"In the pre-Labour days Margraet Thatcher set aside monopoly law so that Mr Murdoch could buy the Times and Sunday Times, she also later handed monopoly-control to British satellite television. Thatcher also assisted Murdoch in defeating the unions in the notorious Wapping affair in 1986. In return for this favour Mr Murdoch's media network was a vigorous supporter of Mrs Thatcher.
For the last ten years Mr Murdoch and Tony Blair have been meeting on a regular basis..
Blair and Murdoch have repeated the quid-quo-pro relationship that occurred between Thatcher and Murdoch. Over these ten years Mr Murdoch has enhanced his monopolistic power while Mr Blair has enjoyed a free ride in this large chunck of the press.
In 2006, the UK’s Independent newspaper reported that Murdoch is to offer Tony Blair a senior role in his global media company News Corp. when the UK prime minister stands down from office.
Is there a conflict of interest here, and/or the undermining of the democratic process?"
"The Sun 26/4/2007
I quote from Kelvin Mckenzie's article on the above date:
'Perhaps if they (i.e. junior doctors) spent less time in television studios explaining how they might have to work abroad (we all do these days) and more time worrying about their patients, then we would all be better off and we might, just might, be more sympathetic.'
This statement is offensive and ignorant.
Junior doctors are angry because the government is wrecking their medical training and they want to be well trained, and therefore able to provide the best possible patient care in the future.
Junior doctors are not creating a fuss over money, in fact first year junior doctors are paid about the same as first year nurses per hour. They are angry over the government dumbing down high standards of medical training.
The stand they are taking is vital for patients and it does not deserve to be mocked in this way.
"One rule for them, one for us
Kelvin Mckenzie wrote an extremely offensive article about junior doctors last week. It is strange that he has the freedom to criticise so baselessly while we have so little right of reply to him.
Given that Mr Mckenzie feels he has the right to question the morals and ethics of junior doctors, can we question his ethics on this forum?
Has Mr Mckenzie ever apologised for his coverage of the Hillsborough disaster?"
This has happened on a forum that the Sun claims is practically 'unmoderated'. I received no explanation as to why my posts had been removed and why my account had been terminated. At least I can openly write on this blog without having the posts unfairly removed, it does make a mockery of the Sun's claims.
It is disgraceful that a newspaper that is so keen to dish out vitriolic abuse is not able to take reasonable criticism in return. That is why 'Sun watch' must carry on, they must be exposed for the hypocrites they are to my three readers.