Can Hunt do a deal with Murdoch to meet Ofcom's concerns?

Another fine mess for the Coalition but at least they can blame it on Vince the Wince.

So Robert:

if your leak is correct and Hunt follows the Ofcom report then the DCMS is currently allowing a false market in BSkyB shares.

if your leak is correct but Hunt is not going to follow the Ofcom report then DCMS decision will be sent to the courts.

Best guess is civil service in that situation is dammed if they do and dammed if they dont so will adopt time honoured practice of making sure Hunt delays his decision for as long as possible

What you describe as thinking to me is idle speculation. Thought doesn't really come into it.

Robert - Say it goes ahead - how much "News" would the Murdoch empire be responsible for compared to say the News output of the BBC?

Why should we be concerned about one but not the other? Mr Murdoch doesn't force me to pay for his news output, but I can't escape the licence fee.

Hunt should allow the bid and let competition begin. The bbc has been too biased for too long and has monopolised left wing thinking in Britain. Time for a change if not then the BBC should be split up and reduced to a core news service. Privatise the bbc internet, Radio.

Interesting that yesterday Sky ran the story of the Treasury mandarin castigating the previous Labour government 'Lost control of spending' and yet the BBC never mentioned it at all. We need Sky and Murdoch to balance the bias of the left wing BBC.
However, I would support the BBC providing a strap on the bottom of teh screen showing the journalist political record as Bloomberg and CNBC do for their analysts when commenting on companies.

Catastrophe, fiasco, embarrassment, blunder, delay and debacle.

Is there anything else to say?

Maybe one thing - Jim Naughtie was right to spoonerise Culture and Hunt.

@ 3. At 15:23pm on 20th Jan 2011, Poetic Wolf wrote:

> Thought doesn't really come into it.

Thought is the only important thing about culture.

'He who controls information controls the world'

Sky news is basically rubbish, though I have it in my Virgin deal, It's a channel to 'channel surf' very quickly by. What worries me is 'Old Roop' buying up it's rivals and closing them down. Thank God for the BBC, at least Mr Murdoch can't ruin that.....I think..?

@7. At 15:53pm on 20th Jan 2011, Jacques Cartier wrote:
Catastrophe, fiasco, embarrassment, blunder, delay and debacle.

Is there anything else to say?

---------------------------------------------------------

Yes. Pay rise. Promotion. Bonus.

What ever Murdoch and Son's flunkeys might say the truth of the matter is that News Corp needs to get this issue sorted out ASAP - before the Coulson affair goes nuclear. Statements to the contrary are negotiating bluff - nothing more.

Make no mistake Jeremy is there to give Murdoch and Son what they want. He is just engaging in a bit of pre-coital chat before he (and the country's media) is scrxxed. Jeremy is trying to to make it look consensual.

#6 At 15:47pm PURPS wrote:

Interesting that yesterday Sky ran the story of the Treasury mandarin castigating the previous Labour government 'Lost control of spending' and yet the BBC never mentioned it at all.

Actually, this was covered in some detail on yesterday morning's Today programme on Radio 4. But why let the facts get in the way, eh?

The more I read about Fox News, and chat-show hosts such as Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, the more I dread the idea that this sort of stuff could be broadcast here in the UK. The sheer nastiness, not to mention the damaging misinformation emanating from some of these sources scares me witless and is, I believe, largely responsible for the unhappy state of US politics today. That the owners of these channels can allow such stuff onto the airwaves, I find deeply shocking. We need this sort of thing here, like we need a hole in the head.

1. At 14:52pm on 20th Jan 2011, watriler wrote:
Another fine mess for the Coalition but at least they can blame it on Vince the Wince.

Yes thay can. If the clown prince Vince had not been so stupid perhaps he would be ruling on this issue.

Why are the BBC in such a tizzy ober this matter? Murdoch provides what his customers want they want at the price they are prepared to pay.

If I had a choice would I pay the Licence Tax? No I would not. The BBC news output is biased and more commentary than factual reporting, worth perhaps £4 per month

Rupert Murdoch wants all of Sky. Jeremy Hunt has to answer the question: is this ion the public interest on two counts: 1. will it stifle competition by creating a monopoly and 2. is Rupert Murdoch a fit and proper person to own/control such a large chunk of the media?

If either answer is anything but an unequivocal 'yes' then Jeremy Hunt has a duty to reject the deal. If he does anything else he is open to legal challenge and judicial review. If he rejects the deal only Rupert Murdoch will go to court, but the government will have the unanimous support of the British people!

Not sure what to be most concerned about, the polarisation of views or the misconception that the majority of people actually give a damn (when they spend some much time digesting garbage on TV).

Knowledge is not power, shared knowledge is power and whilst the Internet is available to all (at least in the West) there will never be a shortage of challenging comment.

Better still let people get together, in our village we are working hard to bring people face to face. I recently covered a story on a new speakers' corner in "sleepy" Lincoln.

The fact that discussions are now going on in secret between Jeremy Hunt and the Murdochs is, to use James Murdoch's own word about the BBC, "chilling." It would seem that this government has absolutely no qualms about promoting the interests of it's friends and supporters, even if it may be against the public interest. If it was right to remove the decision from Vince Cable for his anti Murdock bias, the same should apply to Jeremy Hunt who's actions show equal pro Murdoch bias. The next step will be to change the rules which insist on "balance" in the broadcast media. This will open the way for a Fox News style programme in this country and that really will be "chilling."

