DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

i.e. he appeared to be encouraging them to extend the scope of their review beyond their usual terms for a merger

oh sure sorry i thought he meant in takeovers in general

Pedantically, it wouldn't be -- takeovers handled by competition commission, licensing done by Ofcom. So CC could rule they can buy BSkyB, and then Ofcom say they'll lose their broadcasting licence under terms of the 1990 broadcasting act -- but either way, not that I can remember. It was something of an issue when Desmond took over C5, but nothing substantive happened then either.

There's also another option that hasn't been talked about much. Communications Act 2003 allows sec. of state for business (Vince Cable, so back to Hunt on this one as well) to object to acquisition if it reduces the "range and quality" of British broadcasting, or if new owner won't act in the spirit "of broadcast standards". Seems this is a pretty easy way to quash the deal, if they so desire.

xxps

ok i am sketchy on the details of what hunt wrote and to whom, but in answer to your question tracer, no "fit and proper" is not normally something the competition commission consider, certainly in non-media things

ITV news used the word 'grudge' about seventeen times in a two minute report about Gordon Brown's response to the story in the Guardian.

Three main points in American shrinkage of all this: 1. James Murdoch may also be liable under US law, re bribing foreign (UK) officials (so he's an American citizen? Sounds like one, or maybe dual) 2. Rupert indeed taking the opp to buy his own stock at bargain prices. 3. Whatever the final wording, being translated over here as a chance to let things cool down before ruling is made. Mainly the media is in Casey Anthony afterglow/daze, and giving a bit more coverage to sliding impasse re raising Federal debt limit.

Oh yeah, and this NYTimes Op-Ed in defense of Rupert
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/opinion/12iht-edcohen12.html?_r=1

man, even for them...

http://twitpic.com/5p7tfq

So basically they're saying that they got the private medical information from someone else but because it wasn't hacked that's ok? Slight air of desperation creeping in at NI. Look - here's pictures of the Browns with Murdoch and Brooks - we used to be so happy together! We only did it to help, we're the good guys! Even Cameron's been getting at us and it's sooooo unfair!

I like that they're this aggro and defensive, it shows that they're scared. For better or worse this debate has never been about intrusion. The "clean" journalists at the NoTW had been happily running stings and public interest stories about the sex lives of celebs every week since the hacking allegedly stopped. Nobody has publically called them on that, so the Sun is right to be focussing on the "we didn't break the law in this case" argument.

Whilst I tend to believe Brown that he went along with the story purely from fear of what a tabloid scorned might do next, it's a pretty lame argument from a dude who was the second most powerful politician in the country at the time.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/sun-exclusive/3692038/Source-of-Brown-story-speaks-out.html

"Earlier today I spoke to their deputy leader, Rory O'Connor, who under broadcasting restrictions must inhale helium to subtract credibility from his statements."

Whilst I tend to believe Brown that he went along with the story purely from fear of what a tabloid scorned might do next, it's a pretty lame argument from a dude who was the second most powerful politician in the country at the time.

― Everyday is a Whining Choad (Noodle Vague), Wednesday, July 13, 2011 8:19 AM (40 minutes ago) Bookmark

aye, i think his intervention fell flat. im afraid i don't think ex-pms should say they cried, ever, either.

Better if they do it in the back of the car while leaving Downing Street.

he (obviously) fucked it up too. there was a question about r dot brooks texting him and he said, oh i won't talk about that, you'd have to ask sarah, so basically saying yeah it happened but not telling the whole story.

so the Sun is right to be focussing on the "we didn't break the law in this case" argument.

Yeah, but..

I'm assuming here, but wouldn't a 'story' go:

1) Find out via hacking
2) Get an alternative source of the story, not too difficult now the time, location and details are known.

It was skipping part 2 that got them found out at the NOTW, but I can imagine STimes and Sun journos scrupulously covering over the 'phone hack' with supporting evidence.

xp I know crying is a bit overplayed these days but I don't think there's anything wrong with it and I would be depressed if there was. I might evben cry about it. Churchill was well known for crying - openly - in the House and he won WW2.

im afraid i don't think ex-pms should say they cried, ever, either.

xp I know crying is a bit overplayed these days but I don't think there's anything wrong with it and I would be depressed if there was. I might evben cry about it.

yeah otm like seriously will you let gordon brown cry about his life if he wants to

nyt 'defence of murdoch' really just a list of shitty aspects of murdoch each prefixed by 'but i don't mind about-', 'while it's true that he-'. he may have impoverished collective psychic understanding of climate change but by god did he do so boisterously.

Would laugh if the "family friend" turns out to be T Blair.

It doesn't matter who told the Sun, it's an invasion of privacy to run any item about a child/baby. Not of the parents' privacy - the child's.

