Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I read it at the weekend before this happened though, and it's pretty out there.
ROSCOE: Well I would find it within Rupert Murdoch's rights to block if someone decided to report a sensationalist, largely speculative, libellous, and sleazy article about him
ROSCOE: You're right to be silent Marlon as there is no irony here whatsoever
MARLON: Actually I was just in the process of thinking...
ROSCOE: Non canon Marlon, remember?
MARLON: Oh yeah. Also yeah I didnt see any irony and I was looking realy hard and everything
That site is blocked for me.
Stupid work firewall.
it's still cached on Google: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:q9gdBI9oun8J:gawker.com/did-rebekah-brooks-fuck-rupert-murdoch-and-his-son-lach-926651851+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
In the wake of the news that Rupert Murdoch has filed for divorce against Wendi Deng, people seem to be entering the above-referenced search terms''
As the Attorney General of England & Wales surely has no jurisdiction there ...
to the Internet cafes of Gretna!
Dunno about legality
This is a reply to BITT below
seems to be
but I'm using my mobile phone (does that make a difference?)
Probably why he headbutted that horse.
And I guess we now know which horse it was too.
what is wrong with these people
"Correction: Brooks has never been represented by Alexander Cameron, but she has been represented in the past by an attorney who is a member of Cameron's legal chambers. While we contacted that chambers, we did not contact Brooks' criminal attorney before publishing this story."
someone who was at some point brooks' lawyer works in the same chambers as alex cameron, apparently
i just read the main bits and got incredulously outraged without verifying anything.
it's like 10,000 spoons
or parents, or a childhood
because the government didn't support opportunities for those kids that wanted to get on life.
careful! You might get bercow'd!
if there's no actual evidence she could sue the pants off them for slander.
she would have to show that it was untrue on the balance of probabiities to win a defamatoin case and that's going to be a bit hard for her to do. (also, to amount to defamatoin, the untruths have to have a detrminental effect on your reputation, and tbh I don't think she has much of a reputation left to protect anyway.) ALLEGEDLY.
which are sort of accusing her of infidelity (or partaking in infidelity, I'm actually unsure of whether either Rupert, Lachlan or Rebekah were married when this was supposed to have taken place) are impacting on her reputation? Also wouldn't they actually need to produce the emails at some point to defend themselves?
I would be very surprised if the protagonists involved would support court action here
it just seemed strange to me how something this specific could so easily have been concocted out of thin air.
Not that that makes it beyond reproach and true - I don't know if any of this is true or not - but presumably they feel they have enough material to publish on, and back that up if tested.
but it's really hard to cover something up when practically EVERBODY in politics, media and business are openly discussing it and when so few are challenging it for being the outrageous lie that it (ahem) possibly is.
So until any solid evidence that may exist does come to light, that's about all there is to say on it.
only 'no comment' or vague 'false accusations'
And I know you can get semantic on what Brook's lawyer means by 'false accusations', but I would consider both of those a denial.
what about these rumours though ? *points*
Before she goes on trial in September Rebekah Brooks is reportedly nipping down to Australia for a break that, as it happens, coincides with one taken by her former boss Rupert Murdoch.....Those who know her say she remains close to Murdoch and may even harbour a desire to return to working with him.
Please raise your hand if you HAVEN'T shagged Brooksie.
Both hands please
surely they're all a bunch of crooked cunts and Cameron is too
hang the lot of 'em
and there seem to be a neverending lineup of men coming out of the woodwork as being involved with her.
Nice work if you can get it.
because they can't charge a husband and wife for the same crime
I know Britain's libel laws are very, very far from perfect (and I know the main issue here is contempt) – but I'm glad our press are held back from publishing entirely speculative articles about who a married person may or may not have fucked
it's reporting on speculation
the two aren't that dissimilar at this stage gawker could have made pretty much every claim in that article up.
A source close to the midfielder revealed that he was 'shocked' and 'distraught' at the actions of his club etc.
so I don't care.
can't seem to delete the copy-paste.
Think the cache needed some new posts to be posted for it vanish.
Although it didn't take much looking to find.