What a nonsense. All the right wing bloggers complaining of a left wing bias in the BBC when we have a blatantly right wing biased press. One tabloid left of centre paper (Mirror), a guardian paper that told its readers to vote Liberal Democrat, a supposedly Independent Indy, versus Murdochs neo-Con Sun and Times which dwarf the circulation of the others backed up by The Mail, and the rabid fascists in the Telegraph. HOW IS THAT BALANCE. Give Murdoch even more power to dominate television in this country and you may as well kiss goodbye to reasoned debate in our media. Right wing propaganda shoved down our throats whether we want it or not. As a left of centre voter I do not like Murdoch, I despise his Monopolistic ambitions and his determination to impose his will in our country. How can a man born in Australia with US citizenship be allowed to influence the direction of our country? What hold does Rupert Murdoch have on The Tory party, dodgy phone calls perhaps? This decision will seriously affect the plurality of our media. Will someone stand up to Murdoch?

If the Government does as good job with this as they have done with the banks..

Looks as if we can look forward to another dose of mess and muddle! O.K. so what is new.

By the way, can anyone explain why the response time of this site has become so slow and erratic over the last month or so. Is it due to the adverts. that we poor mortals that abroad now get as we do not pay a licence fee?

Lets play a game called troll spotting.

How many of the accounts that are used to support Murdoch today have been created today or only ever comment on Murdoch blogs.

13. At 16:22pm on 20th Jan 2011, rbs_temp wrote:

"Actually, this was covered in some detail on yesterday morning's Today programme on Radio 4. But why let the facts get in the way, eh?"

rbs_temp - you have blown me away! - how incredibly balanced of you to point this out.

Are you turning? - don't worry, you're always welcome into the fold....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

4. At 15:31pm on 20th Jan 2011, not_Shakespeare wrote:

"Robert - Say it goes ahead - how much "News" would the Murdoch empire be responsible for compared to say the News output of the BBC?"

....but who did the BBC announce they were backing before the election? I can't remember such an announcement being made - but the Murdoch press nailed their colours to the mast.
There is some accountability with the BEEB - I mean where is points of view on SKY? - oh that's right, it doesn't exist.

"Why should we be concerned about one but not the other? Mr Murdoch doesn't force me to pay for his news output, but I can't escape the licence fee."

You can - don't buy a TV!

5. At 15:44pm on 20th Jan 2011, PURPS wrote:

"Hunt should allow the bid and let competition begin."

yeah - like competition sorted out the energy sector, the utility sector, the railways etc.

I can see why you like commerical TV so much - a very short attention span and a poor memory.

"The bbc has been too biased for too long and has monopolised left wing thinking in Britain."

My goodness, if you think the BBC has left wing thinking - you shouldn't meet some of the people I know.

"Time for a change if not then the BBC should be split up and reduced to a core news service. Privatise the bbc internet, Radio."

yeah - like competition sorted out the energy sector, the utility sector, the railways etc....

Short attentions span and poor memory fella.

@13 bs -temp Actually, this was covered in some detail on yesterday morning's Today programme on Radio 4. But why let the facts get in the way, eh?

but not on the mass media of TV news. WHY? How many people got to hear that then? Zero in real terms

To be honest this who buys what and who owns the other is of no real interest to me, perhaps it should, but didn’t the baddy get blown up in the end anyway (james bond).

I have however got a valid comment based on previous experience:

My wife and I (sounds regal) were in Spain last year when the ash cloud floated across and was stuck over there for exactly a week. I got more relevant news via Sky than the BBC. Yes we were one of the lucky ones (thank you for asking) we have a property out there and have sky television (+teletext) so we were able to keep abreast of developments. The BBC was our first port of call but the information was patchy and somewhat unhelpful because it did not meet our needs – I was rather disgusted with the level of expected information. I got the impression they were following old Gordy in that if I say and do sweet Fanny Adam then no one can have a go at me.

SNAFU. Rather disapppointing that once again politicians are willing to ignore existing policy (and indeed good sense) to further the ambitions of a multi millionaire.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

16. At 16:56pm on 20th Jan 2011, John_from_Hendon wrote:

If he rejects the deal only Rupert Murdoch will go to court, but the government will have the unanimous support of the British people!

- Erm unanimous? I support Mr Murdoch's desire to do what he wants to do with his resources. So, not unanimous.

You are Hendon's dissenting view!

#26 PURPS

"How many people got to hear that then?"

Fly a kite why dontcha?
And when it flies into the ground try to ignore it.

Cabinet ministers did this sort of thing all of the time when labour were in power in the last govt?
So why the intense scrutiny of Hunt's position ... surely he is only just doing his job?

@4 said - I can't escape the licence fee.

...........

That's because it's your BBC ........ if you buy a TV

@26 PURPS, you are right to put your finger on the biggest "news coverage" story of this week. The top treasury civil servant , politically independent, saying to the select committee that labour lost control of spending in defence, health and education from 2005.

As you said it was the lead item on the Sky News Bulletin last night at 6pm (one of the most viewed times for news bulletins) and yet the BBC failed to mention it in their own half hour , instead focusing on the umpteenth council to announce a couple of hundred largely non-compulsory redundancies, and a small demo by students about EMA.

It being covered on the Today program is no excuse for this dereliction of duty as a public interest broadcaster. The Today program does not have the far reach of BBC TV news at 6pm, which has 30 mins and time to cover plenty of stories.

The BBC is on thin ice having already recently admitted that its coverage in relation to the issues of immigration and the European Union in the past few years was not balanced. If its coverage of the public finances/deficit reduction continues in its current bias, then it will I think lead to a considerable clipping of the BBC's wings.

24. At 18:30pm on 20th Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:

....but who did the BBC announce they were backing before the election?

No one. However, that didn't stop them acting as the broadcasting arm of the liberal left throughout the campaign, or acting as the unofficial opposition since. It's in their genes (apparently).

