Will you be boycotting 'Murdoch products' over phone hacking ?

[Sussex Nomad]

Are you sure about that? I thought they'd as good as approved it.

Purely from watching the news and not asking ex-colleagues, I would say it is pretty much a done deal they will not be given full control over Sky.

 

[Seagull27]

Purely from watching the news and not asking ex-colleagues, I would say it is pretty much a done deal they will not be given full control over Sky.

Is that a recent development then? As I'm sure a few months ago they got the go ahead. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

 

[Seagull27]

Is that a recent development then? As I'm sure a few months ago they got the go ahead. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12631875

Although it's quite possible they've reconsidered due to recent events. Hopefully.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Believe me fella, they can reconsider within hours if there isn't a white paper that has been signed, sealed and delivered.

 

[Cantona's Flying Dropkick]

Bastards doing more hacking -

BBC - Dead soldiers' families 'hacked by newspaper'

 

[seagullondon]

I have withdrawn the remainder of funds from my SkyBet account.

love it! I have put more in my account hoping to win millions!

 

[clapham_gull]

I've been following this story from the start and it's sad that it's taken the story of a hacking into that poor girls phone for people to sit up and notice to be frank.

Far from worrying than what private investigators got up to, is the behaviour of (thankfully a few) individuals within the Police Force.

Whether they were taking a few quid or just scared of the newspaper is astonishing.

Beyond any suggestion of corruption, the police have had a lot of this evidence for ages but have decided to simply sit on it.

Why ?

It's being to look like a good old fashioned Establishment cover up that is beginning to fall to pieces like a house of cards.

It's going to be a fascinating few days and I suspect the details currently out are just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[clapham_gull]

here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12631875

Although it's quite possible they've reconsidered due to recent events. Hopefully.

I think - it was passed through on a simple monopoly basis, but the "plurality of the media" needs still to be tested by Ofcom. News International would probably pass that test by selling off Sky News which it is/was expected to do.

To put it simply, no-one has a problem with News International owning all the Entertainment channels in the UK. But he shouldn't be allowed to control a huge chunk of the News media, which includes his newspapers.

However, OfCom is also allowed to consider whether News International is "fit and proper" to hold a broadcast licence.

 

[Gully]

I was out this evening and only found out about the latest revellation about twenty minutes ago on the way home...there was one bloke who phoned in to R5 asking for NoTW to be closed down, I can't honestly see that happening as it would amount to censorship on a grand scale, but I reckon their circulation may take a bit of a hit...at least for a couple of weeks!

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I think this whole thing is going to be blown up. In this day and age of transparency I can see this going to nearly, but not quite, the very top of our institutions. The fact that police have been paid makes me wonder why they tried to sweep it all under the carpet, well actually it doesn't. Will be interesting to see how they handle it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Murdoch was powerful way before Cameron came along. You've got to be naive to think that this is about partisan politics. Murdoch threw his weight behind Labour for ten years.

true, he supported New Labour. but its pretty clear he is a right winger and louder objections to him and his operations come from the left wing of politics. i think all sides are uncomfortable, but see for example how Cable made a point of trying to stick the boot in.

The Murdoc's have no ethics at all, left unregulated you end up with Fox News (US style), pretty dire stuff. This is exactly what he would like in the UK, thankfully we do have some regulation and rules on impartiality at least in broadcast.

yes, we have some regulation, so it would matter little. i dont think the UK would tolerate Fox style news, with BBC and ITN, Sky has competed (and won awards for journalism?) by upping its game.

I've been following this story from the start and it's sad that it's taken the story of a hacking into that poor girls phone for people to sit up and notice to be frank.

Far from worrying than what private investigators got up to, is the behaviour of (thankfully a few) individuals within the Police Force.

well, didnt matter when it was those celebs. now it could be anyone its a bit more personal and pressing. It is *very* odd how the police seem to have investigated and known about alot of this and decided not to do anything about it, didnt they even pointedly say theres nothing to see here? why/what/who were covering for?

 

[clapham_gull]

well, didnt matter when it was those celebs.

Well there was always more to it than that, but I take as your point that was all that being reported. We had a few stories about MPs as well, but who feels sorry for them after the expenses scandal ?

However (political allegiances aside) from the outset I was astonished that David Cameron took an ex-tabloid editor as his press advisor. From what I've read it was possibly Osbourne who recommended him.

