Murdoch Describes Sun Readers As Perverts
Turk182
Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
and women in general. The paedophile paper, which even taught parents
how to assault their children in a way that the law couldn't get them
for, even used to publish pictures of under-age girls - now it simply
grooms young girls into believing that they can't be a woman unless
they have breast enlargements.
This, by the way, is the same Rupert Murdoch whose corrupt media
empire, has just staged managed a public backlash against two of it's
own employees - amazingly, over sexist comments! One of those accused
was just about to take his employer to court - a complete co-incidence
of course!
His is a gruesome cancer of toxic media influence over politics which
has now raised it's presence to the level of a glaring enflamed
tumour. This vile Murdoch operation which promotes porn ahead of
psychology, has to be destroyed, rather than empowered with even more
access and control of our media networks.
This shrivelled man of shifty appearance, is desperate to cling on to
British revenue, as his flagship comic, 'The Sun', is dwindling
rapidly to the point of now being irrelevant.
Low intelligence media has long been Murdoch's hallmark - but the tide
has turned. The public want facts and truth, not stories about tits
and biased news stories sponsored by his chums in Westminster and the
Police service. (This of course being the same police service who
taught his reporters how to hack phones).
The crucial point that Murdoch's so called news 'empire' missed, was
that had it been a male ref 'suspected' of making a wrong offside
decision, he would have been labelled a 'tosser, 'pratt', 'stupid
cunt', 'loser' or 'arse 'ole'. Yet this was a WOMAN thought to have
got it wrong (though in fact she hadn't) So she was respectfully
spared the vile abuse and the possible throwing of sharpened coins
that a man may have faced, and instead a sexist remark was made, and
that was that!
The amazing thing as I see it, is that men will expect abuse of a wide
and vicious nature - but a woman will feel that simply being
identified as a bit less effective than a man and being tasty etc is
the end of the world!
The Sun put a picture of one of Murdoch's own employees on their front
page and described him as a "perv". Effectively, Murdoch's 'own
goal', is that he is effectively calling every Sun reader who likes a
bit of tit and bum - a pervert - for that is the diet enforced by his
rag.
Having worked among women all the time, I cannot understand how womern
are being made into a protected species on put downs, when they too
are hideously sexist in many of the things they say!
I attended university on a subject to do with psychology, and was
taught by well read and educated women, who relentlessly emphasied the
importance of being aware of our prejudices. We put up with many
lectures where it was pointed out to us that women are always the
victims of men. On the last day of the course, I passed the course
director as she was looking up at the leaking university roof; and she
had not seen me. She said as she stared at the water dropping down,
"look at this roof, it must have been designed by a man'.
Remember this; it's always a 'bit of humour' when a woman's doing it -
but when a man does it - that's sexism!
Turk182
Rasta Pickles
I find it amusing that Murdoch's Sky felt the need to sack two male
presenters for sexism when Murdoch's Sun has, for as long as I
remember, published some piece with her baps out on page 3.
Rumour has it that Gray was pushed because of the impending legal
action he's pursuing against N.O.W for phone hacking.........time will
tell.
Paul Hyett
in uk.legal :
>The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
>Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
>comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
>and women in general. The paedophile paper, which even taught parents
>how to assault their children in a way that the law couldn't get them
>for, even used to publish pictures of under-age girls
If you're talking about those of Samantha Fox, back in the 80's, well it
was legal to publish such photos of 16yo girls then - and besides,
there's no way *ANYONE* could have mistaken *her* for an under-age
child! :p
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
joe
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 at 17:53:11, Turk182 <digital...@aol.com>
> wrote in uk.legal :
>
> > The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the
> > Sun- Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time
> > published his comic for adults. It's a paper which has
> > traditionally abused girls and women in general. The paedophile
> > paper, which even taught parents how to assault their children in a
> > way that the law couldn't get them for, even used to publish
> > pictures of under-age girls
>
> If you're talking about those of Samantha Fox, back in the 80's, well
> it was legal to publish such photos of 16yo girls then - and besides,
> there's no way ANYONE could have mistaken her for an under-age child!
> :p
I dont feel like a paedo, but I would've, gone for her.
--
me
Turk182
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 at 17:53:11, Turk182 <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote
There were other children that the perverted Sun exploited. If we
judge morality by the law, we're all sunk. The Sun wanted naked
children and was keen to exploit them just as it is pleased to exploit
young 'women' in it's TV porn streaming. This is not a media
organisation that has any respect for women - though it has even less
for men. It is anti-empowerment, anti-humanity and deliberately
corrupt in it's handling and acquisition of news.