Of course it is, but as I say the closure of the NotW didn't come about because of an outcry about their invasions of privacy.

Or rather, when it was a case of door-stepping and paying neighbours and work colleagues to dish the dirt, the public didn't seem particularly bothered. Obviously the response to the phone hacking is in part a reaction to the suddenly-revealed reality of what hacks consider fair game.

There's a reason why the aggressive doorstepping of family and friends and neighbours of tortured/killed children didn't get covered by the media.....

it's PMQs later; i wonder if cameron'll actually answer when asked what the deal is on rusbridger's warning & his chief of staff

watson's got a q booked

*prepares headphones, cleans headphone socket with Q-tip and alcohol, burps*

There’s a faction in the Conservative party (red meat Tories – the party’s ideological conscience) who are understandably desperate for the BSkyB deal to go through. It’s not because they love or even trust Rupert Murdoch but because they recognise that – ironic though this may seem – he currently represents Britain’s brightest hope for freedom of speech and the promulgation of the kind of small government, low tax, liberty-loving ideas you almost never hear expressed on the BBC except when donutted by a Lib-Dem, a Socialist, a Green and Fake Conservative telling you how dangerously extreme they are.

Jesus

the purpose of Murdoch’s BSkyB bid is essentially so that he can set up a UK version of America’s most popular news channel Fox News.

Uh no.

I'm gonna pretend Diplopole doesn't exist but I think there is a reasonable concern that, in the mid to long term, this week's shenanigans might lead to a rebalancing of power away from the press and towards the control-ist tendencies of today's exciting post-democracy political parties. I tend to assume that almost nobody is acting in good faith here, with the exception of guys like Watson and Rusbridger. It isn't completely bananas to worry about scumbaggery being used to further a restrictive agenda a la the Patriot Act in the US.

i think that's a reasonable fear. if politicians want a press that behaves more like the US, then they should give them a US-style freedom of information act.

how is the UK one different (serious question)?

my understanding is that the govt can just say "no" to a whole raft of stuff, and even stuff they can't say no to they can delay til the end of time

till the end of time you say? well that doesn't sound right.

30 year rule has all sorts of "because we say so" exemptions tho iirc

Yes, tho I'm loving every minute of this story, positively wallowing in it in fact, there's a little seed of doubt at the back of my mind that politicians lording it over the press is not such a great idea. That and Hugh Grant becoming a Lumley style national hero.

Tho personally I'm thinking about more draconian privacy laws being introduced under cover of a moral panic. I don't think papers shd report on the private non-criminal actions of public figures if they don't impinge on the well-being of society in some concrete way, but i'm not sure i wd legislate to prevent papers being shitheads like this. and i certainly wdn't wanna see a tightening of the legal restrictions on how reporters can investigate legitimate crime and public interest stories. not that most of them seem to wanna do dangerous shit like that when they cd just hang out in nightclubs stalking footballers.

caek, some of the absurdly broad exemptions are things that "inhibit the free and frank provision of advice" or "prejudice commercial interests": it's basically a list of anything that might be interesting. then the public body applies a "public interest" test to itself and usually decides that it's best to go about its business without publicity.

Having expressed my doubts about the future decisions that might be taken with regard to the press and its relationship to the law, to balance that out I merely say Fuck Tha Police. Andy Hayman was described to me, on Monday night, by someone who would know, as being like 'Michael Barrymore on acid'.

pathologically Heathite (from the Delingpole article)

Funnily enough I've been thinking about Heath recently, anyone recommend any good reading on the subject?

The BBC's Laura Kuenssberg reports that David Cameron will not attend the BSkyB debate in the Commons

What a divvy

Is there a legal definition of public interest?

xp - conflict of interest innit.

The laws and guidelines that are in place currently - such as 'no writing about kids', 'no phone hacking', 'no collusion with law enforcement' etc - would be fine if they were ENFORCED.

It is the exceptionalism here that is the problem - the bods at NI were under the impression that they could behave with impunity because the politicians were coming to their summer parties (which one would attend for both the sake of form and also to keep an eye on other attendees but if I were throwing a 'slumber party' a la Sarah Brown I would totally be putting Brooks' hand in warm water as she slept) and the police were, like everything else, apparently for sale.

I would totally be putting Brooks' hand in warm water as she slept

OK, you're going to have to explain this, because i saw this in a episode of Family Guy once and I didn't understand it then either

It's supposed to make you wet yourself

Ah, never heard of it before

Ah, Tom: you never went to an American junior high school, with mean girls.

Guaranteed method for getting the victim to piss themselves.

Hope she's got the electric blanket switched on.

Ah, Tom: you never went to an American junior high school, with mean girls.

It's one of my big regrets in life