[Update] The News Corp scandal - Page 9

**Hugh** · 06-07-2011, 18:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The government have already shown their cards with the BSKYB deal unless we are to have an epic back track on that.

So they are "showing their cards" if they go ahead, and having an "epic back track" if they don't.

Seems whatever they do, you'll condemn them....

denphone · 06-07-2011, 19:11

While not enamoured with the Conservatives the fact remains that politicians from both sides have been cosying up to the Murdoch Empire for over 20 years and we shall see if this is the straw that broke the camel's back as politicians have a habit of paying lip service for a while and then not possessing the moral courage to do anything about it in the long run as we have seen before.

devilincarnate · 06-07-2011, 19:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The government have already shown their cards with the BSKYB deal unless we are to have an epic back track on that.

This is a good read?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14045715

Quote:

Which brings me to my third big point. I don't see how News Corporation, owner of News International, can pursue its takeover of British Sky Broadcasting at this juncture - or at least that is the inescapable conclusion of conversations I've had with those close to the bid.

On this last issue, and as I've pointed out before, Ofcom is under a legal obligation to ensure that the owners of broadcasters such as BSkyB are fit and proper.

But pending the results of the police enquiry into alleged illegal behaviour by the News of the World, and pending a public disclosure by News International of the way that it has changed its structures and practices to ensure such abuses never happen again, Ofcom is not in a position to adjudicate whether News Corporation is fit and proper.

That poses a dilemma for British Sky Broadcasting's independent directors. They know there is an increased risk of regulatory intervention by Ofcom to frustrate the takeover.

Because of that execution risk, they would have to demand a much steeper price from News Corporation than would otherwise be the case. It is their fiduciary duty to do so - and News Corporation, run by Rupert Murdoch, will be well aware of that.

Which means that even if - as is likely - the Secretary of State Jeremy Hunt gives a green light for the bid to be launched in a couple of weeks or so, it would be both potentially expensive and very risky for News Corporation to press the button on the bid then.

muppetman11 · 06-07-2011, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

So they are "showing their cards" if they go ahead, and having an "epic back track" if they don't.

Seems whatever they do, you'll condemn them....

Quite right Hugh , we shouldn't expect to much from a government what wines and dines with the Murdoch hierarchy. You will be ok I've heard the cartoon section of your favourite tabloid NOTW remains unaffected

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:14 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

This is a good read?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14045715

That is all irrelevant , Sky was doing just fine with Murdoch's ownership at 39%.

denphone · 06-07-2011, 19:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

This is a good read?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14045715

Yes its a good read Devil and remember there is worse to come out in the coming days.

Stuart · 06-07-2011, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Quite right Hugh , we shouldn't expect to much from a government what wines and dines with the Murdoch hierarchy. You will be ok I've heard the cartoon section of your favourite tabloid NOTW remains unaffected

Who said Notw was Hugh's favourite tabloid? AFAIK, he doesn't read ANY tabloids. Another thing to remember about Politicians. They've got a habit of supporting people *when they are useful*, but dropping them at the first sign of trouble.

Quote:

That is all irrelevant , Sky was doing just fine with Murdoch's ownership at 39%.

It's not irrelevant at all. I think the BBC article explains why quite well.

**Damien** · 06-07-2011, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Who said Notw was Hugh's favourite tabloid? AFAIK, he doesn't read ANY tabloids. Another thing to remember about Politicians. They've got a habit of supporting people *when they are useful*, but dropping them at the first sign of trouble.

Quite happy to side with them on this occasion though

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

As for politics. It's nothing to do with party politics. The worst thing that could happen to this story is for either party to use it as a tool to bash the other, if people view this as party political point scoring then it's over. NOTW will move on and the police will end up charging someone small and insignificant.

**Hugh** · 06-07-2011, 19:29

Actually, I was pointing out the hypocrisy/lose-lose context of muppetman's post...

I do not support the Murdoch empire (except for my purchase of the iPad version of the Times/Sunday Times), and hope they get pilloried for this.

muppetman11 · 06-07-2011, 19:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Actually, I was pointing out the hypocrisy/lose-lose context of muppetman's post...

I do not support the Murdoch empire (except for my purchase of the iPad version of the Times/Sunday Times), and hope they get pilloried for this.

Hugh you were correct with your post , my wording wasn't the best. If it was referred I wouldn't condemn them , and I never thought for one minute you read that trash LOL.

devilincarnate · 06-07-2011, 19:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

That is all irrelevant , Sky was doing just fine with Murdoch's ownership at 39%.

If you have read the full article you would have noticed this bit?

Quote:

The e-mails seems to show the then editor of the News of the World, Andy Coulson, authorising the payments. But which reporter or executive at the News of the World handed the cash over to police officers?

Also who else at the News of the World or News International knew about the payments? Since they amounted to tens of thousands of pounds in total, it seems implausible that they were not approved at a higher level within the organisation.

The previous bit that I quoted was what could happen in the long run?

Sirius · 06-07-2011, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

The government have already shown their cards with the BSKYB deal unless we are to have an epic back track on that.

I hope we do. This just goes to show how low Murdock and his media empire will go to get a story.

muppetman11 · 06-07-2011, 19:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

If you have read the full article you would have noticed this bit?

The previous bit that I quoted was what could happen in the long run?

I have read all the points and agree Murdoch's takeover could well be a non starter , but what do you think this will do to Sky ? They are the dominant pay TV platform and will remain that way with or without Murdoch full ownership be it right or wrong.

**Maggy** · 06-07-2011, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I have read all the points and agree Murdoch's takeover could well be a non starter , but what do you think this will do to Sky ? They are the dominant pay TV platform and will remain that way with or without Murdoch full ownership be it right or wrong.

but at least Murdoch won't have the empire he craves and won't have the power that he so obviously wants to be able to tell governments where to go and how high to jump.

muppetman11 · 06-07-2011, 19:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

but at least Murdoch won't the empire he craves and won't have the power that he so obviously wants to be able to tell governments where to go and how high to jump.

I agree Maggy I'm not his biggest fan.

Sirius · 06-07-2011, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I have read all the points and agree Murdoch's takeover could well be a non starter , but what do you think this will do to Sky ? They are the dominant pay TV platform and will remain that way with or without Murdoch full ownership be it right or wrong.

However Murdock will not have the power he craves to modify this countries political direction depending on his political ambitions.