Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

LondonCalling - I was responding to weltweit's post which asked 'if you were keith vaz, which questions would you ask?'

Thank you for the clarification though.
 
Has nothing to do with an 'owner'. OFCOM has nothing to do with the USA. Apart from that...

Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you're stupid. Publishing licenses are required in pretty much all countries. They are granted by the individual countries regulators. If someone/the board of a company is deemed as 'not fit & proper' by one regulator, then it's pretty likely that will ripple to all other regulators. So if OFCOM decide that the NI board is 'not fit & proper', then the US regulator will likely follow suit. Of course in this situation (where Murdochs' businesses are huge US taxpayers, and they pay fuck all in the UK) it may not necessarily follow, but in theory the whole empire could tumble.
 
Either your comprehension skills are poor, or you're stupid. Publishing licenses are required in pretty much all countries. They are granted by the individual countries regulators. If someone/the board of a company is deemed as 'not fit & proper' by one regulator, then it's pretty likely that will ripple to all other regulators. So if OFCOM decide that the NI board is 'not fit & proper', then the US regulator will likely follow suit. Of course in this situation (where Murdochs' businesses are huge US taxpayers, and they pay fuck all in the UK) it may not necessarily follow, but in theory the whole empire could tumble.

The issue for OFCOM is whether he is a fit and proper person to take ownership - not be an (existing) owner.

Well, it always was, the goalposts may be in the process of moving all over the show.
 
It's corrupting. I'm not allowed to accept hospitality from a drug company without declaring it in any and every piblication and grant application that relates to their area of business. It's standard where there are potential conflicts of interest. So standard that it is illegal for an American journalist to accept hospitality. It's how proper countries do things. We just have a system of patronage that is only accessible by the rich.

Blatantly stolen from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/14/corrupt-power-cartel-civic-journalism

I wasn't condoning having the 11 dinners by any means, just trying to point out that 11 dinners is hardly a friendship spanning a long period of time.

Having worked in companies where registers of interests are common, and being used to declaring any kind of gift (yes, even the box of chocolates I got from a supplier one christmas) I agree that taking 'free' hospitality in this manner compromises impartiality.

I was the one refusing the request of a senior member of staff when they 'suggested' that I should phone competitors and pretend to be a student to obtain confidential information about their products and business plans. I have integrity.
 
what are you not convinced of? there's actual figures further up the thread. i think the sun was 250 thousand down on saturday...

im not arguing about the figures, but that's less than 10%, on a saturday when the sun wasnt carrying the biggest story in town - mirror and mail seemed to pick up the readers

and that was nearly a week ago
 
ah you're right. 'unnofficial industry estimates'. it's all a bit wooly.

It always is. The Sun can lose hundreds of thousands of readers as the resorts in malaga and magaluf fill up.

Circulation figures aren't worth the paper they're no longer printed on.
 
Rupert and James have agreed to appear on Tuesday, following summons being served. On TV now.
 
im not arguing about the figures, but that's less than 10%, on a saturday when the sun wasnt carrying the biggest story in town - mirror and mail seemed to pick up the readers

and that was nearly a week ago
Which shows what though? I'm not being obtuse or argumentative but i find the claim that 'real people' aren't interested in this absolutley amazing as it's simply not not my experience.
 
The issue for OFCOM is whether he is a fit and proper person to take ownership - not be an (existing) owner.

Well, it always was, the goalposts may be in the process of moving all over the show.

No, They have an ongoing duty to monitor all owners of broadcast media. Not fit and proper applies to all their holdings in the UK. They would have to sell their existing stake in BSkyB if they were found not fit and proper.

If you spent more time stocking your brain, you wouldn't have to resort to pulling shit straight out of your arse.
 
No, They have an ongoing duty to monitor all owners of broadcast media. Not fit and proper applies to all their holdings in the UK. They would have to sell their existing stake in BSkyB if they were found not fit and proper.

If you spent more time stocking your brain, you wouldn't have to resort to pulling shit straight out of your arse.

The first sentence: Ofcom may not grant a licence to anyone unless they are satisfied that they are "fit and proper".

My arse thinks 'grant' would suggest a prospective buyer.
 
Using your personal experience to judge what millions of disparate people think is rarely a good idea.

Have you been following this story at all? Do you know how and why this is happening? Do you have any basis in what is actually happening for what you are saying, or is it just a generalised pearl of wisdom you are dropping whilst remaining clueless about the actual situation you are applying it to?
 
Notw to run full page adverts saying sorry and sounding out advertisers for 9th august for sun on Sunday launch.

On phone so can't link atm
 
Ofcom,a body set up to monitor stuff who don't monitor stuff. They only judge who they can monitor. As i said, it's very funny this. More please london_calliing.
 
No, They have an ongoing duty to monitor all owners of broadcast media. Not fit and proper applies to all their holdings in the UK. They would have to sell their existing stake in BSkyB if they were found not fit and proper.

Has anybody got any info on how a black mark against NewsCorp by Ofcom would play out in China,someone mentioned it would keep them out of the Chinese market for ten years but I can't find any info with google.Murdoch has already dropped the BBC news channel from Star TV to appease the Chinese government and I suspect the real damage to them would be done by the Chinese authorities if they become upset by their behaviour in Western countries.
 
Back
Top Bottom