I was merely making the point that the BBC itself, because of its size and method of funding, is a great hinderance to media plurality in this Country. It would appear some posters here only want "plurality" as long as all the providers share a single world view.

As with the promises by the Conservatives during the General Election campaign to act against the bankers - it does rather seem to be 'more of the same' with the Murdoch stranglehold of the UK media and a 'blind eye attitude' by the blue party.

Everybody might assume at the moment that we have a free media and they report and interpret the news as it happens. The fact though is, that that is not true.

Eurocrisis, for example, what is the cause for that? The markets, we are told. Well, what markets exactly? The bond markets suffer, yes, but the more important (because 4 times bigger in outstanding volumes) Credit Default Swaps markets are doing swimmingly.

Which market do you hear about? The suffering bond markets, of course. Why have you never heard about the CDS market?

Massive profits that can be made through CDS (pure speculative bets on countries going bust) with which hedgefunds are trying to shaft the general public as the Eurocrisis worsens. First while CDS prices rise in line with rising bond yields, and then by advocating default or haircuts of the alleged problem countries.

How do they the hedgefunds do that? You have to draw your own conclusions, why this is not covered in the media. Or why economists advocate restructuring of debts of countries when their debt/GDP ratio is 150%. The UK's was 240% after the second World War and it had neither liquidity, nor solvency problems.

Why are the media not reporting this, this is a real scandal?

CDS should be banned immediately, then the Eurocrisis would be over. Why does nobody advocate that in the press? Not one person? In any paper?

If you want to know more, look at the readers' comments' section of Mohamed El-Erian's article in the FT (El-Erian is a hedgefund manager), its worth registering with the FT just for that. Or look the readers' comments on the Economist's ridiculous Plan B proposal, sort comments by recommendations, and look until you find my comments.

And then ask yourself, why you have not heard anything about how CDS owners can profit from the Eurocrisis and how the press is involved?

And then ask yourself, whether you now want Rupert Murdoch with its dumbed down and hate mongering Fox News reporting on top of it?

Or are we not being shafted enough already?

And then you realise that you already know what the answer of a Minister who answers to the name of Hunt will be? (Phew, lucky I did not make the famous Radio 4 gaffe there in my spelling!)

#30. Lindsay_from_Hendon wrote:

"- Erm unanimous? I support Mr Murdoch's desire to do what he wants to do with his resources. So, not unanimous.

You are Hendon's dissenting view!"

As usual you are writing claptrap.

As a Swiss resident please desist from besmirching the real residents of both Hendons (in London and Sunderland). Do not claim to represent a place you are no prepared to live in! (and where you do not pay taxes.)

As an aside, I just watched Robert's programme on the I-player, Lady Grey is at the theatre tonight, so I had a bit of peace, she has gone to see one of shakespeare's rarer plays ' Ye old Jersey boys' featuring Sir Frankie Valiant and his men of all seasons. Robert was very informative himself, but the people he interviewed had that condescending look that villains have who think they have a god given right to steal from us. Still well done Robert for trying to clear the fog from our mere mortal eyes.

Wow matt_us, thanks for the info. It seems what you say makes really good sense. Looking forward to WoW, Jacques and rbs comments on it. Should be good fun.

Murdoch and news. If people watch Sky News and not BBC or Channel 4 then they are likely to think a certain way anyway. Stopping the take over will achieve what exactly? Let it all happen. Why waste more money on it?

what surely matters most of all to news corp is to reap the financial benefits of 100% ownership - gaining full access to Sky's prodigious cash flow.

cross selling/promotion possibilities are minor factors.

news corp will make whatever concessions it needs to in order to gain clearance. only it doesn't want to admit to this too publically so expect a lot of huffing and puffing along the way.

sky's shareholders need to see this if they don't already do so and make Murdoch pay top dollar.

paulbir

Is "Can Hunt" rhyming cockney slang?

@ 19. sxbloke wrote:
"What a nonsense. All the right wing bloggers complaining of a left wing bias in the BBC when we have a blatantly right wing biased press. One tabloid left of centre paper (Mirror), a guardian paper that told its readers to vote Liberal Democrat, a supposedly Independent Indy, versus Murdochs neo-Con Sun and Times which dwarf the circulation of the others backed up by The Mail, and the rabid fascists in the Telegraph. HOW IS THAT BALANCE."

Circulation is sales; so it would seem that more people buy newspapers that you consider to be right wing. There would seem to be a few potential reasons for this.
1) The quality of left wing publications is poor [in whuich case, if there was a market there, someone would have been likely to fill the gap].
2) Supporters of the left are unlikely to buy newspapers
3) The general "centre" ground for newspaper readers is somewhat different to your perceptions of right and left and where you believe it to be.

Its interesting that comments claiming the BBC has a right wing bias are pretty much non-existant, and those claiming it is in some way neutral tend to have views somewhat to the left if people were to guage the nature of the majority of their posts.

I think Mr Hunt has little choice in the matter but follow the politics. If he doesn't then Jim Naughtie will be allowed to have a field day.

When the question goes to Ofcom will News International ask why there is only one Competition Commission?

22. At 18:06pm on 20th Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:

> rbs_temp - you have blown me away! - how incredibly balanced of you to point this out.
> Are you turning? - don't worry, you're always welcome into the fold....

He's too late for me - I've added all bankers to the list of people who can't have any of my organs when I die. I would hate to think that any banker was walking around with my kidneys etc.

38

Well said, John.

I would like to add to a few more words to your remark; namely,`and where you do not pay a TV license fee'.

39 AudenGrey

I watched the programme last night as well but on an older technology called a VCR: we are very backward in these rural parts.

The programme was very good and should be compulsory viewing for everyone of voting age. There must be banking reform before these stupid people take us to the cleaners all over again.

