Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
Two questions and neither of them answered.  On what basis should Hunt have changed his view? In order to say no, he would have had to come up with reasons for that. Apart from people's views on Murdoch, what are they? |
Because we're talking about the conflict of interest that Hunt had and his appointment to judge the bid when it was known he was already a firm supporter of it. It's not a question of it he reached the right decision, it's a question of the appearance that the government were going to let his deal be made regardless of the evidence against.
Indeed, we know he spent little time meeting those who were opposed to the bid. Their reasons, since you asked, was that the News International empire was already too big with their number of newspapers. The phone hacking case was also brought up as evidence they were not fit owners. However Hunt appeared not to want to listen to these arguments as the decision had been made before he was even appointed.