Historian Andrew Roberts: "The Leveson Enquiry is a kangaroo court".
Comments
Pompous Ass!!
Loved that bit about Murdoch giving £50,000 to the church, throughout history the one thing you can be sure of, the bigger the scumbag the bigger the donation to the church.
So people don't have to buy their newspapers, correct and incase Roberts hadn't noticed they aren't, every year the public are given them up, or giving up on them.
Roberts is an excresence as well as a pompous ass. This is a man who supported the war in Iraq for example and is a member of the inner cirlce of Dave a***-lickers.
I also wonder how much he relies upon Rupert Murdoch for publishing his deals?
In my opnion, Andre Roberts is correct in his argument. Of course, there have been deplorable practices in all press outlets (News International newspapers, The Guardian, the BBC, The Mirror, the Mail), but the Leveson Inquiry had no interest at all in most of these, but only pursues Ruperb Murdoch. It is not a balanced Inquiry.
It is disappointing that previous correspondants attack Andrew Roberts rather than address the argument. Ad hominem attacks are always deplorable.
No decent historian reads Andrew Roberts. I cannot remember any tutor recommending his work at Oxford. He is so right wing as to be off the wall. The above comments of him being a pompous ass sums him up very accurately.
He makes Genghis Khan look like a Marxist. Ignore him. He is a very biased fool.
Pompous Ass!!
Loved that bit about Murdoch giving £50,000 to the church, throughout history the one thing you can be sure of, the bigger the scumbag the bigger the donation to the church.
So people don't have to buy their newspapers, correct and incase Roberts hadn't noticed they aren't, every year the public are given them up, or giving up on them.
Posted by: david1 | April 28, 2012 at 09:10 AM
Roberts is an excresence as well as a pompous ass. This is a man who supported the war in Iraq for example and is a member of the inner cirlce of Dave a***-lickers.
I also wonder how much he relies upon Rupert Murdoch for publishing his deals?
Posted by: redmayne77 | April 28, 2012 at 09:20 AM
..sorry, I meant books, not deals.
Posted by: redmayne77 | April 28, 2012 at 09:50 AM
Pass the sick bag, Alice.
Posted by: Arthur Lawrence | April 28, 2012 at 10:07 AM
In my opnion, Andre Roberts is correct in his argument. Of course, there have been deplorable practices in all press outlets (News International newspapers, The Guardian, the BBC, The Mirror, the Mail), but the Leveson Inquiry had no interest at all in most of these, but only pursues Ruperb Murdoch. It is not a balanced Inquiry.
It is disappointing that previous correspondants attack Andrew Roberts rather than address the argument. Ad hominem attacks are always deplorable.
Posted by: MartinW | April 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM
No decent historian reads Andrew Roberts. I cannot remember any tutor recommending his work at Oxford. He is so right wing as to be off the wall. The above comments of him being a pompous ass sums him up very accurately.
He makes Genghis Khan look like a Marxist. Ignore him. He is a very biased fool.
Posted by: Malcolm | April 28, 2012 at 01:57 PM
Real historians say "Andrew Roberts is just a rent-a-gob, who will say whatever he thinks will benefit him".
Posted by: Dave Hollins MBA | April 28, 2012 at 02:59 PM
Andrew Roberts is a popular historian and not a serious academic historian. It would be better to say he was a propagandist.
He deserves ad hominem attacks becasue he is a fraud and because his views and motives are deeply suspect.
Also the Levinson inquiry is focussed on the other abuses.
Martin W: are you a useful idiot on Murdoch or tory central office's payroll?
Posted by: redmayne77 | April 28, 2012 at 03:02 PM