Wha's exactly wrong with Hunt talking to Murdoch? Why the hysteria?
Surely its best to have a conversation on an issue and try to understad he positions of those you're dealing with and maybe come to some form of workable compromise.
In the event of no compromise being achievable, nothing is really lost.

I thought conciliation was supposed to be a good thing as opposed to the recent trend for favouring the adversarial route via the courts. Whilst its unlikely to prevent the need for a competition enquiry (whether it actually makes any difference given the lack of competition faced by BSkyB in satellite broadcasting and NewsCorp in printed media is open to debate), an attempt to talk is at least showing a desire to explorwe all avenues before going down a costly and time consuming route, even though this is perhaps inevitable.

I strongly disagree with this line of your blog Robert. I don't think you have an actual story here. It is pure speculation (leaks given to you by 'government insiders' are not evidence). Fine for the average man on the street, but you are not the average man on the street - you're a leading journalist at our national broadcaster.

I agree that the decision over whether to allow News Corp to buy the rest of BSkyB is an important story, but what you have here is little more than gossip.

No WOTW this morning. Tony Blair giving evidence at the Chilcot Inquiry. Coincidence?

#45 JC

He's too late for me - I've added all bankers to the list of people who can't have any of my organs when I die. I would hate to think that any banker was walking around with my kidneys etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't worry, Jacques, Banksters don't have hearts, so that will be one organ they won't be getting their hands on:-)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

REMEMBER!....it's Murdoch who chooses our governent, not you.

The PM, the mogul and the secret agenda
https://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jul/23/newscorporation.rupertmurdoch


The article specifically states that Murdoch supported Blair on the Iraq War.

Now why might that have been ?

(hint: Murdoch is one of Israel's biggest supporters).

Murdoch's hunger for power is a looming threat to democracy
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/28/henry-porter-news-international-murdoch

'For as long as most of us can remember, this dynast posing as an anti-establishment newcomer, this patriotic Australian who became a citizen of the United States, this family-values diehard who went off with another woman, has been running things behind the scenes. We are used to his power and sardonic disdain for Britain but last week a line was crossed when Murdoch's News International dismissed a parliamentary committee's report on the phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World by saying that the all-party membership of the committee had formed some kind of a conspiracy.'

Irrespective of whether this is a good thing or not for the audience - I find News International's strategy slightly confusing from a business strategy point of view.

At the moment Sky is primarily a platform provider, with its only compeling content being its near monopoly of Sport. But this platform is increasingly looking outdated when compared to what Virgin are currently offering (fully on-demand films and music video, seemless integration with view again services like iPlayer) - and even more with what YouView will offer over the next year or so. And I can't really see how the satellite model can be adapted to compete.

So given that will Sport be enough to maintain Sky's income? I had been a subscriber to SkySports for around 10 years until last year - when I decided that given my financial outlook I couldn't really justify it anymore. I'm sure I'm not unique in that respect.

If NI are looking to take full control to provide cash flow to support their newspaper business through the transition from paper delivery to online delivery - then this strikes me as quite risky and potentially a short term fix.

I am sure that the Murdoch's have thought all this through and have a plan - but I would be interested in others thoughts as to what that might be...

An elsewhere in the news;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12249166
And with our debt based monetary system requiring a perpetual growth in the debt to enable the interest of previous debt to be serviced this means the system undoubtably will face another crisis in due course. This means more defaults on debts and more banks falling over, and the risk of this happen is increasing all the time as house prices continue to slide. Finally closed my state owned bank, bank account last week, and shifted to a mutual building society, I must admit I enjoyed the moment. The mutual may not be 100% safe, but at least no share holders to service, and they can no longer can they use my money as capital for FRB. Vote with your feet

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#50. At 10:08am on 21st Jan 2011, Lindsay_from_Hendon wrote:
"No WOTW this morning. Tony Blair giving evidence at the Chilcot Inquiry. Coincidence?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting Tony Blair is on the "Left" of the political line.

No go back and write out one hundred times - "I must not be ridiculous in class again".

MisterGC wrote:
I find News International's strategy slightly confusing from a business strategy point of view

I couldn't agree more. BSkyB seems to be losing it's market ability to command fees based upon (first) it's wide range of programming, and (second) an ability to get a satellite signal where terrestial coverage was poor. Freeview and Freesat cover most of what Sky has to offer, cheap DVDs do it for the Sky Movie channel (which seems to mostly run repeats of mediocre american romcom genre), and as the only sport I watch on TV is rugby and occasionally golf I am pretty much OK with not having Sky. And to think that at one time I was paying over £80 per month for two Sky boxes! Many people I talk with either have given up on Sky or are seriously considering a switch to Freesat. So, for my money, News International is chasing for control of a broadcaster that is of less strategic significance than it once was.

Having said that, maybe I would watch Sky news less often if the BBC Breakfast offering carried more news! So, the threat seems to be less from the dominance of News International's news offering and more from the BBC's 'news light' approach (which includes, I must say, Robert's blogs!)

It's all the fault of the snow - snow is blighting this land.

After hearing about the 'Johnson' allegations I'm wondering if I am in fact an undercover copper but that I'm "in so deep" I can't remember!

Plod in, Johnson down, Balls up.

Don't worry about the leaked Ofcom news Robert - it goes on all the time - we call it 'insider trading' in the business and apparently it's frowned upon by some people (Food standards Agency I hear are always imposing fines)

This is Fascism Robert - get used to it. it won't be long before you receive a memo from on high telling you to 'stop rustling feathers' it's causing alarm.
Why don't we just make Murdoch 'media Czar' and get it over and done with - then he could authorise his own media monopoly rather than having to go through this charade.

...then at least the lines would be drawn for battle...

