warrior1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:40 AM
Original message |
Are the Murdocks under oath? n/t |
in_cog_ni_to
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:42 AM
Response to Original message |
1. NOPE. No oath given. n/t |
CrispyQ
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:44 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Oaths are for the little people. --nt |
Bluenorthwest
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. An oath is never taken at such hearings |
|
This is not in the US, it is a different system. They do not give oaths to 'the little people' and not to others, they simply do not do that. To lie to Parliament is a crime, and all testimony is on record for future use. No oath swearing is involved.
|
warrior1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Keith had brought this up the other day.
|
beac
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:45 AM
Response to Original message |
3. No. BUT "misleading Parliament" IS a crime in the UK. n/t |
Andy823
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 09:49 AM
Response to Original message |
4. It wouldn't make any difference |
|
They would lie through their teeth no matter what, they don't care about "laws" or oaths, all they care about it power and money!
|
HopeHoops
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Jul-19-11 10:14 AM
Response to Original message |
7. Who cares. Nothing that's EVER come out of Murdoch's empire has ever had a basis in reality. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 10:33 PM
Response to Original message |