Murdoch dropping friends

by Searcgforthetruth 24.11.13 0:13

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2512489/Murdochs-feud-Blair-wife-Wendi-Terminal-end-friendship-claims-multiple-encounters-ex-PM-tycoons-wife.html

Could this have implications on the McCann situation? A wounded dog is a dangerous dog....

by Guest 24.11.13 0:17

by Guest 24.11.13 0:19

I'm going to sleep with a big grin on my face

Good night to all.

by ultimaThule 24.11.13 7:40

Looks like Wendi's been at the plastic in more ways than one.

I suspect Cherie's spitting feathers but what did she expect? This is par for the course if you marry a fantasist... and you get broken promises if you have an affair with one. Having said that, the Bliars have accumulated sufficient wealth to make divorce viable even for one as avaricious as Ms Booth yes

One way or another, 2014 is shaping up to be highly entertaining winkwink

by **PeterMac** 24.11.13 8:52

Châtelaine wrote:I'm going to sleep with a big grin on my face
Good night to all.

Me too. I saw this last night and was so exited I couldn't type !

by Research_Reader 24.11.13 13:33

Sorry if I'm being dense, but what would the implications be of this to the McCann situation?

by Searcgforthetruth 24.11.13 13:40

Research_Reader wrote:Sorry if I'm being dense, but what would the implications be of this to the McCann situation?

The axis of power between Murdoch/ Brookes - Blair/ Brown/ Cameron - McCann/Healey protecting the McCanns.

by MarleneP 24.11.13 13:45

and the first public sign of the broken axle was this article in sunday times?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8322-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1?highlight=times+on+sunday

by Okeydokey 24.11.13 14:09

MarleneP wrote:and the first public sign of the broken axle was this article in sunday times?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8322-wow-a-must-read-madeleine-clues-hidden-for-five-years-sunday-times-full-article-now-on-page-1?highlight=times+on+sunday

I think that and/or the court case against Brookes...

by Research_Reader 24.11.13 14:24

Given the legal muscle that both Blair and Murdoch could muster, I would assume that the Daily Mail have some pretty cast iron evidence to back this story up?

Or maybe Rupert wanted this to get out? Its so hard to know how these people think.

by **PeterMac** 24.11.13 14:36

There is no suggestion by this newspaper of any impropriety by Mr Blair or Ms Deng. And Mr Blair’s friends have repeatedly denied he had an affair with Ms Deng.

Which is great until an idiot pipes up and says

A source close to Mr Blair said that he had insisted claims of an affair were ‘categorically untrue’ and that remained his position.

Insisted, categorically untrue, "remained his position"
Which rather contradicts what the Mail said.

by tasprin 24.11.13 15:10

I wish Rupert would sell his story to The Sun.

by **Hobs** 24.11.13 17:15

I think either blair or one of blairs advisers etc issued a statement about it all being untrue etc. There was lots of waffle and bluser but no strong reliable first person denial.

I posted a comment in the fail saying all they had to ask blair was one simple question and the answer would reveal the truth.

Did you have sexual contact of any kind with Wendi Deng ( i would also ask the same question to Wendo Deng about blair)

by ultimaThule 24.11.13 17:26

@tasprin - if that happens, I'll break my lifetime vow and buy a copy big grin

Could it be that either Tone or Wendi will have need for the services of a ~~failed parliarmentary candidate~~ dog whisperer in the not too distant future? lol4

by Guest 24.11.13 17:28

Hobs wrote:I think either blair or one of blairs advisers etc issued a statement about it all being untrue etc. There was lots of waffle and bluser but no strong reliable first person denial.

I posted a comment in the fail saying all they had to ask blair was one simple question and the answer would reveal the truth.

Did you have sexual contact of any kind with Wendi Deng ( i would also ask the same question to Wendo Deng about blair)

***
Good of you, Hobs, you don't let them get away with an easy-out à la Clinton ... big grin

by ultimaThule 24.11.13 20:33

Hobs wrote:I think either blair or one of blairs advisers etc issued a statement about it all being untrue etc. There was lots of waffle and bluser but no strong reliable first person denial.

I posted a comment in the fail saying all they had to ask blair was one simple question and the answer would reveal the truth.