30. At 20:07pm on 20th Jan 2011, Lindsay_from_Hendon wrote:

"- Erm unanimous? I support Mr Murdoch's desire to do what he wants to do with his resources. So, not unanimous. "

Resources?

58. At 11:17am on 21st Jan 2011, NorthSeaHalibut wrote:

#50. At 10:08am on 21st Jan 2011, Lindsay_from_Hendon wrote:
"No WOTW this morning. Tony Blair giving evidence at the Chilcot Inquiry. Coincidence?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting Tony Blair is on the "Left" of the political line.

No go back and write out one hundred times - "I must not be ridiculous in class again".

If I had known about it in advance then I would have taken the day off and gone with my rotten eggs. Sadly it wasn't well publicised (I wonder why) - but nevr mind, those who cannot make it and those who are too compliant to realise why they should go - I will represent you if I can get out of work on time by informing the 'demon of Durham' how many children have dies to pamper his ego.

Someone has to do it - I mean if you can't hold the man who ran the country to account - then we're no better than any other fascist dictatorship in the world - other than the pretence of and election once every 5 years.

56. At 11:04am on 21st Jan 2011, Averagejoe

joe, it's OK, it was just caused by the snow. Apparently people were unable to lift the frozen pens from the desk at the building society and sign the mortgage.
Had we not been invaded by this awful white stuff then the mortgage market would be tickedy boo.

Please do not spread rumours about it being related to credit crunches, FRB, banking, the Government or charlatan economists.

You will upset the others with such talk.

• 58. At 11:17am on 21st Jan 2011, NorthSeaHalibut wrote:
#50. At 10:08am on 21st Jan 2011, Lindsay_from_Hendon wrote:
"No WOTW this morning. Tony Blair giving evidence at the Chilcot Inquiry. Coincidence?"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you suggesting Tony Blair is on the "Left" of the political line.

No go back and write out one hundred times - "I must not be ridiculous in class again".

- Won't listen to anyone else's opinion, fundamentalist belief that his beliefs are right, always eager to go to war (revolution)...Sounds like Tony!
Besides, WOTW's arguments aren't leftist as he appears to be proposing an anarchist system which is outside of the whole left/right sphere of politics. His ramblings about Marx are only used to criticise capitalism rather than support the new system which he supports. You see I do read his posts!

Coulson resigns. Query what impact this has on Mr Hunt's considerations and discussions with Sky.

If I was a media organisation wishing to oppose Murdoch I would be

- have my lawyers ready to obtain an interim injunction the moment Mr Hunt announces anything other than a referral to the Competition ;

- digging into the phone hacking allegations for all I was worth

#50 - looks like there was a 10 minute recess.... :-)

49. At 09:37am on 21st Jan 2011, pjs501 wrote:

"I agree that the decision over whether to allow News Corp to buy the rest of BSkyB is an important story, but what you have here is little more than gossip."

unlike SKY news which has only pure hard facts presented in an unbiased and professional manner.

See 'Sir George' demonstrate the numerous inaccurate facts and rank hypocriscy.....

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3371957478967198963

....the classic phrase "in most people's eyes" - used so often by the biased news.

57. At 11:12am on 21st Jan 2011, You wrote:
Your comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

Oh dear. Must have been my use of the word "corruption". A no no then

People 1 - Coalition 0

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8273715/Andy-Coulson-resigns-as-David-Camerons-director-of-communications.html

I wonder why....what comes next....?

Murdoch's man has walked!

Andy Coulson resigns as David Cameron's director of communications
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8273715/Andy-Coulson-resigns-as-David-Camerons-director-of-communications.html

Following a couple of shock resignations - I would like to state that I have no intention of resigning.
I did hear that Andy Coulson discovered he was an undercover officer - but it turns out it was just a mis-interpreted voicemail left on someone's phone.

I wonder how SKY will report this? - I bet they blame Gordon Brown.

I still blame the snow, if it hadn't of snowed then we wouldn't have watched so much TV and wouldn't even know who Andy Coulson is.

Do you think Rupert will offer him a job running Sky?

SNOW NEWS IS GOOD NEWS! (FOR EXCUSES THAT IS)

Retailers suffer worst December on record
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8273410/Retailers-suffer-worst-December-on-record.html

62. At 11:52am on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
If I had known about it in advance then I would have taken the day off and gone with my rotten eggs.
==============================================================

You are going soft my friend. I want the mass murderer on trial in the Hague along with Berlusconi, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell with one simple charge.

Did you start an illegal war? Yes. (Unless they can rewrite history Orwellian style with Fox News stating the didn't invade Iraq). Doubt it. Case closed - guilty as charged.

I wonder where Mr Coulson will re-emerge? In a highly paid job somewhere in the Murdoch empire would be my bet.

I reckon who could write a really interesting book on the coming to power of Clegg/Cameron/Osborne. Serialised in the Times of course. I reckon that possibility will keep young Jeremy on the straight and narrow.

Or maybe Coulson could do a book on his time as a Murdoch employee. Serialised in the Mirror. Mind you I am not sure they could afford to pay the amount that would be required.

Anyone prepared to give me odds on Nick Robinson replacing Andy Coulson?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Still bailing out the banks I see.....

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703951704576092133248887432.html

It's identical to the great depression - the media talks constantly of recovery - but the dominoes keep failling regardless...

@threewoodisusuallybetter:
"Wow matt_us, thanks for the info. It seems what you say makes really good sense. Looking forward to WoW, Jacques and rbs comments on it. Should be good fun."

Looks like you are better informed than most, or did you really read all the exposures in the FT or Economist, before you went off to the golf course this morning? You have read them before, right? (see post 37 above). That hedgefund managers are in the know is a given, though, otherwise this "Eurocrisis" would not happen. Its time somebody else shows some interest.

