July 19, 2011

Murdoch Pie

I am having trouble getting my head around the absolute outrage being shat out about this non-story.

Case No 1: 80 year old man gets tased by the police. Twitter says fuck all.

Case No 2: 80 years old man gets a little shaving foam chucked at him. Twitter fucking erupts!















Furthermore, wife of old bloke No 2 assaults foam-chucker and no-one hauls her off to gaol.

Before you scream "WTF?", you should know that she is guilty of common assault. We all saw her attack the foam guy (who is an imbecile) when he was offering no threat to her whatsoever. She had absolutely no right to belt him one.

The imbecile, Johnny No Marbles, has managed to direct everyone's attention away from the (alleged) guilty old bastard and cleverly gets the world to sympathise with him.

FFS! I chuck shaving foam at myself every single day. It doesn't hurt. Not at all.

Grow the fuck up.

CR.

29 comments:

Snowolf said...

Not sure I entirely agree with you Cap'n.

Suppose Murdoch had rubbed a slice of quiche in the face of Joe Public, would that be acceptable?

Yes, the tazing of the old man is a more important story, although seeming by Twitter's reaction, not a more important one.

However, I would submit that hitting someone in the face with a custard pie is indeed assault - it is behaviour likely to make a reasonable person fear for their safety. At the expense of blowing the dog whistle, there could have been anything in that pie - lord knows there are enough nutters about who blame Murdoch for everything from global warming to the next door neighbour's bunions.

So, his good lady wife would surely be acting in self defence on his behalf.

The fact that he's an objectionable old bastard doesn't mitigate the assault. Is this not an incident of the old bill acting to uphold the common law?

Unfortunately I get the impression that this 'comedian', who has hitherto been unknown to anyone apart from his old mum, was going for his 15 minutes, rather than making any serious comment on Murdoch.

Captain Ranty said...

Snowy,

I am more upset about the disparity. An 80 year old unknown gets tased by bully boy cops and that is fine. An 80 year old billionaire cops for a bit of foam and all hell breaks loose.

I take your point about "there could have been anything in that pie" but there wasn't. And wifey isn't defending herself, she's assaulting someone. Ask any (half decent) copper. The law says that unless your "person" is threatened, you cannot go around belting people. The only person in that room who could possibly have carried out any self-defence, was Rupert Murdoch.

Yes, the pie hurling is/was assault and I'm sure the Labour apparatchik will be charged with assault, as he should be.

And yes, common law will be used to charge the fuckwit.

CR.

Snowolf said...

I agree with your point on the disparity entirely.

However, I'm not sure about the woman. Does this mean to say that if I spied a bloke who was about to give you a tonking with a cricket bat, and gave him a good kick in the bollocks to prevent such a tonking that I would then be guilty of assault? I was always under the impression that interceding to prevent an assault on another was a perfectly legal and defensible course of action.

Smoking Hot said...

Another point, they go on about security on how they can protect us and this moron gets through to a Select Commitee with a plastic carrier bag and contents!

What a farce!

Captain Ranty said...

Snowy,

The short answer is yes.

Different scenario, I know, but years ago when I was in the army, an RAF bloke punched me in the face as I made my way to the loo in one of the airfield bars in West Germany. Completely unprovoked. I went down. Got back up, and RAF Boy was stood there grinning at me. I lamped him. Down he went. I went for a pee. Next day, SIB show up at my unit lines, and the copper says to me "Just before you lamped him, did he look as if he was going to punch you again?". "No", says I. (Because that was the truth). Cop then arrests me and charges me with common assault. The charges were later dropped.

It really is quite black and white.

CR.

Captain Ranty said...

SH,

I have been wondering about that myself.

CR.

The Quizzical Observer said...

Captain, it's going to seem as if I only comment to disagree with you... but let me say first that I'm right with you on the 80-year old geezer. Outrageous.

However, moving onto the Family Murdoch. His wife had every right under common law to defend him. It's an established principle that one can use reasonable force to defend oneself - or anyone else - from unlawful harm. As cited, for example, in Beckford v R (1988) 1 AC 130: "A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."

On a similar principle, anyone - not just a warranted constable - is free to use reasonable force to prevent an offence being committed. Obviously courts have had to rule on what's 'reasonable'.

I very much doubt that under today's circumstances any court would convict Mrs Murdoch.

Captain Ranty said...

TQO,

It'll be tough, but I'll try to write something you like!