It really brings into question their judgement, an observation that is being heard as loudly from the right as well as the left. Possibly Cameron had never read the News of The World ? Did he really understand who Coulson was ?

They are either completely naive or arrogant beyond belief. I suspect a bit of both.

Surely both would have realised that there a far chance that their press secretary had dirt on other MPs, possibly their close colleagues. Perhaps even members of their own family with Osbourne.

Incredibly, incredibly stupid. But fascinating all the same.

Another suggestion doing the rounds is that Murdoch doesn't like Cameron. Hates his privileged upbringing. Doesn't really explain his love of Tony Blair, but explains his God like worship of Thatcher. Coulson was brought in (in opposition) to persuade Murdoch to switch back to the Tories.

Cameron appears a bit jumpy at the moment, I wonder if anything is about the hit the fan ?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Political allegiances aside, from the outset I was astonished that David Cameron took an ex-tabloid editor as his press advisor, and from what I've read it was actually Osbourne who recommended him.

Who did Alistair Campbell work for pre New Labour?

 

[clapham_gull]

Who did Alistair Campbell work for pre New Labour?

Mirror (I think), but he was hardly Andy Coulson. He did however make up for his lack of profile later.....

Not had much luck with Press secretaries lately have we ?

Tories obviously didn't learn from Labour did they. What is it they say ? As soon as the person controlling the stories becomes the story it's time to go.

Cameron clung onto him like a comfort blanket after the story first broke.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I think the press secretaries become their own stories (I also know personally the head of the press at no.10), but if it is blindly stupid for the Tories to do it, the same can be aimed at the Labour party, so this shouldn't become a political oneupmanship, in my humble opinion.

 

[8ace]

love it! I have put more in my account hoping to win millions!

Bookies rely on turnover, they will win in the end even if you win big in the short term. I will stiill be boycotting them even if they are stand out best odds on one of my selections.

On another note if anyone says "I'm boycotting NOTW but not giving up Sky TV" that is a f***ing piss poor effort.

 

[clapham_gull]

I think the press secretaries become their own stories (I also know personally the head of the press at no.10), but if it is blindly stupid for the Tories to do it, the same can be aimed at the Labour party, so this shouldn't become a political oneupmanship, in my humble opinion.

No I agree and Tony was having Christmas lunch with News International in the same way.

However, Cameron can't get away from the fact that he was closely associated with (and publicly defended) someone who is now in the centre of a major criminal investigation.

Fortunately for Labour, the old guard who were also in bed with News International have gone away.

The one saving grace is that Osbourne now appears to have his phone hacked as well.

You couldn't make it up.

 

[clapham_gull]

Back to the original question, well no to be honest. I'm currently watching Sky News, which I honestly think is a great news channel. I'd rather watch that than Blue Peter (sorry BBC News) in the morning.

In reality not wholly owned by Murdoch and doing very well in their coverage of the story.

Feel a bit sorry for them to be honest having to put up with the rubbish that over parts of the organisation are responsible for.

If Murdoch takes control of BSkyB I really hope that the station is given independence as expected.

Just get rid of that Burley women please.

 

[drew]

im dont really get the "boycott murdoch" thing. News of the world, yes, but then its a shitty rag anyway. but just because the owner owns other outlets, i dont see why one would boycott them purely by this association. it seems a political thing, people dont like Murdoch (cant say i care for him) so will use this as a big stick to beat him with. when i heard Prescott thought this issue should mean the Sky deal should be blocked, it just looked like cheap political grandstanding.

Are you seriously suggesting that this is purely a NOTW problem? Rebekah Brooks was News Editor at the time her journalists were employing Mulcaire and probably others to hack phones. Paul McMullen who was on 5live yesterday admitted that he paid £30k for a story with the intimation that it was to a police officer and that this would definitely need approval by the editor of the time. The Editor will be fully aware of how her employees are gathering stories. Her statement today says it is inconceivable that she would know. Well I would suggest most people will think that it is inconceivable that she wouldn't know. And where is this pillar of morality now. Funny but she's been promoted and is now the CEO of News International.

Murdoch was powerful way before Cameron came along. You've got to be naive to think that this is about partisan politics. Murdoch threw his weight behind Labour for ten years. The fact that Cameron might be seen as 'Murdoch's mate' doesn't hide the fact that Blair was happy enough with his patronage.