Did you have sexual contact of any kind with Wendi Deng ( i would also ask the same question to Wendo Deng about blair)

The problem is that the Blairs and Clintons of this world are capable of convincing themselves that words such as 'sexual contact' apply only to what happens in the marital bed.

Clinton's straight faced bare face lie of 'Hell, no' when asked if he had carnal relations with Monica Lewinsky is the equivalent of what would be Blair's 'Heavens, no' if asked the same question, followed by repeated denials in a similar vein.

IMO Wendi is sufficiently astute to confine her answer to a stark 'No' and maintain it in the face of repeated questioning which is why I suspect 'Lupert' was tipped off by a little birdy who was able to avoid suffering the usual fate of messengers by presenting a dish of irrefutable evidence which reduced the sum he had to pay to offload her.

FREE GIFT FOR THE NON-PRUDISH FOR READING THIS POST: risque Clinton joke here: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokeclintonhell.htm click on further pages at your own risk as I haven't vetted them ~~due to laughing too much~~.

by **Hobs** 24.11.13 21:13

ultimaThule wrote:
Hobs wrote:I think either blair or one of blairs advisers etc issued a statement about it all being untrue etc. There was lots of waffle and bluser but no strong reliable first person denial.

I posted a comment in the fail saying all they had to ask blair was one simple question and the answer would reveal the truth.

Did you have sexual contact of any kind with Wendi Deng ( i would also ask the same question to Wendo Deng about blair)
The problem is that the Blairs and Clintons of this world are capable of convincing themselves that words such as 'sexual contact' apply only to what happens in the marital bed.

Clinton's straight faced bare face lie of 'Hell, no' when asked if he had carnal relations with Monica Lewinsky is the equivalent of what would be Blair's 'Heavens, no' if asked the same question, followed by repeated denials in a similar vein.

IMO Wendi is sufficiently astute to confine her answer to a stark 'No' and maintain it in the face of repeated questioning which is why I suspect 'Lupert' was tipped off by a little birdy who was able to avoid suffering the usual fate of messengers by presenting a dish of irrefutable evidence which reduced the sum he had to pay to offload her.

FREE GIFT FOR THE NON-PRUDISH FOR READING THIS POST: risque Clinton joke here: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokeclintonhell.htm click on further pages at your own risk as I haven't vetted them ~~due to laughing too much~~.

This is why you have to be careful how you phrase the question.

Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

The keyword here is relations.

Relations indicates a relationship, and That indicates distancing from Miss Lewinsky

As it turns out sexual relations did not include oral sex and the oral sex was performed on him.

He did not have sexual relations with her, she had them with him.

This is why i said sexual contact.
Sexual contact is sexual contact, it doesn't require love or a relationship, it can apply to an innapropriate kiss up to intercourse.

Also with the clinton comment i would like to know if the reply was in response to a question and if so what the question was.

Also note he says with THAT woman, Miss Lewinsky.

For there to be a that there has to a be a this, therefore, what woman or women did he have sexual relations with??

by Guest 24.11.13 21:18

Hmm

Something else comes to mind: We did have no part in our daughters disappearance

could imply partaking in her demise, perhaps?

by Liz Eagles 24.11.13 21:20

Portia wrote:Hmm

Something else comes to mind: We did have no part in our daughters disappearance

could imply partaking in her demise, perhaps?

Hi Portia,

What GM said was "We have played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine".

by Guest 24.11.13 21:25

aquila wrote:
Portia wrote:Hmm

Something else comes to mind: We did have no part in our daughters disappearance

could imply partaking in her demise, perhaps?
Hi Portia,

What GM said was "We played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine".

To quote miss Mandy Rice-Davies of fond remembrance: Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

by ultimaThule 24.11.13 22:10

Portia wrote:
aquila wrote:
Portia wrote:Hmm

Something else comes to mind: We did have no part in our daughters disappearance

could imply partaking in her demise, perhaps?
Hi Portia,

What GM said was "We played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter Madeleine".
To quote miss Mandy Rice-Davies of fond remembrance: Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Classic!! I inherited a stack of Private Eyes from the 60's - back in the day they called her Randy Mice-Davies big grin

Unlike poor Christine who hasn't done so well, Mandy's still going strong and looking incredibly good for her age.

by ultimaThule 24.11.13 22:32

Hobs wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
Hobs wrote:I think either blair or one of blairs advisers etc issued a statement about it all being untrue etc. There was lots of waffle and bluser but no strong reliable first person denial.