Murdoch is a parasite and has skewed and cheated the voting process
for his own political and financial advantage and will continue to do
so. It was not just a fun outing that took Blair half way round the
world to appear before Murdoch prior to his last election.
To look at the mindset, just pick up the paper (if you can stand it)
and look. Whether it's fresh off the press or lying discarded - it
always looks grubby - just as Murdoch does himself. It is the paper
that manipulates the people who most need enlightenment. It holds
back civilisation - less so now it's circulation has crashed. But
since Murdoch now regard leering males as perverts, we should see the
circulation fall even firther - as most of his readers simply buy The
Sun for the sexually immature content.
Turk182
True Blue
> Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
> comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
> and women in general. The paedophile paper,
Yawn.....
The Peeler
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
>Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
>comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
>and women in general.
It has? Don't they get paid much more for taking their tops off for
10 minutes than they would working a whole day in a fish canning
factory?
sutartsorric
All very true, but unfortunately Murdoch is very rich - and the very
rich have many ways of getting exactly what they want. In his case it
will be threatening to switch the allegiance of all his popular
newspapers to support for the opposition.
Every politician likes to think they are big, brave and all-powerful,
but when faced with a threat as simple as possibly losing millions of
votes in a few months they will all bow and scrape and crawl on their
hands and knees begging to be told what they have to do in order to
make that nightmare go away.
I realise the sight of David Cameron prostrate at the shoes of Murdoch
blubbing like a child is probably more than many of you right wingers
on here can take, so I will add that there would be no other witnesses
to the event except maybe another Murdoch family member, and the story
will be kept well hidden from the public - there is no need to fret.
So, I am afraid we are destined to have Murdoch TV versus the BBC, and
Murdoch press versus the Guardian Media Group. That will be the future
alternatives. If you dont like them I suggest you pray for a very
immediate lottery win, followed by a retirement to an isolated house
hidden in the middle of a 1000 acre conifer forest that you may soon
be able to purchase at a knock down price (all puns intended).
The Peeler
psychopath of sci and scj, FAKING his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:
<BG> Just another reason for you to hate those women folks, eh, Rev Pedo,
you hilarious housebound frustrated imoptent loser from London?
BTW, psycho, your fake time stamps still keep sticking out like a sore thumb
in any thread! LOL
--
The top 5 truths about our resident psychopath, The Retard:
the desperate psycho can't SLEEP anymore,
he can't get out of the house anymore,
he got NOBODY to talk to anymore,
he can't FUCK anymore,
he got no life outside Usenet AT ALL!
Steve O
I've often wondered who is being taken advantage of- the 18 year old
topless model who earns enough to buy her own home at 21 or the 18 year
old nurse who gets paid a pittance and is abused regularly on weekend
evenings.
Cynic
wrote:
>If you're talking about those of Samantha Fox, back in the 80's, well it
>was legal to publish such photos of 16yo girls then - and besides,
>there's no way *ANYONE* could have mistaken *her* for an under-age
>child! :p
Yes, it is indeed strange how a 16 year old in those days would suffer
no harm from having her photo in a national newspaper, yet nowadays
the *same* image on a private computer would cause that same person
(now a woman) serious emotional damage and amounts to an image of her
being abused.
--
Cynic
JNugent
Do you have a list of books you'd like to burn as well?
JNugent
Ooh, I dunno...
I could more easily imagine Gordon Brown in that position though.
Couldn't you?
Wasn't it Gordo whose accession caused the return of the Sun to the Tory fold?
Rasta Pickles
>
> was legal to publish such photos of 16yo girls then - and besides,
> there's no way *ANYONE* could have mistaken *her* for an under-age
> child! :p
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Who'd have thought she'd turn out to be a dyke?
And wasn't it "bonking" Mike Gabbert who published a topless pic of a
15 year old in the "ooh-ahh-Daily-Star-I-said-ooh-ahh-Daily-Star"?
The Peeer
wrote:
In reality, neither: both occupations are entirely voluntary.
The Peeler
psychopath of sci and scj, FAKING his time zone again, wrote:
>>>> The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
>>>> Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
>>>> comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
>>>> and women in general.
>>>
>>> It has? Don't they get paid much more for taking their tops off for
>>> 10 minutes than they would working a whole day in a fish canning
>>> factory?
>>
>>
>>I've often wondered who is being taken advantage of- the 18 year old
>>topless model who earns enough to buy her own home at 21 or the 18 year
>>old nurse who gets paid a pittance and is abused regularly on weekend
>>evenings.
