Rupert Murdoch quarrels with Australian Prime Minister Abbott


This video is called Berlusconi and Murdoch: Two Fascist Peas in the Pod?

Once upon a time, Rupert Murdoch and Italian fellow media mogul and politician Silvio Berlusconi were close friends. However, then a quarrel broke out about money in Italy.

This video fr0om the USA is called Rupert Murdoch Pressured Tony Blair Over Iraq. It says about itself:

18 June 2012

Rupert Murdoch joined in an “over-crude” attempt by US Republicans to force Tony Blair to accelerate British involvement in the Iraq war a week before a crucial House of Commons vote in 2003, according to the final volumes of Alastair Campbell’s government diaries. In another blow to the media mogul, who told the Leveson inquiry that he had never tried to influence any prime minister, Campbell’s diary says Murdoch warned Blair in a phone call of the dangers of a delay in Iraq.”

Once upon a time, Rupert Murdoch and British politician Tony Blair were close friends. Tony Blair became godfather to a Rupert Murdoch child. However, like in the film The Godfather, a conflict broke about; between Blair and Murdoch about Murdoch’s ex-wife.

Once upon a time, Rupert Murdoch and Australian politician Tony Abbott were close friends. However …

From daily The Independent in Britain:

Rupert Murdoch turns on golden boy Tony Abbott over Australian PM’s failure to show ‘courage and leadership’

Talk of climate change and a series of gaffes has left the premier vulnerable

Oliver Poole

Sunday 23 November 2014

Fourteen months ago, Rupert Murdoch‘s papers championed Tony Abbott as he headed for election victory to become Australia’s prime minister. Yesterday, that mutual admiration came to an abrupt end as the media baron’s most influential newspaper labelled him “languishing”, “looking flaky” and not “hard enough”.

An editorial in The Australian upbraided Mr Abbott for lacking an “authoritative voice” and failing to show “courage and leadership”. It said: “Mr Abbott must regroup, trust himself and speak with purpose. Right now his insipid default setting is losing the people.”

During the 2013 election campaign, the Murdoch press in Australia was accused of bias by Kevin Rudd, leader of the incumbent Labor Party. An analysis of coverage in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph by ABC’s Media Watch claimed that, in the first week of the election campaign, half of the paper’s 80 stories were slanted against the government, with none against the conservative opposition. Over the next two weeks, it said, 59 stories were against the government, while only four were slanted against the opposition. Just three stories were said to have been in favour of the government.

Australian broadcaster and journalist Mark Colvin described The Australian‘s attack as a “remarkable turnaround”.

“The portents for Mr Abbott as he approaches his second Christmas as prime minister look a lot less promising,” he said. “And when, in the same editorial, it asks, ‘Is Mr Abbott hard enough?’, The Australian has inevitably kindled speculation that Murdoch‘s editors may have a successor in mind,” Mr Colvin added. With two years until the next election, however, any major challenge to Mr Abbott’s leadership would be a surprise.

Before Mr Abbott entered politics, he worked as a journalist for The Australian and, to mark the paper’s 50th anniversary in July, he described it as Rupert Murdoch‘s “gift to our nation”. Mr Murdoch had previously hailed Mr Abbott as an “admirable, honest, principled man”.

The editorial came after the Australian prime minister said that climate change was an “important subject”, following talks with the French president François Hollande, last week. He had previously stated that, in his opinion, climate change was “absolute crap”.

Mr Abbott had faced pressure to place climate change on the agenda of the recent G20 meetings of world leaders in Brisbane.

Last week, Mr Abbott made the mistake of referring to China as Tasmania during a dinner with President Xi Jinping as he summed up the details of the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It was one of a number of gaffes during his tenure. In May, he was caught winking at a radio host in the middle of an interview when a phone-sex worker called into the programme. The incident was broadcast live by ABC.

‘British spies in child abuse cover-up’


This video from Britain is called Peter Watt and Simon Danczuk on Westminster child abuse inquiry.

From weekly The Observer in Britain:

Media ‘gagged over bid to report MP child sex cases

Security services accused of aiding Westminster paedophilia cover-up

Daniel Boffey, policy editor

Saturday 22 November 2014 11.33 GMT

The security services are facing questions over the cover-up of a Westminster paedophile ring as it emerged that files relating to official requests for media blackouts in the early 1980s were destroyed.

Two newspaper executives have told the Observer that their publications were issued with D-notices – warnings not to publish intelligence that might damage national security – when they sought to report on allegations of a powerful group of men engaging in child sex abuse in 1984. One executive said he had been accosted in his office by 15 uniformed and two non-uniformed police over a dossier on Westminster paedophiles passed to him by the former Labour cabinet minister Barbara Castle.

