Has nothing to do with an 'owner'. OFCOM has nothing to do with the USA. Apart from that...
Listen to me and you won't go far wrong....
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.
I didn't see the figures. Were they adjusted for season and for progressive yearly fall?
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.
The issue for OFCOM is whether he is a fit and proper person to take ownership - not be an (existing) owner.
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
what are you not convinced of? there's actual figures further up the thread. i think the sun was 250 thousand down on saturday...
ah you're right. 'unnofficial industry estimates'. it's all a bit wooly.
Listen to me and you won't go far wrong....
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.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
Using your personal experience to judge what millions of disparate people think is rarely a good idea.
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.
Rupert and James have agreed to appear on Tuesday, following summons being served. On TV now.
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.
Using your personal experience to judge what millions of disparate people think is rarely a good idea.
Can you read more than one sentence in a row? Cos the regulations are a fair bit more than one sentence and you will struggle if you can only hold one thought in your head at a time.
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.
well your arse is as thick as your head then. By your logic, no one who committed a foul and heinous crime after they'd passed the test once could be debarred from holding a lcence. That is obviously nonsense.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.
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.
Not if you're denying that it affects the rest of their stake in BSkyB it isn't.Before taking ownership, is the relevant issue here.