StraferJack

But the fact that a national newspaper would have said that before they were cleared (as opposed to afterwards) doesn't strike you as prejudicial? I admit I did lift the quotes from another site and meant to annotate as much, but I remember the tone if the paper at the time as being pretty similar. But fair enough I'll look into it Some more

Have I missed something. Has what mullin said contradicted what I said. Is it because I said "on day of release". I'll look into that some more Not really sure anything you said materially changes what I'm saying about the suns position tho

did I?? oooh only inadvertently I assure you ... I feel bad now

found dead today... but not suspicious. Apparently

I don't like it. There... I said it I don't like it much, to be more accurate. I get it. I see what it does. It just seems a bit leaden and obvious. It will occasionally raise a titter but I keep seeing "as ever the Daily Mash says it best" and I read the link and think.... really? I don't think the Onion is a patch on it's former self either but I still find it more amusing

Why now? It's not for want of trying in 2005 and 2009 but this article provides some good background Bren - I suspect the surprise and sudden expressions of indignation are more to do with the lifting of fear of reprisals rather than any sudden insight. That in itself is pretty damning.. that so many people could be so cowed by just a leeetle newspaper. Think of the other media behemoth that people like to complain about- the BBC. Do you think there is a person in the country who is in any way intimidated by what info the BBC might hold over them? I don't

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that however widespread hacking is, not many other newspapers would be involved in hacking the phones of dead children and deleting messages If this was just about hacking there is not a chance so much damage would have been done so far. NI would have produced a dossier proving every other paper was at it and the whole thing would have blown over This whole thing reeks of something MUCH bigger, yes involving police corruption, but despite all the resignations, we aren't seeing even close to the full picture yet IMO So whilst yes, the story started as "hacking", that aspect is only the tiny keyhole into the whole mess

And so you never got to That Bit Which I'm still bothered by for some reason

Have youplayed portal 1? You can download it for 800 points on xbox live. You don't NEED to but you can at least try the demo and see if the mechanic works for you. (NB: it didn't click with me for months and it just sat there annoying me as everyone else in the world raved about it) I think #2 is more newbie friendly tho... I would lend you mine but I'm looking to do the co-op puzzles with someone next

Finished Portal 2 at the weekend (not a long game I know, but I don't get as much gaming time these days) When I started the game I loved it, and by the end I loved it even more Proper laugh out loud funny all the way through, some disturbing areas which hint at a bigger world, IMMENSLEY satisfying puzzles - this game had them all It's not perfection, but of all the things I buy in small plastic boxes (cds, dvds, games) it stands as the best I've bought in years.

So even with a right-wing government it manages to simultaneously promulgate a left of centre pov whilst simultaneously accepting government propoganda uncritically? I'm almost impressed BUt regardless of your view on the BBC's output, it can't be denied that for such a large organisation it has more regulation and controls in place than Murdoch would entertain even at his most benign. And they don't publish a single newspaper, which is still the main topic at hand.. the newspaper business and the conduct therin. The problem wasn't JUST the size of one man's media empire, but the power it had and what they did with it. If it was just promoting right of centre views it wouldn't be so bad . But as we see, that power was largely derived by almost mafia-like domination by fear, based on "dirt" whcih was sytematically dug up, just to have in their back pocket. I don't think there is much disagreement that investigative journalism needs to employ some under the radar methods to obtain results, but the end must justify the means. And the NI end was as far from a noble one as is possible. Indeed, some of the examples MM uses above are good examples of what has got us to this point. Cecil Parkinson and John Prescott's affairs? Are they really worth the man hours? the Birmingham Six? What did The Sun have to say about them? On the day of their release the front page headline read LOONY MP BACKS BOMB GANG. An editorial said, 'If the Sun had it's way, we would have been tempted to string 'em up years ago Long live a free press, but don't shed any tears for the back of this powerbase

This whole thing is getting more surreal by the day If spaceships took off from wapping tomorrow I wouldn't be surprised at this stage

It matters for two reasons One. Any forum becomes unusable when it's a mess Two and more importantly. If I want to partake in a discussion and there are three threads open which one do I use. Let's say I pick one arbitrarily, only to find someone else makes a point in another one I want to respond to. So ee both go and cross post in the other one...and on and on it goes It's basic etiquette and it does matter. Unless you are Aidan gillens character in the film of course

There is a thread already here OM http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,541742,706211#msg-706211

Not countdown itself... But one of those countdown shows Top 10 worst things to do in the summer At #9, BBQ And then after Stuart maconie does his bit (it's the law) you do your original post...

Longsocksofthelane The. Same. One. Note. Scratched. Record.

"If it dies on your doorstep because it was poisoned, surely it is ok to feel sorry for the wretched beast. And people carry disease too. Should we eradicate everyone suffering from a communicable disease because they might just transmit it to us?" That bit

Katie you've either gone to the wrong bbqs, or you are auditioning for a pundit role in an itv4 countdown show They can be brutal yes... But a good one is a thing of joy (BBQ that is, not an itv4 countdown show)

I'm sure that idea has been used before very good tho

Quote: That, and the Guardian doesn?t have tits. Brendan, just tees them up..... And Loz smacks 'em down the fairway

so cockroaches? snakes? you would feel just as sentimental? keeping on top of vermin and eradicating human beings? Nice equivalence

Brendan, just tees them up.....

plenty of reviews out - almost all 3 or 4 stars Peter Bradshaw's review in the Guardian today was 3 stars but read like 4 - but I think that's about right I love the film, it's one of my favourite of the last few years and I will be going to the cinema (and can't wait) , but it's a teeeny tiny thing, made for pennies. 4 and 5 stars across the board would crush it!

Quite so Jeremy, and hopefully my many many anti-tabloid posts in the pasts make it obvious where I stand on that score. But watching people this morning I did think "still? you are still buying the sun this week after everything that's happened?"

To shift the focus away from the Murdoch Clan briefly (pausing only to say give me Elisabeth over Rebekaah any day), judging by the number of people I see reading the Sun on the bus this week I can't help feeling that the real problem isn't Rupert himself