And I have not got a clue what WoW, Jacques and rbs are. Some Murdoch empire abbreviations of his output, I presume, which I never consume, apart from the occasional football game. In the pub or at friends, I might add, the Murdochs are not getting a penny of my money, even if they try to monopolise all the football in the world.

(That is something for Jeremy Hunt to look at surely, where is the competition for live football in the UK?)

But that is not the point, that the Murdoch media would be unlikely to uncover a scandal of the magnitude of the alleged "Eurocrisis" goes without saying.

But where is the rest of the media here? Where is the alleged independent BBC? Where is the Guardian, who used to put ministers in jail? Where is the Today programme, where the investigative Panorama reporters?

If they do not show up soon, there is really only one conclusion. The "Masters of the Universe" are in charge, who control you and me like puppets through absolutely all the media and the press. From the BBC to the Murdoch empire, they are all in it together.

(Although I see that the No. 10 press spokesman has resigned. Perhaps there is hope yet. Good riddance to him. And another reason to reject Sky's bid for Channel 5)

63. At 11:54am on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
56. At 11:04am on 21st Jan 2011, Averagejoe

joe, it's OK, it was just caused by the snow. Apparently people were unable to lift the frozen pens from the desk at the building society and sign the mortgage.
Had we not been invaded by this awful white stuff then the mortgage market would be tickedy boo.

Please do not spread rumours about it being related to credit crunches, FRB, banking, the Government or charlatan economists.

You will upset the others with such talk.

................
Perhaps I should ignore this article as well; https://www.prisonplanet.com/debt-continues-to-accumulate-as-the-economic-climate-worsens.html
which suggests, amongst other things the bond bubble is about to burst. Nothing to see here then. What crisis?

64. At 11:55am on 21st Jan 2011, Lindsay_from_Hendon wrote:

"- Won't listen to anyone else's opinion, fundamentalist belief that his beliefs are right, always eager to go to war (revolution)...Sounds like Tony!"

Oh dear Lindsay - has nobody taught you the difference between war and revolution yet?
....without this fundamental basic knowledge - how were you able to tell me categorically there is no revolution? I mean it seems you wouldn't know one if you stood within it!

"Besides, WOTW's arguments aren't leftist as he appears to be proposing an anarchist system which is outside of the whole left/right sphere of politics. His ramblings about Marx are only used to criticise capitalism rather than support the new system which he supports. You see I do read his posts!"

Oh I am not and anarchist, I am a human - I thought we all were? Maybe that's where I've been going wrong, I presumed you were all humans too. No wonder you have some funny ideas - what are you? - a gazelle? a three toed sloth? an orangatang?
I couldn't possibly be Tony Blair, because I would have dismantled Capitalism when I had the chance - not messing about with phoney wars in order to prolong it.

Uh Oh....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12252392

Peston! - To the batmobile....we have a story to write.

I wonder if these losses are related to the fact they don't actually know who owns or owes the debt they lent on sub-prime mortgages anymore!

These 'clever' bankers invented a system so uneccessarily complicated - they cannot understand it themselves anymore!

Apologies to Guy and the others for bringing up banking - but Murdoch stories are boring until there is actually something happening.

69. At 12:12pm on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
People 1 - Coalition 0

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/david-cameron/8273715/Andy-Coulson-resigns-as-David-Camerons-director-of-communications.html

I wonder why....what comes next....?
------------------------------------------------------------

I put my money on this being a sacrificial "resignation" and now the purchase will be allowed.

Any staff member who claims to be able work 110% cannot have a grasp on maths or reality so should be sacked anyway.

Chilcot inquiry: panel member claims antisemitism after impartiality queried
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/28/chilcot-inquiry-martin-gilbert

*Gilbert and fellow panel member Sir Lawrence Freedman "are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism," Miles wrote. "Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media."*

Great timing by Coulson. I guess they learnt something from the last Government apart from how not to run a nation's finances i.e. pick your days to bury bad news. Papers will be full of poor AJ's travails in the Sunday papers leaving this "old news" by Monday.

Incidentally, as News Corp own 40% of Sky already and RM's son runs the show, does anyone really think anything will really change if he end's up owning 100%?

Reaper of Souls: the rabid right will not be happy until all media report from a rightwing viewpoint. The constant labelling of the BBC as somehow leftist is just a part of a concerted campaign to control all media output to reflect the anti-social agenda of the right.
If the BBC was as left as you claim it would run stories virtually every night on how the government has broken another promise made by both guilty parties before the election rather than presenting their policies as somehow reasoned and part of a planned strategy.

76. At 12:45pm on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
"Still bailing out the banks I see.....

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703951704576092133248887432.html

It's identical to the great depression - the media talks constantly of recovery - but the dominoes keep failling regardless..."

Perhaps if these savings banks had also had an investment side then they would not have required a bailout.

Meanwhile, back on topic, to base an article on an unconfirmed leak is a little like the causes of the Northern Rock fiasco.

What is wrong with having Newscorps own BSkyB. I choose not to have Sky, so it does not affect me. For those who say "we will get Fox News" equivalent and there is no way that should be allowed, isn't that suppresion of free speech? So Sky do not have "Points Of View", but they would know if they are doing something wrong as subscriptions would fall. And, let's be honest. what difference does something like "Points of View" make to the broadcast programmes?

#80 writingsonthewall. Man what is your obsession with banks and bankers? Sure they are all frauds, but so is substantially everyone else.

It is well understood that banks are systemically insolvent but the media doesn't report that so that makes them frauds.

