[youngian]

I should know better than reading tittle tattle about politicians private lives but the Mail weekly update on the Blair/Wendi dalliance is a constant pleasure. Not only to see Murdoch perceived to be let down by one of his own with his wife but to confirm what a weasel Blair is

Wendi's crush on Blair revealed: Rupert Murdoch's ex-wife wrote of 'warm feelings' as it emerges that tycoon banned former PM from summit after he said 'It's me or Tony' The new revelations follow our expose last week of the ‘terminal’ rift between Mr Murdoch and Mr Blair over Mr Blair’s ‘multiple encounters’ with Ms Deng, including three overnight stays at two of Mr Murdoch’s homes behind his back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -Tony.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Weeping Angel]

So Blair really was having it away with her?

[youngian]

MoS said there was “no suggestion” of any impropriety but Blair has been 'comforting her' and quoted 'a friend of Mr Murdoch' saying “Rupert Murdoch will have nothing more to do with Tony Blair. Not ever.”

In other words they are sailing as close to the libel wind as they can on this story.

[davidjay]

Some things are just too wonderful to be true.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

If the Mail's use of innuendo, invasions of privacy and thinly-veiled prurient character attacks are wrong when done to anyone, then they are wrong when done to everyone.

You can't suddenly like the things about the Mail you usually hate because they are targeting someone you dislike. That is intellectually and morally dishonest. A bit like the Mail...

[Abernathy]

Yeah, we know, Malc, but hey, we can alow the odd chuckle.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Adjustable absolutes?

[Abernathy]

You've got something there.

[Big Rob]

Adjustable absolutes?

Heh.... very good....

To be frank I am with Malcolm on this one.

[youngian]

If the Mail's use of innuendo, invasions of privacy and thinly-veiled prurient character attacks are wrong when done to anyone, then they are wrong when done to everyone.

You can't suddenly like the things about the Mail you usually hate because they are targeting someone you dislike. That is intellectually and morally dishonest. A bit like the Mail...

You're right, just because its Rupert Murdoch being humiliated on the front page doesn't make it OK.

But I'd rather be intellectually inconsistent on this one than deny I'm enjoying the irony and a massive dose of schadenfreude. Couldn't happen to a nicer trio.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I can't get my head round the idea of being wilfully intellectually inconsistent...

[crabcakes_windermere]

If the Mail's use of innuendo, invasions of privacy and thinly-veiled prurient character attacks are wrong when done to anyone, then they are wrong when done to everyone.

You can't suddenly like the things about the Mail you usually hate because they are targeting someone you dislike. That is intellectually and morally dishonest. A bit like the Mail...

You're right, just because its Rupert Murdoch being humiliated on the front page doesn't make it OK.

It doesn't make it OK, but it does make it fitting. If he doesn't like it, perhaps it'll give him the merest glance into the misery and discomfort his rags have caused others and give him pause for thought, however brief.

I agree with Malc in that it's still shitty behaviour and wrong and I'd rather it didn't happen to *anyone*. But in this particular instance I have less than the usual level of sympathy for the victim whilst he is being hoisted by, if not his own petard, then at the very least one of the same overall design.