[Update] The News Corp scandal

Originally Posted by Hugh

Much as I dislike the way the Murdoch uses his media empire, I have to say I am concerned that policy appears to being made up in response to public outrage, rather than in a considered manner.

I think they are polices that have been wanted previously but they would never have happened until this window where Murdoch is weak and the government not being held to ransom by his papers. This is now a campaign to weaken, maybe destroy, News International's influence in the UK and to get as much done while the public and political will is still there and before they regain the front foot.

I mean how likely would it be for a senior politician with aspirations to go further to call for a media plurality law previously? Let alone stand the remotest chance of getting anywhere.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by denphone

And more close links here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...h-2315111.html

And more revelations to come as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...t-Murdoch.html

Rupert Murdoch's empire must be dismantled – Ed Miliband

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...-phone-hacking

Well it seems near enough the whole establishment are having their fill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...orton-set.html

From the Telegraph

In the meantime, James Murdoch signed cheques for between £800,000 and £1 million to Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, and Max Clifford, the publicist, which critics say effectively bought their silence.

Now if i was signing cheques for that amount i would be asking why we were paying out that amount of money to individuals who did not work for the company ??

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

James Murdoch future at BSKYB under review

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...er-review.html

The Mail on Sunday indicate that the Murdoch name now may be toxic - and no company will want to be associated with them..

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Much as I dislike the way the Murdoch uses his media empire, I have to say I am concerned that policy appears to being made up in response to public outrage, rather than in a considered manner.

I have to say, don't our elected representatives have better things to do than this? Some of them are behaving like tabloid editors.

Last I checked there are problems in Europe, problems at home, no real direction within government on how to deal with them and no policies beyond 'no' from the opposition.

Seriously if I wanted indignation I'd find a protest group. Bloody politicking seems all any of them do, forgetting they're in elected office to do things other than cover their own backsides and try and get reelected.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I have to say, don't our elected representatives have better things to do than this? Some of them are behaving like tabloid editors.

Last I checked there are problems in Europe, problems at home, no real direction within government on how to deal with them and no policies beyond 'no' from the opposition.

Seriously if I wanted indignation I'd find a protest group. Bloody politicking seems all any of them do, forgetting they're in elected office to do things other than cover their own backsides and try and get reelected.

This is important. There is plenty to suggest that there was corruption within the Police and any investigation of that and News International's phone hacking was covered up as the police has a cosy relationship with them.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

The Mail on Sunday indicate that the Murdoch name now may be toxic - and no company will want to be associated with them..

Yes l agree and the next head to roll will be James Murdoch.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

The Mail on Sunday indicate that the Murdoch name now may be toxic - and no company will want to be associated with them..

I can believe that , Sky may well lose some customers due to the Murdoch's and some who were considering signing up may have been put off by this. It would be in Skys interest to distance the business from the Murdochs.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I can believe that , Sky may well lose some customers due to the Murdoch's and some who were considering signing up may have been put off by this. It would be in Skys interest to distance the business from the Murdochs.

Yes that would be the wisest option and l gather that there are already trains in motion to get rid of James Murdoch as non executive chairman of BSKYB.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14175552

I'm in danger of wetting myself..This is what some of us have been screaming for for a couple of decades.

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes that would be the wisest option and l gather that there are already trains in motion to get rid of James Murdoch as non executive chairman of BSKYB.

He should never have been in the Sky boardroom in the first place. He just isn't has dad - doesn't have the same judgement or skill. IMO the debacle of the removal of the Sky Basics from Virgin Media was down to his attempts to overplay his hand. When the dust finally settled, VM had by far the better deal and it was forever established that Sky needs carriage on other platforms more than other platforms need to carry Sky, thereby nobbling all future negotiations from Sky's point of view.

Sky as a business will be better off without him, and the wider British broadcast media will be better off without his constant whinging about our system of regulation and licencing.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14175552

I'm in danger of wetting myself..This is what some of us have been screaming for for a couple of decades.

At long last and hopefully his nefarious influence on the British establishment and brainwashing of parts of the British public will lessen massively in the coming months and years.

---------- Post added at 12:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

He should never have been in the Sky boardroom in the first place. He just isn't has dad - doesn't have the same judgement or skill. IMO the debacle of the removal of the Sky Basics from Virgin Media was down to his attempts to overplay his hand. When the dust finally settled, VM had by far the better deal and it was forever established that Sky needs carriage on other platforms more than other platforms need to carry Sky, thereby nobbling all future negotiations from Sky's point of view.

Sky as a business will be better off without him, and the wider British broadcast media will be better off without his constant whinging about our system of regulation and licencing.

Yes l agree with you that he should have never been in the Sky boardroom as l have always thought of him as daddys boy but with none of the clever instincts of his father who l despise but has had a inmense influence and is very clever and shrewd and yes James made a right mess up in the Sky basics and maybe once they have got rid of him negotiations will be easier with other companies regarding carriage agreements.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Damien

This is important. There is plenty to suggest that there was corruption within the Police and any investigation of that and News International's phone hacking was covered up as the police has a cosy relationship with them.

So do what is supposed to be done in these circumstances and have the appropriate independent public enquiries not have half of parliament going on the media expressing their righteous indignation and populist views. Parliament has wasted quite enough time trying to win votes through this issue.

Roll on fixed terms, we may be in with a chance of politicians not campaigning for at least a part of each term then.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

So do what is supposed to be done in these circumstances and have the appropriate independent public enquiries not have half of parliament going on the media expressing their righteous indignation and populist views. Parliament has wasted quite enough time trying to win votes through this issue.

Roll on fixed terms, we may be in with a chance of politicians not campaigning for at least a part of each term then.

Or let's just return to the status quo whereby Murdoch says jump and they all say "how high?"

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Or let's just return to the status quo whereby Murdoch says jump and they all say "how high?"

Completely irrelevant? Politicians using this for PR purposes doesn't do anything to address the issues, it's hardly a return to the status quo suggesting they do something constructive rather than reflect and indeed foment popular anger.

Appropriate investigations, with appropriate legislation based on the outcome of those investigations will resolve this, not grandstanding.

I'm actually much more concerned that here will be knee jerk legislation which will erode freedom of the press. That's the biggest risk right now, Murdoch's name is tarnished on both sides of the Atlantic for the foreseeable, and he's under investigation by the FBI.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Appropriate investigations, with appropriate legislation based on the outcome of those investigations.

Agreed! And an apology from all political parties for not doing anything sooner about the reported phone hacking would be a start instead of this incessant blame game.