I would argue that Wendi was not responsible for Rupert, but House security was.

I am being picky here, but Madame Wendi did not belt the nutter to prevent an offence, she reacted after an offence had been committed.

I am absolutely certain no charges will be brought against her.

See! We can agree on some things.

CR.

The Quizzical Observer said...

Oh, Captain, My Captain, I like plenty of what you write :)

Yes, we are agreed no charges will be brought against her.

Now, if we had a Court of Good Taste with jurisdiction over her, that might be different...

Found A Voice said...

CR,

Whilst I accept your anger over the taser incident, I would be willing to bet that there would be even greater outrage if the 80 year old man happened to be tasered whilst live on prime time tv with the world's media watching.

THAT'S what's blown it out of proportion (and the fact that it was Murdoch).

Cheers,

FAV

Woodsy42 said...

I tend to disagree captain. I have no truck with Murdoch or NOTW's hacking. But I think the opportunity has been pounced on by the left wing media and especially the BBC to keep dissenting right wing opinions out of the media, and hence has some dangerous potential consequences.
As for assult by his wife, it most certainly was not, if some pillock assulted my wife I would be in there making sure he didn't stay around to continue the process or come back for a second go, and when I'm 80 I hope someone would be around to do so for me!

Anonymous said...

CR,

Completely with you on the disparity. But then today's shenanigans have more appeal to the Twitterati. Sad but true.

As to the idiot foam-chucker, well, Parliament has a bit of a habit for this sort of lax security (be it in the House or elsewhere), which, when exposed, tends to result on more restrictive regulations being imposed on everyone else.

I'm not entirely sure the world sympathises with Mr Activist though. He wasn't even protesting about the hacking, it's the usual "leftist" drivel about how Murdoch is evil simply because he's rich and owns a large multinational corporation, which they think has too much sway over public opinion on the basis that its publications and TV channels don't quite adhere to the statist agenda of the "left-liberal" media establishment. As usual they miss the point entirely, and completely (deliberately?) ignore the fact that the organisation that actually distorts the UK media market is not NewsCrap but their very own cherished BBC.

Disclaimer: I have little time for either corporation, or any other one for that matter, they all suck. The overall agendas of the BBC and Sky serve "higher" purposes, anyway. I don't pay for either of them and neither should you! :P

Rupes is looking a bit past it though.

Given the stated intent to punish people based on the fact that communications were intercepted illegally, I wonder how many times RIPA has been violated by intelligence agencies, government organisations and local councils during the same time period as the phone hacking saga?

Regards

TSL

James Higham said...

It doesn't hurt. Not at all.

Does when you inadvertently follow that with a careless slash of the razor. ;-)

Anonymous said...

Hey captain, it's to be expected to be honest though... In my opinion it's never been about real news, it's just what sells... Just another product of this crumbling system we find ourselves in! I couldn't really care less for murdoch, and even putting this article is giving him too much limelight... I'd love to hear your opinion on the whistleblowers death, and how the police tried to stop papers from reporting on the hacking, and how cameron is involved... I think someone needs to piece together what we know so far, to better show the level of corruption and conspiracy!.

Anonymous said...

Captain, you are spot on about the disparity but the real question is how the fcuk did the pie thrower get through security?

Becasue the establishment and its protectors (i.e. Police), are of the left and go out of their way to aid and abet this kind of behaviour or turn a blind eye to it. They want Murdoch's head on a plate and to destroy any kind of opposition to their left wing ideology.

That they can do this to an old man in his 80s illustrates what vile scum they are. The left are tyrants - just look at the trail of human misery and death they've left in their wake throughout history. They will brook no opposition, and it's all for the greater good after all.

Now they're like slavering dogs straining at the leash. They would happily kill anyone that doesn't agree with them. Be afraid - not for your safety, but for the strangling noose of the fascist left to grow ever tighter. That's the untold story. No ne gives a flying fcuk about the hacking - it's purely a means to an end for them.

David

analiensaturn said...

I see you used my artwork, i have taken it a bit further and made him into rasta Bob
http://uploadpic.org/v.php?img=2sZrhHZOGZ

Dave H said...

Unless someone produced some really good evidence, if I was on a jury trying his wife for common assault, I wouldn't find her guilty. Her husband had just been attacked without warning and I think she used entirely reasonable force in dealing with the assailant to prevent any continuation of that.

Of course, my first thought was that someone had thrown whitewash at him, but that's a different matter.

