> is it not possible that Murdoch made the whole thing up, or at least exagerrated it, as part of his ongoing quest to destroy the BBC?
The thing is, we already know that Murdoch is evil. He's like Dick Cheney. He relishes being the pantomime villain so long as he can get rich off it, and, like Cheney, his body is engaged in a bitter campaign to try and stop him any way it can.
Even given that, though, how could he possibly get away with entirely making up something the Prime Minister said to him? We all know that if an ex-member of the Government falsely attributes words or sentiments to the PM—or even correctly attributes words or sentiments he'd rather forget—then No. 10 can relentlessly label him a liar, mentally unstable, a kiddy-fiddler etc until even his own relatives kick him out in disgust. But since they can't do anything to Murdoch, an outright denial of his account would paradoxically carry more weight. We can't bully you, but what you're saying just isn't true.
Or is Tony so in thrall to Murdoch that the old sod could cheerfully claim Tony always did a couple of lines before PMQs and wore a luminous cock-ring, and Tony's only response would be "Well, gosh, you know, er, golly"?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-13 03:30 pm (UTC)The thing is, we already know that Murdoch is evil. He's like Dick Cheney. He relishes being the pantomime villain so long as he can get rich off it, and, like Cheney, his body is engaged in a bitter campaign to try and stop him any way it can.
Even given that, though, how could he possibly get away with entirely making up something the Prime Minister said to him? We all know that if an ex-member of the Government falsely attributes words or sentiments to the PM—or even correctly attributes words or sentiments he'd rather forget—then No. 10 can relentlessly label him a liar, mentally unstable, a kiddy-fiddler etc until even his own relatives kick him out in disgust. But since they can't do anything to Murdoch, an outright denial of his account would paradoxically carry more weight. We can't bully you, but what you're saying just isn't true.
Or is Tony so in thrall to Murdoch that the old sod could cheerfully claim Tony always did a couple of lines before PMQs and wore a luminous cock-ring, and Tony's only response would be "Well, gosh, you know, er, golly"?