Although Barron wanted to give News Corporation a "hit back" and he had some evidence of the "wiretapping scandal" in his hands, he did not intend to expose the matter now.
Because everything needs to maximize benefits, he will not be emotional and ruin his plan just because of this "offense" and expose the other party early.
Currently, for News Corporation, this kind of "wiretapping" is not a large-scale use of theirs. Even if it is exposed, it will have some impact on News Corporation, but they can completely attribute it to "individual cases" and apologize for their lax management, and there will not be much follow-up.
Moreover, Barron's influence on the British government is not much different from nothing at present. You have to know that the current British Prime Minister has a close relationship with Murdoch. The media under News Corporation played an indispensable role in his election and election. Therefore, if this matter is detonated at this time, I am afraid that the final handling will only be "raised high and dropped lightly."
Why did the News Corporation's "phone-hacking scandal" begin a large-scale investigation only after the ruling Labour Party stepped down and the Conservative Party came to power in the past life? There is a reason for this.
"Laura, please help me order a bouquet of flowers from a town near Chatsworth House and have it delivered to the house for Miss Bonnie. Just red roses will do."
"Yes, Your Highness."
Anyway, although Barron has nothing to feel guilty about in this matter, as a woman, she still needs to be coaxed more.
…
"Mr Cameron, I saw your speech on Iraq in the House of Commons last month and I thought it was very insightful."
"Do you think so too, Your Excellency?"
Cameron was still very young at this time, just in his early thirties. As a member of Congress, his performance in the House of Commons was also remarkable.
Hearing Cameron's question, Barron smiled and said:
"Yes, I also think it is very reckless to send our soldiers to the front line again after participating in the anti-terrorist war in Afghanistan, especially under the premise that all the so-called weapons of mass destruction against Iraq are not supported by substantial evidence."
As September approaches, the clouds of war loom increasingly large internationally.
In fact, as early as January this year, the then President of the United States put forward the so-called "axis of evil". At that time, he stated that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were seeking to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction to varying degrees, and formed an "axis of evil."
In order to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, the United States has listed these three countries as targets of its "global war on terror."
In May of this year, the United States accused Libya, Syria and Cuba of also seeking weapons of mass destruction and included them in the expanded list of "axis of evil" countries proposed by Bush.
However, by now, many people can see that it is highly likely that the United States wants to use force against Iraq. After all, since they have released the news with great fanfare and have been using a lot of public opinion to highlight the "legitimacy" of their attacks on the "axis of evil countries", then given the American style of doing things, it is impossible for them to just let it go with a lot of noise and little rain.
Moreover, among the so-called "axis of evil countries" they listed - the last three countries are not the focus. Among the three key countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, Iraq can be said to be the softest persimmon and the most suitable for them to attack.
As America's "closest ally", the British Prime Minister has actively responded to America's "global war on terror" from the beginning, and has long revealed in various speeches that Britain will join America in the fight against the "axis of evil"...
As the opposition party at this time, the Conservative Party will naturally "struggle" with the ruling Labour Party in all aspects. What they support, we must oppose; what they oppose, we must support!
Therefore, in terms of the attitude towards "evil axis countries" such as Iraq, most Conservative Party members, including Cameron, are opposed to directly participating in the war. They have been asking the government to determine the basis of the so-called "weapons of mass destruction".
"I am very happy to see that you share the same opinion, Your Highness. This time is different from the anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan. We are not going to deal with a terrorist organization, but to strike a country. Such things, no matter when, need to be handled with caution."
In the debate on Iraq in the House of Commons a few days ago, Cameron, as a member of Parliament, spoke out clearly against sending troops directly to the war. In his chat with Barron today, he still maintained this attitude.
Their meeting today was at the Devonshire (Chelsea) Hotel, which has not yet officially opened. Therefore, their meeting was relatively private.
After all, one is a Conservative MP and the other is a duke. Even if the two can be said to have a private relationship, once they are photographed by certain media, it is easy to cause some discussion.
"We already have a certain amount of influence in the Middle East. We don't need to get involved in a war like the United States, which is obviously trying to get rid of a thorn in its side. Even if we don't become famous directly, our interests can be ensured in the end. War will definitely bring casualties, which is an unnecessary sacrifice for those soldiers. Therefore, in the future, my newspaper will also do its best to oppose the Prime Minister's approach of dragging us into the war."
For the news media, so-called "strict neutrality" is completely impossible for rational people.
The British media will inevitably safeguard the interests of Britain; the American media will inevitably safeguard the interests of America; the Western media will inevitably safeguard the interests of the West - of course, except for those media funded by certain "foundations" that will represent the interests of their sponsors.
Within Britain, different media outlets are also clearly divided - The Times and the Financial Times are right-wing and more conservative, while The Guardian is notoriously radical and left-leaning.
Generally speaking, they will choose a party to support based on their political demands before the election. At present, both The Times and The Guardian tend to favor the Labour Party.
Perhaps the only national newspaper that claims to have no support for any party and is known for its neutrality is The Independent, which was acquired by Barron.
However, up to now, under normal circumstances, Barron rarely asks about the reports of The Independent, but on certain matters, the newspaper must represent his interests.
So Cameron's deliberate closeness with Barron at this time was naturally not just for "personal friendship". As a member of the Conservative Party, he naturally hoped that Barron, the owner of The Independent, could stand on his side on some issues and increase their voice of public opinion.
At their level, the premise of "friendship" is that each party gets what they need. They are not emotional people, but adults who understand that there is no such thing as "friendship" without reason.
Barron is willing to bet on Cameron and the Conservative Party behind him in advance, but that doesn't mean he will stand with the other side.
Everything needs to be weighed and compromised. Although Bruce's government is indeed not friendly to the nobles, and many of their policies are not liked by Barron, there is no need to make a fuss at this time. It is enough to express one's attitude at the right time.
Nice people will not be favored; only those who are clear about what they love and hate will be favored.
It's on the shelves today. I'll try to update more. Thank you for your support.