>
> In reality, neither: both occupations are entirely voluntary.
Not more voluntarily than you "voluntarily" making a complete ass of
yourself online around the clock, year after year, poor The Retard! <G>
Paul Hyett
in uk.legal :
>>
>> If you're talking about those of Samantha Fox, back in the 80's, well it
>> was legal to publish such photos of 16yo girls then - and besides,
>> there's no way *ANYONE* could have mistaken *her* for an under-age
>> child! :p
>
>judge morality by the law, we're all sunk.
I tend to agree - the law should be based on current morality, not vice
versa.
> The Sun wanted naked
>children and was keen to exploit them just as it is pleased to exploit
>young 'women' in it's TV porn streaming. This is not a media
>organisation that has any respect for women - though it has even less
>for men. It is anti-empowerment, anti-humanity and deliberately
>corrupt in it's handling and acquisition of news.
>
>Murdoch is a parasite and has skewed and cheated the voting process
>for his own political and financial advantage and will continue to do
>so. It was not just a fun outing that took Blair half way round the
>world to appear before Murdoch prior to his last election.
>
>To look at the mindset, just pick up the paper (if you can stand it)
>and look. Whether it's fresh off the press or lying discarded - it
>always looks grubby - just as Murdoch does himself. It is the paper
>that manipulates the people who most need enlightenment. It holds
>back civilisation - less so now it's circulation has crashed. But
>since Murdoch now regard leering males as perverts, we should see the
>circulation fall even firther - as most of his readers simply buy The
>Sun for the sexually immature content.
Come on, what do you *really* think... :p
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Paul Hyett
uk.legal :
AIUI, even if the girl took the naked picture herself. 8)
The law is bizarre - you can legally shag a 16yo girl, but cannot film
yourself doing so, even if you were married to her. :(
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
JNugent
That must be a terrible problem for some.
My heart bleeds for them.
Paul Hyett
in uk.legal :
I assume you refer to the 2nd part, rather than the first. :)
Can I infer then, that you oppose the AoC being set as low as 16, Jon?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Johannes
Turk182 wrote:
>
> The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
> Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
> comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
> and women in general. The paedophile paper, which even taught parents
> how to assault their children in a way that the law couldn't get them
> for, even used to publish pictures of under-age girls - now it simply
> grooms young girls into believing that they can't be a woman unless
> they have breast enlargements.
>
> This, by the way, is the same Rupert Murdoch whose corrupt media
> empire, has just staged managed a public backlash against two of it's
> own employees - amazingly, over sexist comments! One of those accused
> was just about to take his employer to court - a complete co-incidence
> of course!
>
> His is a gruesome cancer of toxic media influence over politics which
> has now raised it's presence to the level of a glaring enflamed
> tumour. This vile Murdoch operation which promotes porn ahead of
> psychology, has to be destroyed, rather than empowered with even more
> access and control of our media networks.
[...]
Movie citation: "Where are you now? Just stay there and you will be
perfectly alright..."
allantracy
> I find it amusing that Murdoch's Sky felt the need to sack two male
> presenters for sexism when Murdoch's Sun has, for as long as I
> remember, published some piece with her baps out on page 3.
>
Page 3 girls are treated with respect, invited to offer their
viewpoints on the major news stories of the day as well as getting
their baps out.
Gray and Day’s comment were not just sexist they were also nasty,
spiteful and verging on bullying.
They’ve been painted as dinosaurs, out of date in the modern age.
Well I’m old enough to remember a more gentle age and I can’t remember
when such rude behaviour would ever have been considered acceptable.
You wouldn’t have caught Sergeant Wilson speaking like that and
Godfery would have said it was all rather course.
Turk182
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:53:11 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>
> >The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
> >Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
> >comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
> >and women in general.
>
> It has? Don't they get paid much more for taking their tops off for
> 10 minutes than they would working a whole day in a fish canning
> factory?
The abuse of girls, is not particulalry of the girls who get paid for
showing their bodies; but the abuse as I see it is on humanity -
particulalry women and girls, for this is not a paper that values
modesty; it denies women the confort of being able to live in their
skin without faking their appearance and sexual behaviour. It is the
paper that has traditionally had so little respect for the ugly, the
fat or the flat chested. It is the paper that would barely mention
the female rape or muder victim who was plain or ugly or had curly
hair and was black or asian - yet it is the paper that will stop the
press and hold for the front page for an attractive blonde who has her
knickers stolen off a clothes line. It is the crass devaluation of
the human being, particulalry women, that makers this paper and
insidious non-contributor to the dignity and value of mankind. The
Sun has a retarding effect on the progress of the species - but the
good news, is that like religion, the public are beginning to see
through it's shallowness.