The sad thing is that it was a blow against the democratic process - those wishing to visit Westminster on legitimate business will now have a much worse ordeal getting in.

Anonymous said...

Don't agree with you, my friend. How do you know the assault was over after the initial 'pie', it could just as easily have continued with a punch or a kick. You don't know, Murdoch's wife did not know and she is entitled to defend her husband.

georgesilver said...

Foam guy. Looks like a set-up for distraction.

Having said that the following is my take.

"Rupert Murdoch denies knowledge of phone hacking or secret payments"

The point is he will be believed by all the people that matter and that benefit from him:

The Politicians
The Police
The Legal profession.

and the rest of the "media"

Oh yes they'll huff and they'll puff but the outcome will be "vindication" for the man who pulls their strings.

As for the tassered 80 year old. Welcome to the real World.

In the USA the police shoot to kill if you don't pay your train fare.

I am Stan said...

Wow what a woman eh, that old coffin dodger is a lucky man to have such an Oriental beauty to play the beast with two backs with at night oh yeeeeaaahh! I wonder what she finds attractive in him, she must like saggy skin and miserable face`s cause lets be honest Murcock looks like a melting frog.

tata

Anonymous said...

Look who was given a starring role by BBC Newsnight earlier this year.

The Beeb has, of course, mentioned this prominently, for the interests of impartiality.

Not.

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

Who gives a fuck what Twitter has to say on anything?

Murdoch is a cunt.

Robert Edwards said...

Captain, there is no linkage here. On the one hand we have stupid and feral police taking down some poor old bugger with technology which might well have killed him and on the other we have a total attention-seeking fucktard attempting to 'make a statement' (Aw, bless) regarding something he doesn't understand. Or care about. I understand that his membership of the Labour Party has been suspended. Question: Why was he allowed to join in the first place?
Answer: Oh, we'll just take the sub...



I understand that the

Anonymous said...

At least this guy had enough balls to make his protest. And he was successful, no mean feat considering that the odds were stacked against him.

Anonymous said...

'...the odds were stacked against him.'

Er - what odds?

David

Anonymous said...

the odds of getting past security and within touching distance of Murdoch without being stopped.

Anonymous said...

@Anon 16.18

There were not many odds, according to someone that was there:

"But what sort of security is it that lets a man into one of the most open buildings of Parliament with shaving foam in his bag? That could have been caustic soda, paint stripper, poison, acid….The security apparatus is showy but totally ineffective because the contents of bags aren’t searched properly. These people didn’t get in through having insider help, they just queued to get in, same as I did. And I’ve no idea what exactly was Mr Ginger’s role, but this was clearly no spontaneous attack."

Credit (and a much longer article, worth a read) goes to: http://hurryupharry.org/2011/07/20/my-day-alongside-murdochs-pie-chucker/.

They have airport-style scanners which people have to go through but if they don't bother searching the bags then there aren't really a lot of odds against them, are there? And they won't have police or security flanking the witnesses because it would look bad on TV.

And the result of this imbecilic stunt could be: no public attendance allowed at all. Which would allow for the committee meetings to be carefully "controlled" via the broadcast medium. They would become even more of a performance than they already are.

Regards

TSL

Anonymous said...

I'll bet they'll beef up security after this. Adding another barrier between the ruled and the ruler. Not good at all.

Damo

Anonymous said...

CR

A touch off-topic in respect of the original posting, but it is worth mentioning that the Leveson Inquiry into the media has significant Common Purpose infiltration via Sir David Bell and Shami Chakrabarti.

Bell is a Common Purpose Trustee and is also Chair of the Media Standards Trust, a Common Purpose front organisation, whilst Chakrabarti is a CP Masterclass Speaker.

The Media Standards Trust in particular needs considerable attention, given the very public way in which it has brought itself to the fore over the hacking affair. The BBC's Robert Peston is on the board of the MST in addition to being a member of Common Purpose whilst CP's founder, Julia Middleton, is its Deputy Chair.

And CP's infiltration of the Met is also strengthened, given that John Yates's replacement is that well-known CP supporter and networker (and "shoot-to-kill" policy enforcer) Cressida Dick.

Of course, the leaderships of the Lib-Lab-Con are fully paid up to the ethos of CP anyway and it has huge influence over the uber-secretive and worryingly Orwellian-titled "Behavioural Insight Team" that Call Me Dave set up in the Cabinet Office last year.

This sort of stuff is the real corrupting influence, IMO.

Regards

TSL