[Update] The News Corp scandal

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Mick

This is looking extremely unfavourable for both Hunt and Cameron. The idea is you put someone impartial in place to make sure a fair and open decision was made on the BSkyb bid. How you can put someone in place who was clearly not impartial leads to asking questions of by just how much were the Murdoch's filling the Government's pockets ?

Spot on Mick and Iwonder who else's pockets the Murdochs have been filling over the decades?

Originally Posted by nomadking

It was hardly a new and/or secret proposal, and as such MANY people would have already formed an opinion of one sort or another.

So? Knowledge of the proposal isn't the issue
The point is that Hunt was replacing someone who was known not to be impartial and yet Cameron KNEW that Hunt wasn't impartial.

Pretty stupid to remove someone on the grounds of non impartiality only to replace them with someone who also has no impartiality unless it was done deliberately.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Pretty stupid to remove someone on the grounds of non impartiality only to replace them with someone who also has no impartiality unless it was done deliberately.

They should have made them work together?

That would never have happened though?

[nomadking]

Many people will have already formed an opinion, so who could be impartial? There is a difference between somebody just being awkward with no reasoning(ie Cable, and not just on this) and somebody whose shadow cabinet area was the media, agreeing with a proposal, the details and arguments of which were publicly known.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Many people will have already formed an opinion, so who could be impartial? There is a difference between somebody just being awkward with no reasoning(ie Cable, and not just on this) and somebody whose shadow cabinet area was the media, agreeing with a proposal, the details and arguments of which were publicly known.

From this reply I can only assume you have read none of the Leveson inquiry transcripts or seen any of the Leveson inquiry reports.The number of texts,emails and phone calls between Michel and Smith belie any impartiality.
Frankly one has to wonder what Cameron's impartiality over the issue.

[gba93]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Many people will have already formed an opinion, so who could be impartial? There is a difference between somebody just being awkward with no reasoning(ie Cable, and not just on this) and somebody whose shadow cabinet area was the media, agreeing with a proposal, the details and arguments of which were publicly known.

No, the difference is between someone who had made up their mind against the News Corp bid and someone who had made up their mind in favour (and who found out they were wrong) - but the real difference is Cameron got rid of the against and appointed the pro. So we know where Cameron stood on the News Corp versus public interest question - of course its different now he's been found out.

[devilincarnate]

Am I reading too much in to this

BSkyB bid adjudication
In his evidence, Mr Stephens said he had been "particularly struck" by Mr Hunt's understanding of the proper processes required of his department in his quasi-judicial role over the BSkyB bid.

"To reach a fair and unbiased decision was the secretary of state's overriding concern to my observation, throughout the process."

Mr Stephens also said "there was a marked change in the natural style and approach" of Mr Hunt that he believed was being picked up by everyone, including Mr Smith.

Speaking about the role of Mr Smith in this process, Mr Stephens told the Leveson Inquiry that - as permanent secretary - he was not responsible for the conduct or discipline of special advisors, and he could not dismiss them.

He described the position of a special adviser as "rather unique", adding that Mr Hunt and Mr Smith had a "close relationship".

Mr Stephens said he had assumed Mr Smith was talking to someone with access to chief executive of News Corp, but did not "recall" knowing the extent of their discussion, just that they had contact over "unexceptional" matters of procedure.

Asked if he now believed he had had too much confidence in the judgement of Mr Smith, Mr Stephens said: "With the benefit of hindsight, clearly yes."

"At the time, I thought he showed good understanding of the role, good judgement and was careful in how he undertook the role."

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

This is ammunition for the culture secretary's critics who say his mind was made up to give the Murdochs what they wanted”

Nick Robinson
BBC political editor
A question of judgement
Mr Stephens previously refused to confirm to MPs whether he gave permission for Mr Smith to be the point of contact with News Corp during the BSkyB takeover bid process.

He later said in a letter that he was simply "aware and content" with the arrangement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18202042

[nomadking]

On what basis was the decision wrong? On what reasoned basis did Cable have his viewpoint?

Originally Posted by nomadking

On what basis was the decision wrong? On what reasoned basis did Cable have his viewpoint?

He was appointed with his views already decided, and intend he made this views well known in government, but pretended to be independent and seemed to be helped News Corp from the inside.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

He was appointed with his views already decided, and intend he made this views well known in government, but pretended to be independent and seemed to be helped News Corp from the inside.

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?

[devilincarnate]

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?

Whatvare the 2 question's specifically as it maybe me but when I have read your posts I could not work out any questions?

Sorry I may need to read better?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by devilincarnate

Whatvare the 2 question's specifically as it maybe me but when I have read your posts I could not work out any questions?

Sorry I may need to read better?

The clue is in the two ?.

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.

[devilincarnate]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The clue is in the two ?.

Nope you will need to clarify as I have got 1 year old pulling his self up on me as he is not happy with the heat? So my mind is mashed.

[nomadking]

What had owning 3 newspapers with no overlap got the slightest thing to do with owning a broadcaster, that he already owns a large chunk of. Any decision was BEFORE Leveson, so how could the decision be influenced either way by something hadn't fully come to light. Even then, how is it that somebody(Blair & Brown) can successfully claim ignorance of what is going on, in their name and in their office, but somebody else(ie not a Labour MP) gets blamed for something occurring on the other side of an ocean. Murdoch gets the 'blame' anyway with anything connected to BSkyB, so what would change?