The other said that his newspaper had received a D-notice when a reporter sought to write about a police investigation into Elm Guest House, in southwest London, where a group of high-profile paedophiles was said to have operated and may have killed a child. Now it has emerged that these claims are impossible to verify or discount because the D-notice archives for that period “are not complete”.

Officials running the D-notice system, which works closely with MI5 and MI6 and the Ministry of Defence, said that files “going back beyond 20 years are not complete because files are reviewed and correspondence of a routine nature with no historical significance destroyed”.

Theresa May, home secretary, this month told the Commons that an official review into whether there had been a cover-up of the Home Office’s handling of child-abuse allegations in the 1980s had returned a verdict of “not proven”. The review, by Peter Wanless, the chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, was prompted by the discovery that 114 Home Office files related to child abuse in the 1980s had gone missing.

On Saturday night the Labour MP for Rochdale, Simon Danczuk, whose book Smile for the Camera exposed the child sex abuse of the late Liberal MP Cyril Smith, said it was a matter of deep concern that D-notice correspondence had also disappeared, presumed destroyed. D-notices to media outlets are rare, with just five sent in 2009 and 10 in 2010, according to a freedom of information response from Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance, secretary of the defence, press and broadcasting advisory committee, which oversees the system.

Danczuk said: “There are clearly questions to be answered as to why these documents were destroyed. They issue very few of them – where was the need to destroy correspondence?

“It feels like just another example of key documents from that period going missing. We need to know more about what has happened. The journalists who have said that D-notices were issued are respected people with no reason to lie.”

The two journalists, Don Hale, the former editor of the Bury Messenger, and Hilton Tims, news editor of the Surrey Comet between 1980 and 1988, both recall their publications being issued with D-notices around 1984. Tims, a veteran of the Daily Mail and BBC, where he was head of publicity for the launch of colour TV, said that his chief reporter had informed him that a D-notice had been issued to him after he tried to report on a police investigation into events at Elm Guest House, where Smith is said to have been a regular visitor.

Tims, 82, said: “One of the reporters on routine calls to the police learned that there was something going down at the guest house in Barnes. It was paedophilia, although that wasn’t the fashionable phrase at the time, it was ‘knocking up young boys’, or something like that.

“The reporter was told that there were a number of high-profile people involved and they were getting boys from a care home in the Richmond area. So I put someone on to it, the chief reporter I think, to make inquiries. It was the following day that we had a D-notice slapped on us; the reporter came over and told me. It was the only time in my career.”

Hale, who was awarded an OBE for his successful campaign to overturn the murder conviction of Stephen Downing, a victim of one of the longest-known miscarriages of justice, said he was issued with a D-notice when editor of the Bury Messenger. He had been given a file by Castle, by then an MEP, which had details of a Home Office investigation into allegations made by the Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens of the existence of a Westminster paedophile ring. The files contained the name of 16 MPs said to be involved and another 40 who were supportive of the goals of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which sought to reduce the age of consent.

Hale said he asked the Home Office for guidance on the dossier and the progress of the investigation but was stonewalled.

Hale said: “Then shortly after Cyril Smith bullied his way into my office. I thought he was going to punch me. He was sweating and aggressive and wanted to take the files away, saying it was a load of nonsense and that Barbara Castle just had a bee in her bonnet about homosexuals. I refused to give him the files.

“The very next day two non-uniformed officers, about 15 uniformed officers and another non-uniformed person, who didn’t introduce himself, came to the office waving a D-notice and said that I would be damaging national security if I reported on the file.”

BBC journalist hobnobbing with Britain First deputy fuehrer


Pictures from Japanese neo-Nazi Kazunari Yamada’s website show him posing with Shinzo Abe’s internal affairs minister, Sanae Takaichi, and his party’s policy chief, Tomomi Inada. Photograph: Guardian

First, there were the Japanese Rightist government ministers posing for a photo-op with the fuehrer of the Japanese neo-nazi party, smiling happily.

UKIP ACTIVISTS POSE WITH BRITAIN FIRST CANDIDATE JAYDA FRANSEN

Then came the UKIP activists, posing for a photo-op with the deputy fuehrer of the Britain First neo-nazi party, smiling happily.

Britain First's deputy fuehrer and Nick Robinson

Now, a Right wing BBC journalist, posing for a photo-op with the same deputy fuehrer; again, smiling happily.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain today:

Robinson under fire for Britain First snap

Media: BBC reporter Nick Robinson came under fire yesterday after being snapped with Britain First’s deputy leader.

The political editor faced an angry backlash after he posed with Jayda Fransen, the far-right group’s candidate in the Rochester and Strood by-election, during the count.