I posted a comment in the fail saying all they had to ask blair was one simple question and the answer would reveal the truth.

Did you have sexual contact of any kind with Wendi Deng ( i would also ask the same question to Wendo Deng about blair)
The problem is that the Blairs and Clintons of this world are capable of convincing themselves that words such as 'sexual contact' apply only to what happens in the marital bed.

Clinton's straight faced bare face lie of 'Hell, no' when asked if he had carnal relations with Monica Lewinsky is the equivalent of what would be Blair's 'Heavens, no' if asked the same question, followed by repeated denials in a similar vein.

IMO Wendi is sufficiently astute to confine her answer to a stark 'No' and maintain it in the face of repeated questioning which is why I suspect 'Lupert' was tipped off by a little birdy who was able to avoid suffering the usual fate of messengers by presenting a dish of irrefutable evidence which reduced the sum he had to pay to offload her.

FREE GIFT FOR THE NON-PRUDISH FOR READING THIS POST: risque Clinton joke here: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/jokes/bljokeclintonhell.htm click on further pages at your own risk as I haven't vetted them ~~due to laughing too much~~.
This is why you have to be careful how you phrase the question.

Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

The keyword here is relations.

Relations indicates a relationship, and That indicates distancing from Miss Lewinsky

As it turns out sexual relations did not include oral sex and the oral sex was performed on him.

He did not have sexual relations with her, she had them with him.

This is why i said sexual contact.
Sexual contact is sexual contact, it doesn't require love or a relationship, it can apply to an innapropriate kiss up to intercourse.

Also with the clinton comment i would like to know if the reply was in response to a question and if so what the question was.

Also note he says with THAT woman, Miss Lewinsky.

For there to be a that there has to a be a this, therefore, what woman or women did he have sexual relations with??

As can be seen from this Wikipedia entry, Clinton's definition of 'sexual relations' was narrow to the point of being virtually invisible:

Perjury charges
In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. Based on the evidence provided by Tripp, a blue dress with Clinton's semen, Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.
During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?"

The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the agreed definition. Afterwards, based on the definition created by the Independent Counsel's Office, Clinton answered "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky." Clinton later stated, "I thought the definition included any activity by [me], where was the actor and came in contact with those parts of the bodies" which had been explicitly listed (and "with an intent to gratify or arouse the sexual desire of any person"). In other words, Clinton denied that he had ever contacted Lewinsky's "genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks", and effectively claimed that the agreed-upon definition of "sexual relations" included giving oral sex but excluded receiving oral sex.

Two months after the Senate failed to convict him, President Clinton was held in civil contempt of court by Judge Susan Webber Wright. His license to practice law was suspended in Arkansas for five years and later by the United States Supreme Court.^[28] He was also fined $90,000 for giving false testimony.

I wonder what Clinton's answer would have been if 'Gennifer Flowers' had been substituted for 'Monica Lewinsky' but I suspect he had it so worked out and buttoned down in his mind, there would have been no difference,

by **Hobs** 24.11.13 23:25

During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?"

Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

If his answer was a direct response to the question asked then it an unreliable denial
He reflects the question asked by the interviewer in his answer, thus, not making it a statement made by the process of free editing ie not using his own words.

He could also have replied i have never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, as the interviewer uses have you ever... in his question.

by chillyheat 24.11.13 23:37

Rupert has been in a corner for some time....He may come out attacking for one last time or, more than likely he will sit back and ponder his legacy. Blair is nothing for him to write about and we all know that....

“We are in the midst of a phase of history in which nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered,”
He is pro New World Order, and a simple shag wont set his thoughts back... spin

If indeed Gay Tony actually managed to get it up big grin

by chillyheat 24.11.13 23:40

Hobs wrote:During the deposition, Clinton was asked "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1?"

Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."

If his answer was a direct response to the question asked then it an unreliable denial
He reflects the question asked by the interviewer in his answer, thus, not making it a statement made by the process of free editing ie not using his own words.

He could also have replied i have never had sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, as the interviewer uses have you ever... in his question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt7r_XFMT_M
Watch this and see how they are all handled.....
Kate loved the butterfly that landed on her twice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-pzqMUTyfI
I see Gerry and Kate in the same way...