Cable 'declared war on Murdoch'

[vanman]

Originally Posted by danielf

Yeah, I know but the whole thing is so blindingly stupid, it doesn't seem like him.

maybe the two female reporters were attractive.
and him just a mere male he fell for it.
he not going he staying says bbc

[Derek]

He's not resigning/being sacked but he's been given a slap-down and removed from any decision making when it comes to BSkyB and OFCOM

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Derek

He's not resigning/being sacked but he's been given a slap-down and removed from any decision making when it comes to BSkyB and OFCOM

which now means Murdoch will get whatever he wants .

[Tezcatlipoca]

Sky always beats Cable!


[Sorry, someone had to say it!]

[naeskydish]

So what do we have here?, two undercover reporters pretending to be Lib Dems paid by The telegraph which in turn is owned by the alleged phone hackers, News International. Presumably Cable was asked a question about SKY and News international with the hope of trapping him. Like a fool he complied.

Rupert Murdoch and his News international who supported the tories at the election, now have their wish with the removal of someone intent on blocking the controlling purchase of shares in SKY. We have the OFCOM report to come and presumably the new Tory boy in charge of this section of business is our only hope of blocking this take over. I've got my doubts whether the tories will do anything to jeopordise public support by news international. It will be a sad day when Murdoch and his right wing views dominate the UK media.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by vanman

political suicide what a ass

And this is the man who people were saying they wish it were he is running the economy.

---------- Post added at 11:30 ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

which now means Murdoch will get whatever he wants .

Murdoch was always going to get what he wants. The dissolution of OFCOM and the destruction of the BBC.

News International does not own the Telegraph (The Times, Sun, etc, yes, the Telegraph, no - that would be the Barclay brothers).

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by naeskydish

So what do we have here?, two undercover reporters pretending to be Lib Dems paid by The telegraph which in turn is owned by the alleged phone hackers, News International. Presumably Cable was asked a question about SKY and News international with the hope of trapping him. Like a fool he complied.

Rupert Murdoch and his News international who supported the tories at the election, now have their wish with the removal of someone intent on blocking the controlling purchase of shares in SKY. We have the OFCOM report to come and presumably the new Tory boy in charge of this section of business is our only hope of blocking this take over. I've got my doubts whether the tories will do anything to jeopordise public support by news international. It will be a sad day when Murdoch and his right wing views dominate the UK media.

You're kidding right? Cameron won't go against his puppet-masters.

Originally Posted by Hugh

News International does not own the Telegraph (The Times, Sun, etc, yes, the Telegraph, no - that would be the Barclay brothers).

Yes. This revelation helps News International, which is probably why the Telegraph attempted to suppress it. Interestingly it was then leaked to the BBC, who are also worried about a total buyout of BSkyB but ran the story anyway.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

You're kidding right? Cameron won't go against his puppet-masters.

How soon they forget......

I could have sworn New Labour toadied up to News International for 12 years (97-09)...

Independent

According to Andrew Neil, Murdoch met Blair for the first time on 15 September 1994 over dinner. In July 1995, Blair flew to Australia to address a News Corporation management conference. There he made it clear that he had dumped Labour's long-standing policy to force News International to reduce its media holdings.

By early 1997, Blair had convinced Murdoch that he would not move against News Corp's interest once he was in power, and that he would hold off from joining the European Monetary Union. On Monday 18 March 1997, the first day of the election campaign, Blair and Major woke up to the realisation that the earth had moved. Murdoch's Sun newspaper, after nearly two decades of backing the Conservative Party, had changed horses.

However, by early 1998 the price for this special relationship was beginning to become apparent. Three separate strands came together for them in February and March of 1998. The first was Murdoch's ongoing quest to swing a deal with Silvio Berlusconi [Murdoch had offered Berlusconi, the then Italian opposition leader, £4bn to take over Berlusconi's Italian television network, Mediaset].

The second strand was the price war that Murdoch's News International newspapers had been waging in Britain since 1993. By late 1997, backbenchers in the new Labour government were concerned enough about the threat that Murdoch's price policy posed to the future of newspapers such as The Independent, to agitate for legal bans on anti-competitive pricing – Murdoch made an appointment to see Tony Blair at Downing Street. In February 1998, Blair drew criticism from Labour ranks by opposing the amendment on predatory pricing, which was passed in the House of Lords. Tony Blair announced that his government would not support the amendment, and it would not be passed in the House of Commons.

Originally Posted by Flyboy

You're kidding right? Cameron won't go against his puppet-masters.

Nor did Labour, it's a serious problem in this country IMO.

Look at the nature The Sun went after Labour when they decided to back the Tories, vicious, nasty, spiteful, and revelations timed to coincide with positive press for Labour. They did the same against the Tories previously.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How soon they forget......

I could have sworn New Labour toadied up to News International for 12 years (97-09)...

Yeah but, yeah but, yeah but......

Hugh you really must remember set your memory onto 'selective' mode more often....

[punky]

It's quite ironic that before the election Cable was regarded as one of the most respected MPs with unimpeachable integrity. Now we know that he's probably one of the most bent in office.

I like Peston's analogy that Cable is like a judge who tells the accused he's getting 3 weeks in jail before the case has started. If a judge was found out doing that would he have to step down from that one case or be disrobed permanently I wonder?

[naeskydish]

Damien says

Yes. This revelation helps News International, which is probably why the Telegraph attempted to suppress it. Interestingly it was then leaked to the BBC, who are also worried about a total buyout of BSkyB but ran the story anyway.

I should have realised this, it puts a different slant on the story. Still for Murdoch's benefit though.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by punky

It's quite ironic that before the election Cable was regarded as one of the most respected MPs with unimpeachable integrity. Now we know that he's probably one of the most bent in office.

As one of his constituents I must humbly disagree.

Careless and naive definitely, however he didn't say what he did for personal gain.

I think he's not used to power, and has gotten a little drunk on it. Shame as I think he's an honest and good man even if I disagree with many of his views, and fundamentally I have no doubt he thought he was doing the right thing.

I also however think his ego is getting in the way of his brain, his attitude reeked of 'Me the man' and that needs to go.

I'll see if I can visit his surgery early next year, if those planks at the Telegraph haven't made him so defensive it would be rendered pointless, as I do need to discuss constituency matters with him.

I am very, very annoyed with what the Telegraph have done here. They've entrapped an MP by pretending to be a constituent and now MPs will all be somewhat hesitant when dealing with their constituents and will not be open with them about anything remotely controversial

The other thing to note is what the Telegraph did with the story when they had it - suppress parts of it for their own advantage.