The Sun is also one of the papers that supported the brutal massacre
of innocent men, women and children when it played it's tune to the
tune of Blair and Bush - for nothing less than the influence it could
gain by helping those evil liars in their moment of need. It is the
paper which is so often rewads by soldiers, yet was instrumental in so
many going to their death.
It is a paper with no standards, which chooses to look down on the
world in it's moralistic tirades, yet has not an ounce of appreciation
of the damage it has done as it became complicit in every prejudice,
in every act of violence it provoked and in every bad decision which
the politicians it sponsored carried out.
The Sun has been a wasted excercise, as it claimed to represent the
ordinary man and woman, but instead cheapend, devalued and exploited
the weakest people, rather than help them get ahead and to develop
self-awareness and insight. The result now, is a Sun population of
battery hens. Lost kids, lost adults and a society which thinks to
own a big screen and to grow big breasts means 'you've made it'.
They are 'The Murdoch - Mcdonalds Genation' - fat, spotty,
unemployable, raped, stabbed, violated and violent, broke, fatherless
and on benefits - with no idea of the value of their inner beauty as
humans
Turk182
johannes
Turk182 wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 3:28 pm, The Peeler <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
> > On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:53:11 -0800 (PST), Turk182
[...]
>
> They are 'The Murdoch - Mcdonalds Genation' - fat, spotty,
> unemployable, raped, stabbed, violated and violent, broke, fatherless
> and on benefits - with no idea of the value of their inner beauty as
> humans
Hmm. You don't have believe in everything you see, hear or read, you know...
The SUN has many uses, e.g. like stopping an oil leak when you have lost the
drain plug...
Turk182
....which improves it's appearance! ......Unlike that of the
oleaginous Murdoch!
Turk182
The Peeler
<digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Jan 28, 3:28�pm, The Peeler <peeling...@invalid.admin> wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:53:11 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>>
>> <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
>> >Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
>> >comic for adults. �It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
>> >and women in general. �
>>
>> It has? �Don't they get paid much more for taking their tops off for
>> 10 minutes than they would working a whole day in a fish canning
>> factory?
>
>The abuse of girls, is not particulalry of the girls who get paid for
>showing their bodies; but the abuse as I see it is on humanity -
>particulalry women and girls, for this is not a paper that values
>modesty; it denies women the confort of being able to live in their
>skin without faking their appearance and sexual behaviour. It is the
>paper that has traditionally had so little respect for the ugly, the
>fat or the flat chested.
Who needs them?
The Peeler
psychopath of sci and scj, FAKING his time zone again and IMPERSONATING his
master, The Peeler, wrote:
>>The abuse of girls, is not particulalry of the girls who get paid for
>>showing their bodies; but the abuse as I see it is on humanity -
>>particulalry women and girls, for this is not a paper that values
>>modesty; it denies women the confort of being able to live in their
>>skin without faking their appearance and sexual behaviour. It is the
>>paper that has traditionally had so little respect for the ugly, the
>>fat or the flat chested.
>
> Who needs them?
What's your psychopathic point again, poor The Retard, you hilarious
housebound frustrated vengeful impotent loser from London? Come on, show us
your notorious psychopathic "thought processes"! <BG>
Big Les Wade
>The abuse of girls, is not particulalry of the girls who get paid for
>showing their bodies; but the abuse as I see it is on humanity -
>particulalry women and girls, for this is not a paper that values
>modesty; it denies women the confort of being able to live in their
>skin without faking their appearance and sexual behaviour.
Oh, rubbish. How can it "deny" that to the millions of women who do not
give a fuck about the Sun?
Or are you saying that women who are old, fat and ugly tend to be
slightly ashamed about that fact when confronted with women who are
young, slim and pretty? Well, yes, they often are. But that's not
"abuse", it's an unfortunate fact that is endemic to civilisation. It's
not the Sun's doing, any more it is the Sun's doing that some tennis
players are better than others.
>It is the paper that has traditionally had so little respect for the
>ugly, the fat or the flat chested.
It doesn't choose them for page 3, no. But that's not because of the
preferences of the people who publish the Sun. It's because of the
predilections of those who might buy it. So much is obvious.
--
Les
Rasta Pickles
>
> You wouldn’t have caught Sergeant Wilson speaking like that and
> Godfery would have said it was all rather course.
Then you'll also have been around in the 70s with the likes of Bernard
Manning on our screens.
Times change and attitudes change (not for the better).