Some people seem incapable of accepting either that banks are systemically insolvent or that banks and bankers are all frauds. These people have presumably been to school where they have been taught by teachers, but seemingly not taught how to analyse or understand things. That seems to make the teaching profession a fraudulent profession.

You can go through pretty much every conceivable occupation and it will take seconds to identify the fraud that underpins that occupation. So given that the entire system is rotten from top to bottom what exactly is wrong with a few bankers enriching themselves by out frauding other fraudsters?

Give these guys a break and try to at least recognise that they deserve their rewards because they are master fraudsters operating in an entirely corrupt system. Sure they get bailed out when things go wrong, because if they didn't then they could no longer finance more general frauds - such as the fraudulent housing market. Just think about that. Imagine if peoples house prices strarted dropping by a few percentage points a week. You ask the people "hey you wanna watch your house price fall to zero, or do want to contribute to a beano for some Investment Bankers, and maybe get to see your house price triple?" I think you know the likely answer. But hey that's democracy for you - not a fraudulent system at all then!!

73. At 12:42pm on 21st Jan 2011, M_T_Wallet wrote:

"Did you start an illegal war? Yes. (Unless they can rewrite history Orwellian style with Fox News stating the didn't invade Iraq). Doubt it. Case closed - guilty as charged. "

...then I can do the eggs thing?

Morgan Stanley up - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12241178

Goldman Suchs down - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12225441

BoA – down - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12252392

“However, last year's results included a $4bn charge related to the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (Tarp).”

Why was a struggling bank charged $4bn?

2009
Morgan Stanley – down - https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8163295.stm

Goldman Suchs - up https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8472315.stm

BoA – up - https://investor.bankofamerica.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71595&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1308706&highlight=

To you to me – I’ve seen more imaginative stuff from the Chuckle Brothers

I say this for that nice Mr Cameron, soon as someone rocks the boat they are thrown overboard. He seems to be a man with a mission, I think our Etonian chums will use Murdoch as long as they need him...Then I'm afraid it's walk the plank time for 'Old Roop & son '

90 Etonians are famous for nice manners and absolute cynicism. But there is no way Cameron has the power or gumption to turn on Murdoch. Coulson walked as part of some sort of deal to allow Murdoch to gain even more control over UK media.

And to answer an earlier point about how the predponderance of right wing papers clearly illustrates how the UK public is more right wing than the BBC - no it doesn't. Papers are losing money all over the world, and its only the very rich and powerful who by and large can afford to stay in the game to continue to wield whatever political power is to be had. The Daily Wail exists to get its essentially unemployed workforce frothing at the mouth with indignation and out the door to vote as directed. The very rich and powerful by and large don't vote other than Tory - if you look at the ownership of the papers there is a complete correllation with their political support.

And plenty of people see your imaginary trendy left wing BBC as the voice of the establishment believe me, especially in this neck of the woods. They learned that the hard way during the eighties.

Breaking news!

Blair finishes his Iraq enquiry with an amazing revelation.

"It was that snow what made me do it" - he pleaded to the Chilcot inquiry.

This snow must be stopped.

Price of gold dropping £5/oz an hour at the moment......

85. At 13:36pm on 21st Jan 2011, yam yzf wrote:

"Perhaps if these savings banks had also had an investment side then they would not have required a bailout."

Clearly "integrated financial system" means nothing to you then.....no wonder you can assume that had we let Northern Rock fail then we wouldn't have ended up in chaos.

"Meanwhile, back on topic, to base an article on an unconfirmed leak is a little like the causes of the Northern Rock fiasco."

...except it was true - wasn't it. it wasn't a rumour, NR were going to the bank of England for emergency funding.

"What is wrong with having Newscorps own BSkyB. I choose not to have Sky, so it does not affect me."

I don't care about the people who don't watch SKY news, I worry about the morons that do. They will get all sorts of funny ideas in their heads - like shooting politicans is OK. If your news channel appeals to the lowest common denominator then it's not a good idea to present fiction as truth further enhancing the fantasy they are alread in.

"For those who say "we will get Fox News" equivalent and there is no way that should be allowed, isn't that suppresion of free speech?"

They can broadcast all the nonsense they want - however the problem is they are trapping unsuspecting viewers by buying exclusive rights to the programmes (or sports) they like.

"So Sky do not have "Points Of View", but they would know if they are doing something wrong as subscriptions would fall."

Then you did not read my comparison about supermarkets and milk the other day. You seem to be a little naeive about the marketing tactics being employed against you.
I bet you even think the endless TV, movie and pop awards are recognitions of talent and good production - rather than an industry buying a few medals for itself to give the impression of success.

"And, let's be honest. what difference does something like "Points of View" make to the broadcast programmes?"

it's called a right to reply - it's not perfect, but it's a start. However by not having it you show you don't care what the viewers think about your TV bile. You know they're subscribing for the sport - so you don't need to listen to their complaints.

The basic argument is that news should be factual - and quite frankly I'm not actually sure any of it is!
It's a shame when an ironic reproduction of the news in a comedy show last night was in fact more useful and believeable than the news itself!

At least we heard the real argument about student fees - and not some twisted nonsense from a pathetic reporter who isn't educated enough to ask the pertinent questions.
...a question which it was noted that Davd Willets had no answer for...

Meanwhile fox news in America reported the student protests as "students rioting because they don't want to pay their fees - I'm sure their mothers would be so proud (sarcasm)"

Not really accurate, truthful or particularly correct - and you think we should have more of this?

93. At 14:55pm on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:

"Then you did not read my comparison about supermarkets and milk the other day. You seem to be a little naeive about the marketing tactics being employed against you.
I bet you even think the endless TV, movie and pop awards are recognitions of talent and good production - rather than an industry buying a few medals for itself to give the impression of success"

Yes I did read the comparison and it didn't bother me for, as I have said many times on here, I tend to use local shops and not supermarkets. And if I do use the latter, it is indeed for milk and sometimes bread and to see what is on the reduced counters.

