I'm not fooled by it anymore, sorry.

---

Perhaps the reason why there's no "terrorism" is due to the amount of so-called "ridiculous" security measures. Just because someone is an OAP or disabled doesn't mean they should be exempt from checks, that is absolutely stupid. Clearly the threat is low, and that is most likely due to the amount of pressure and focus which is put on to security.

Let's take a look at the Christmas Day bombing in 2009; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab concealed explosives in his underwear and it got past security. He tried to detonate it in flight but failed. If these are the lengths that al-Qaeda are going to, then surely security should always be the main priority. A lot of lives could have been cost that day, and it was the fault of security for not picking up on it. Are you saying we should cut back on security for the sake of saving money, in which case you're putting a price tag on people's lives?

I don't know about you, but I quite like the feeling of security in an airport, knowing everyone is being checked thoroughly and knowing everyone is getting the same treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

Perhaps the reason why there's no "terrorism" is due to the amount of so-called "ridiculous" security measures. Just because someone is an OAP or disabled doesn't mean they should be exempt from checks, that is absolutely stupid. Clearly the threat is low, and that is most likely due to the amount of pressure and focus which is put on to security.

---

Well you've just given me an example below of how the security utterly failed in one isolated attempt at an attack. The fact is that even among profiled people (usually dark skinned, Arabian features) which I disagree with anyway, the threat of terrorism is still so very low and does not mean we should sacrifice our liberties in the name of security because otherwise, whats the point of this so-called War on Terror you support?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

Let's take a look at the Christmas Day bombing in 2009; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab concealed explosives in his underwear and it got past security. He tried to detonate it in flight but failed. If these are the lengths that al-Qaeda are going to, then surely security should always be the main priority. A lot of lives could have been cost that day, and it was the fault of security for not picking up on it.

---

So the security failed didn't it? so unless you are proposing we all strip down naked and even submit ourselves to prostate searches (because thats the latest bit of fear mongering, that a terrorist will implant himself with a bomb) then whats your point? then again, your apparent over-the-top fear of al-Qaeda is plain to see because despite the fact i've just posted statistics which show terrorism is hardly anything to be overly afraid of, you still think we should go through extreme lengths to protect ourselves from a threat which barely exists.

I'm in more danger of being blown up by the IRA in Liverpool than I am by al-Qaeda, even with the political wing of the IRA in government in Northern Ireland which is thanks to the Conservative Party, a party which pretends to be tough on terror but which then allowed convicted terrorists out of jail on British soil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

Are you saying we should cut back on security for the sake of saving money, in which case you're putting a price tag on people's lives?

---

Nothing to do with cost, I want to be treated like an innocent person which is what I am - I am not the property of the state nor do I expected to be treated as such under the guise of a threat which barely registers on the scale of dangers in our lives that we experience every day.

Why not just microchip, ID cards everyone and install security cameras everywhere and we'll totally eradicate crime?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

I don't know about you, but I quite like the feeling of security in an airport, knowing everyone is being checked thoroughly and knowing everyone is getting the same treatment.

---

Thats so sad it really is, it makes me sad to see that you, like many others have given up your liberties in the name of a threat which doesn't exist. But whats more disturbing is that you actually say you 'enjoy' being treated like cattle as opposed to innocent human beings.