Mr Robinson, who once grabbed an anti-war placard [and] stamped on it during a live broadcast, apologised — claiming he agreed to the snap without knowing who she was.

This video is about Nick Robinson, so angry that so many people opposed the Iraq war, that he vandalized an anti-war placard.

Will killer of Michael Brown be indicted?


This video from the USA is called Michael Brown’s Mother: ‘Justice’ Will Restore the Peace in Ferguson.

By Andre Damon in the USA:

Decision imminent on whether to indict Ferguson cop in killing of Michael Brown

15 November 2014

A grand jury deciding whether to bring charges against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Missouri police officer who gunned down unarmed teenager Michael Brown in August, is concluding its proceedings, and is set to issue a ruling within days.

Local officials have said a ruling could come as early as this weekend, with one report claiming that it will likely come on Monday.

All information made public so far indicates authorities do not expect the grand jury to bring charges against Wilson. Instead, state, local, and federal officials are focusing on preparing a massive police and military response against renewed protests.

On Tuesday, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon said that he plans to mobilize the National Guard against protests in the event that a grand jury fails to bring charges against Wilson. “This is America,” Nixon said. …

“Violence will not be tolerated,” added the governor, as he vowed a police/military crackdown. Nixon himself backed the reign of violence and intimidation meted out by the police in August, when they tear-gassed and shot rubber bullets at peaceful protestors and jailed more than a dozen reporters.

In the days leading up to the expected decision, there has been a coordinated campaign by the media and state and local officials to paint Wilson as justified in killing Brown.

This campaign is being facilitated by a grand jury hearing that is in many ways unprecedented. St. Louis County prosecuting attorney Robert McCulloch is not bringing any specific set of charges against Wilson, but is instead asking jurors to come to their own conclusions about what charges to bring.

He is likewise providing the grand jury with an enormous amount of evidence, including testimony from Wilson himself, which has been selectively leaked through major media outlets. “The grand jury is probably going to hear more about this case than any other grand jury has heard about any other case in living memory,” legal expert Peter A. Joy told the New York Times Friday.

“The stunt that the county prosecutor is pulling seeks to deny the right to have a public trial and to have a jury made up of representatives of the population to hear the evidence for themselves,” said John Burton, a police misconduct lawyer in Los Angeles County and a writer for the World Socialist Web Site.

“A grand jury has nothing in common with a jury trial: it is secret, and it is not adversarial,” added Burton. “In a grand jury proceeding the people do not get the benefit of a public trial, which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Opposition to secret trials was very much part of what the American Revolution was all about.

“The grand jury trial can be manipulated by the prosecutor. It is being used as a cover so that the prosecutor does not have to publicly announce that the is not going to bring charges against Wilson.”

If it had been Michael Brown who was accused of having shot officer Wilson with more than a half-dozen witnesses to attest to it, there is little doubt that Brown would have been arrested and charges would have been drawn up immediately.

Under the law, the state has the responsibility to bring charges against those who violate the law. In this case, the prosecutor has already shirked this responsibility. In failing to recommend any specific charges against the Wilson, McCulloch is essentially giving up his adversarial relationship to the police officer. This is why Wilson felt comfortable testifying before a grand jury, something lawyers would typically advise their clients never to do.

Sources close to the grand jury proceeding—and in all likelihood close to the prosecutor himself—have selectively released a stream of information from the secret proceedings that has been presented in major media outlets as pointing to Wilson’s exoneration. Both the New York Times and Washington Post published selective accounts of grand jury testimony, both claiming that the evidence indicated that Wilson shot Brown in self-defense.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in publishing the previously unreleased autopsy of Michael Brown, said that its findings indicated that Brown was reaching for Wilson’s gun, using quotes from a forensic pathologist who subsequently said the newspaper misrepresented her positions.

It is notable that the grand jurors in the case have not been sequestered, meaning that it is likely that they would be affected by the biased media coverage based on selective leaks of evidence that they received first hand.

In the event that a grand jury does bring charges against Wilson, the findings of a jury trial will have already been polluted by the selective leaking of information from the grand jury hearing.

In an article posted on theroot.com Thursday, Washington-based reporter Lauren Victoria Burke reported that officials held a conference call Wednesday with Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder, in which they set Monday as the day that they will announce the grand jury’s findings.

She clarified in an email to the WSWS that her source was someone “very high up” who was in the Wednesday call, but that she could not provide additional details.

According to Burke, the discussion in Wednesday’s meeting focused not on whether Wilson would be indicted—that was presented as a given. Rather, it focused on whether Wilson and Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson would face any administrative discipline within the police department.

She wrote, “Several elected officials on the call were said to be pushing for no punishment or career repercussions for Wilson or Jackson—meaning that they not be fired from their respective positions after the grand jury’s announcement.”