See the wonderful thing is that I do not fall for marketing. I do not have the latest gadgets, new cars - which is quite sad when they advertise that you can close the boot at a touch of a button from the drivers seat when most normal people would just close the boot as they have finished doing whatever it was that required it to be opened. I vote with my service - if a company does not give good service, then I do not use it. That is why for electronics I go to John Lewis, for produce and normal shopping I go to local shops.

So, to get back to what I was saying, if people are only using Sky for the sports, then what does it matter what is happening on the news channels. Or are you saying that most people are unable to think for themselves and make their own decisions?

• 79. At 12:51pm on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
Oh dear Lindsay - has nobody taught you the difference between war and revolution yet?
....without this fundamental basic knowledge - how were you able to tell me categorically there is no revolution? I mean it seems you wouldn't know one if you stood within it!

- Oh dear Mr De Wall (I think that makes you sound Dutch) I think I'd recognise a revolution. I did study the French, Russian, Glorious, 1848 and all that at University. Haven't seen one yet, I don't have to get the old rifle down (we all have rifles in Switzerland, cheaper defence costs you see - it's part of the Big Society). It will be sad if we meet at a distance of 300m.

Oh I am not and anarchist, I am a human - I thought we all were? Maybe that's where I've been going wrong, I presumed you were all humans too. No wonder you have some funny ideas - what are you? - a gazelle? a three toed sloth? an orangatang?

- No, I'm a tiger! Ok, you are proposing a human manifesto. Earlier you were talking about overthrowing capitalism. What do you want to replace it with? Government planned economies (shortages, nepotism is rife, fine for those at the top but not at the bottom so similar to capitalism) or an anarchy (but lack of luxuries including manufactured goods - read I, Pencil - you're always telling us to read something, give it a go!) or something else? Come on, you keep having a go at those that support capitalism. Give us a cogent argument in support of your preferred system (if you say I'm not here to teach children or something derogatory then you must do 50 push ups!). Also, describe your preferred system. I won't expect it to be perfect. You can't say, it isn't for me to decide because it is YOUR preferred system not the system that you think will be put in place.

I couldn't possibly be Tony Blair, because I would have dismantled Capitalism when I had the chance - not messing about with phoney wars in order to prolong it.

- Only the true messiah denies his true divinity!

Must go, off to join an anti bonus protest outside one of our so called tax payers banks.

93. At 14:55pm on 21st Jan 2011, writingsonthewall wrote:
85. At 13:36pm on 21st Jan 2011, yam yzf wrote:

"Perhaps if these savings banks had also had an investment side then they would not have required a bailout."

Clearly "integrated financial system" means nothing to you then.....no wonder you can assume that had we let Northern Rock fail then we wouldn't have ended up in chaos.

"Meanwhile, back on topic, to base an article on an unconfirmed leak is a little like the causes of the Northern Rock fiasco."

...except it was true - wasn't it. it wasn't a rumour, NR were going to the bank of England for emergency funding.


Would that be the emergency funding BoE rate that apparently all banks can fund themselves at when comparing to personal overdraft rates?
Surely whenever any bank even thinks about going to the BoE for funding an alarm goes off in Mr Pestons office and he can tell the world they are on the brink of collapse?

@90. At 14:28pm on 21st Jan 2011, FauxGeordie wrote:

Yep. The only thing I trust is personal experience meeting and talking with ordinary people who don't have a wheelbarrow to push at me. Even then, I only understand, at best, half of what I see/hear. As for organised media run by self-interested billionaires, how anyone (other than a Board member (and even some of them come to think of it)) can place any belief in it is beyond me.

@92. At 14:39pm on 21st Jan 2011, the_fatcat wrote:
Price of gold dropping £5/oz an hour at the moment......

-----------------------------------------------

Don’t fret. Futures for cereals and grains are looking good. Must’ve rained again last night in Queensland (or did it snow.....?). Is food the new gold?

https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/futures/

"RBS shares surge as bank could exit Government's asset scheme"

Sound familiar?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1349285/RBS-shares-surge-bank-exit-Governments-asset-scheme.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

...here's last years effort....

https://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23809645-rbs-makes-loss-of-only-pound-36bn.do

...and the year before....

https://www.heraldscotland.com/shares-in-royal-bank-surge-ahead-of-divisional-carve-up-1.903499

Ever get the feeling you're being lied to?
I mean 3 years on the trot and the markets have been wrong - this is possibly why bankers only want to 'look forward' and not backwards.

I wonder what will cause the RBS shares to 'surge ahead' about this time in 2012 - olympic sponsorship perhaps?

What a fraud - and so many suckers to simply gobble it all up - not noticing they've fallen for the same trick 3 years in a row.

Clever Capitalists my RBS.

97. At 15:54pm on 21st Jan 2011, moof_attack wrote:

"Surely whenever any bank even thinks about going to the BoE for funding an alarm goes off in Mr Pestons office and he can tell the world they are on the brink of collapse?"

Wrong - Mr Peston merely pointed out that NR were accessing the funding - the PEOPLE who were NR CUSTOMERS made the assumption the bank was on the brink of collapse.
Maybe you shoudl be asking yourself - if Mr Peston hadn't have told the customers - would the bank have survived?

Certainly not - in fact Mr peston probably saved some customers some time - they were able to draw their money rather than wait 8 months for the deposit guarantee to pay out.

I'm sure you would be only too happy if your bank was having to go for emergency funding without telling you - until you found all your money was gone - then I'm guessing you might see it differently.