It's not about partisan politics but the shit has hit the fan on Cameron's watch. What is worse for him is that he employed Coulson who was already embroiled in the hacking scandal and that brings into question his judgement. Would the Tories have been endorsed by News International papers had Coulson not worked for Cameron, who knows but it certainly helped the party. As it was, they nearly screwed up the election from what was a massive lead in the polls. That said, Murdoch appears to be no fan of Cameron as a person but he does serve a purpose.

Paying tribute to Murdoch: Cameron promises the end of Ofcom | Media Money

to quote '26 June: Ofcom rules that BSkyB — one of the few UK outposts of News Corp that actually generates profits — should offer its sports and film channels to rival broadcasters at “regulated prices”. BSkyB pledges to “use all available avenues” to contest Ofcom’s findings.

6 July: David Cameron, the prospective prime minister of Great Britain, makes a speech in which he promises to “take power away from the political elite” by restricting the power of Britain’s 790 quangos. In particular, Cameron promises that if he is elected, Ofcom “as we know it will cease to exist”.

Its remit will be restricted to its narrow technical and enforcement roles. It will no longer play a role in making policy. And the policy-making functions it has today will be transferred back fully to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.'

It certainly is in Murdoch's interest to have Ofcom removed from his path and maybe Cameron's comments were courting the support of Murdoch.

I've been following this story from the start and it's sad that it's taken the story of a hacking into that poor girls phone for people to sit up and notice to be frank.

Far from worrying than what private investigators got up to, is the behaviour of (thankfully a few) individuals within the Police Force.

Whether they were taking a few quid or just scared of the newspaper is astonishing.

Beyond any suggestion of corruption, the police have had a lot of this evidence for ages but have decided to simply sit on it.

Why ?

It's being to look like a good old fashioned Establishment cover up that is beginning to fall to pieces like a house of cards.

It's going to be a fascinating few days and I suspect the details currently out are just the tip of the iceberg.

Well there was always more to it than that, but I take as your point that was all that being reported. We had a few stories about MPs as well, but who feels sorry for them after the expenses scandal ?

However (political allegiances aside) from the outset I was astonished that David Cameron took an ex-tabloid editor as his press advisor. From what I've read it was possibly Osbourne who recommended him.

It really brings into question their judgement, an observation that is being heard as loudly from the right as well as the left. Possibly Cameron had never read the News of The World ? Did he really understand who Coulson was ?

They are either completely naive or arrogant beyond belief. I suspect a bit of both.

Surely both would have realised that there a far chance that their press secretary had dirt on other MPs, possibly their close colleagues. Perhaps even members of their own family with Osbourne.

Incredibly, incredibly stupid. But fascinating all the same.

Another suggestion doing the rounds is that Murdoch doesn't like Cameron. Hates his privileged upbringing. Doesn't really explain his love of Tony Blair, but explains his God like worship of Thatcher. Coulson was brought in (in opposition) to persuade Murdoch to switch back to the Tories.

Cameron appears a bit jumpy at the moment, I wonder if anything is about the hit the fan ?

I think it is you that is naive to suggest Cameron may not have had the full details on Coulson. The purpose was to court the support of News International group of titles and therefore win the election. He would have known the full details of the background of Coulson's NOTW departure. The gamble paid off because they got the support they needed and won power. Now for services rendered, they need to come up with the goods to keep Murdoch happy. Low and behold, the culture secretary announced not that long ago the government would allow Murdoch to buy BskyB when it had previoulsy been objected to by Labour and then Vince Cable who was removed from post due to underhand press tactics and his own naivety.

Of course, now the hacking scandal and police corruption allegations have hit the fan then Ofcom can declare News International/News Corp etc as not 'fit and proper' and block the purchase.

However, I do agree that the next few days could become very very interesting unless Cameron/Murdoch can find one almighty carpet to try and sweep it all under!!!!

 

[clapham_gull]

I think it is you that is naive to suggest Cameron may not have had the full details on Coulson.

Polite as ever, please bother to read the posts you have just quoted. I doubt he would have employed him if he suspected his paper was hacking his chancellors phone....

Cameron strikes me as a bit of f*ck wit to be honest, clinging on desperately to people he perceives to understand the real world like Coulson.