FWIW I'd long for a return to the attitudes of Wilson and
Godfrey........but it aint gonna happen.
Try holding a door open for a young "lady" these days - if you get so
much as an acknowledgement 3 times out of 100 you've done
well........I find it particularly amusing when they look at you as if
you're some kind of pervert........a polite "it's called manners my
dear" usually sends them into a fit of apoplexy :-)
Clive George
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 09:09:22 -0800, Rasta Pickles boggled us with:
> places, and I shop in High Wycombe, Reading and Slough.
I was trying to work out what my experience was with this, and I
realised I don't hold doors open for ladies, I hold them open for people.
Ophelia
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:k5OdnRdGe8ADPNjQ...@brightview.co.uk...
As do I :) I must admit it is the young ones who sail through without a
word. These days, I say loudly....YOU ARE WECOME!!!!!!!!
bod
I have to agree about the young ones.
--
Bod
JNugent
> On Jan 29, 6:29 pm, allantracy<allanbintr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> You wouldn’t have caught Sergeant Wilson speaking like that and
>> Godfery would have said it was all rather course.
> Then you'll also have been around in the 70s with the likes of Bernard
> Manning on our screens.
Why, what did *he* say on our screens?
{I'm well aware of what he might have said on a social club stage, but that's
not "our screens".]
> Times change and attitudes change (not for the better).
> FWIW I'd long for a return to the attitudes of Wilson and
> Godfrey........but it aint gonna happen.
> Try holding a door open for a young "lady" these days - if you get so
> much as an acknowledgement 3 times out of 100 you've done
> well........I find it particularly amusing when they look at you as if
> you're some kind of pervert........a polite "it's called manners my
> dear" usually sends them into a fit of apoplexy :-)
Yes... I've experienced that. I nowadays make a point of not giving up a seat
(except in... er... exceptional cases) on PT.
Not that I'm often on PT.
Freddy
TURK182...ur a cunt....but I like u
MM
wrote:
Why do you need acknowledgement for all those good things that you do?
MM
MM
wrote:
>On 28/01/2011 15:28, The Peeler wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:53:11 -0800 (PST), Turk182
>> <digital...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The two faced rodent Rupert Murdoch, publisher of The Sun (now the Sun-
>>> Setting as it's readership halves!) has for a long time published his
>>> comic for adults. It's a paper which has traditionally abused girls
>>> and women in general.
>>
>> It has? Don't they get paid much more for taking their tops off for
>> 10 minutes than they would working a whole day in a fish canning
>> factory?
>
>
>I've often wondered who is being taken advantage of- the 18 year old
>topless model who earns enough to buy her own home at 21 or the 18 year
>old nurse who gets paid a pittance and is abused regularly on weekend
>evenings.
Abused? How come?
MM
Turk182
>
> - Show quoted text -
And that's the point, I like most people I meet - not because thety
have nig knockers - but due to the contant of their character and the
the fact you can learn something from everyone!. The Sun represents a
model of society which aims low. And what we now know about the
development of the infant brain, is that children become what they
are, by reflecting the world they see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QqYcbdZ1ZM
No matter how we lecture children, it is what we 'are' that is the
example. For example - police may lecture young peopler on how to
behave - but look how some police behave: rudeness, macho behaviouir,
armed to the teeth like a soldier - so that is the true learning
experience of a police man.
The Sun is a low esteem paper. It attempts to disguise it's hatred
for others through it's adoration of sexual icons. It is an emotional
confusion. Once you take note of it's repetitive theme of looking
down on others and villifying people (historically gays, blacks,
immigrants, prisoners toff's etc), you realise why it is imnpossible
to put down the Sun and take away anything that is good for the
spirit.
In the theme of the paper is the assumtion that the reader hates him/
herself. It asks you to align hatred and lusts, it makes you feel
like your one of the mob - yet I neither hate those the Sun hates or
adore those The Sun adores. I feel compassion for many of those who
are down - the Sun feels none. like it's owner, is a dysfunctional
parasite - making money from hate misery and false values. In fact,
should consiuder working with waste disposal - he would be well suited
with that!
But the power of the cling-on Sun is fading. As it transforms nore
into the journal of the technically and emotionally illiterate, it
becomes more like a comic than ever. It is so unpsychological, that
it doesn't even have a vision for itself - let alone it's 'readers' -
and that is reflected in the dinginess of the product which look so at
home in the scruffy cafe's in which it is most often read in. The Sun
is a relic.
Even hamster's are turning their nose up at it! ("eek ...I'm not
standing on that!")
Turk182
MM
Quite excellent.
MM