blamebrampton: 15th century woodcut of a hound (Default)
blamebrampton ([personal profile] blamebrampton) wrote2011-07-20 02:07 am

Good grief!

Just when I think that the Murdoch hearing won't get any more interesting than the revelation Rupes frequently visited the PM through his backdoor (cue audience chortles) ...

An audience member slaps Rupert with a cream pie ...

AND WENDY DENG FLIES THROUGH THE AIR AND WHACKS THE CHAP IN THE FACE!

*Sniffs* Once again, the Murdochs can be relied on to turn serious news into entertainment.

(It's only funny because no one was hurt. But given no one was hurt, it's pretty fucking funny!)

[identity profile] shiv5468.livejournal.com 2011-07-19 08:34 pm (UTC)(link)
They're not going to be recorded in the sense of being taped, but being recorded in the sense of a note being made of their occurence. In the same way that hopsitality with businessmen is disclosed on member's interests.

So no, not it doesn't open the door to official surveillance.

Nor would it do so if the person giving the briefing actually were being taped and then chose to make it public. The point about protecting sources is that it only applies if the source wants.

If the PM chooses to be open about who he meets and what is said at those meetings, then that's democracy.