So CAG is STILL deleting threads and posts without a word

[tobyjugg2]

Wheres my Murdock sky takeover thread gone?

 

Murdock controls this site does he?

 

Explains the policies and practices here.

[tobyjugg2]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?480740-In-what-alternate-universe-did-phone-hacking-Murdock-become-a-fit-person-(Sky)

[labrat]

no idea

 

personally i would think that its possible slander reasons from the title

 

as far as i remember murdock never got convicted nor did they manage to PROVE he had knowledge of the hacking

[tobyjugg2]

no idea

 

personally i would think that its possible slander reasons from the title

 

as far as i remember murdock never got convicted nor did they manage to PROVE he had knowledge of the hacking

 

Good job wikipedia isnt gutlessly 'owned' by Murdock then eh?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal

 

"Over the course of his testimony, Rupert Murdoch admitted that a cover-up had taken place within the News of the World to hide the scope of the phone hacking.[3] On 1 May 2012, a parliamentary select committee report concluded that Murdoch "exhibited wilful blindness to what was going on in his companies and publications" and stated that he was "not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company"

 

 

"July 16 2011 - Murdoch issues an apology for phone hacking via full page ads in seven national newspapers."

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/24/world/europe/uk-phone-hacking-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

 

 

 

Will Murdoch Succeed in Burying His Past? (Maybe - with CAGS help)

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/01/08/will-murdoch-succeed-burying-his-past

 

 

 

"The publisher of the Sun and the defunct News of the World has settled 17 cases of phone hacking and illegally obtaining personal information, avoiding a high-profile court case.

The settlement means that a high court trial due to hear the 17 cases in October will no longer go ahead. The trial would have aired allegations of phone hacking at the Sun – which News Group has always denied – and could have led to James Murdoch being forced to take the stand as his family try to secure a controversial £11.7bn takeover of Sky."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/07/news-group-settles-17-cases-allegations-criminality-the-sun-phone-hacking

 

 

 

Like I said in the deleted thread

 

In what alternate universe is Murdock suddenly consider a fit person to 'steward' an major media enterprise in the UK - or anywhere

 

Maybe he should just stick to having posts and threads deleted ...

[sgtbush]

Just because its on the internet doesn't mean its true.

Your links to "information" on Murdocks doings, wether right or wrong were blogs and unsubstantiated links, the reports from tabloid papers were only reporting on meetings, which are normal.

Therefore, I would say that the links could of been construed as slanderous and not substantiated.

I read the links you posted and I thought they were iffy

[tobyjugg2]

Just because its on the internet doesn't mean its true.

Your links to "information" on Murdocks doings, wether right or wrong were blogs and unsubstantiated links, the reports from tabloid papers were only reporting on meetings, which are normal.

Therefore, I would say that the links could of been construed as slanderous and not substantiated.

I read the links you posted and I thought they were iffy

 

Really?

Since when were the minutes of a parliamentary select committee which was recorded and shown to millions, and the available details of a court case (and another yet to come with more people claiming illegal phone hacking) in any way 'unsubstantiated' or be considered 'slanderous'

 

Perhaps you should take up that rather contrived sounding opinion with the select committee who quite clearly defined Murdoch "not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company"

 

The links I posted were examples and I could also post the links to these same things in the FT, reuters and even a couple of mild ones from the Sun among a hundred others if you are OK with paywalls

 

 

 

We aren't talking about the unsubstantiated posted opinions of a sgtbush or the more lengthy but equally insubstantial and/or mistaken ericsbrother opinions here. These are reported on MAJOR international news services, court minutes and parliamentary select committee minutes as you would easily see if you looked for yourself - even the videos are still available.

I simply picked a few of the easier to read ones from a long long list to remind people.

 

More than happy to consider any suitable equivalent evidence either of you have which contradict them.

 

... If the thread doesnt get deleted that is.

 

and anyway, what makes you believe I posted that info?

[sgtbush]

Just because a parliamentary select committee says that, it does not mean its true.

 

Please remember where the roots of the word politics comes from.

 

Poly meaning many

And tiks meaning blood sucking!!!!!

 

What I'm saying is your links to blogs might of been the reason.

 

In truth I agree with your opinion but that does not mean you can sometimes shout your opinion from the rooftops.

[tobyjugg2]

Just because a parliamentary select committee says that, it does not mean its true.

 

So your (completely unsupported) stance is

Despite there being court documents, select committee minutes, and newspaper reports, as well as the videos showing it - doesn't mean its true.

Christ is Conniff back

 

What I'm saying is your links to blogs might of been the reason.

 

Well we'll never know will we and I was given NO opportunity to address any issue, and dont even know if what was was deleted was what I wrote.

(Not paranoia - we've seen posts amended and deleted and threads having their names changed derogatorily and threads deleted and closed here with one exception all without a murmer from the editors Enough for me to permanently add it to my sig.)

Theresa May would be both proud and jealous..

 

 

 

In truth I agree with your opinion but that does not mean you can sometimes shout your opinion from the rooftops.

 

As you are posting your entirely unsupported opinion here, contradicting a quite impressively supported opinion which you now say you actually agree with ...

Why do you think I cant or shouldn't post my opinion WITH those (far better than is normal) documented supporting links?

[sgtbush]

Look up the definition of the word 'forum'

My opinion does not have to have support but were as you wanted to provide links to 'blogs' that could be construded as slander, cag have the right to delete.

You agreed to this when you signed up.

Your links to the telegraph and guardian didn't report on the topic you were posting on. They only reported on meetings and not content of those meetings.

If you feel you have been hard done by, complain to cag.

As for quoting me on "sometimes you cant shout your opinion from The rooftops"

You cant.

[tobyjugg2]

Back to the thread topic:

 

what makes you think I did any of that?

 

The whole issue is that anything written on here could be different to what was intended by the person flagged as the 'writer'

 

You could be an intelligent person posting irrefutable logic with a plethora of entirely unimpeachable sources of support

... which someone here has changed into what we now see.