UILs ? what they?
The guardian have totally missed a trick here - potentially the key trick in fact. They've taken the time/date of the Cable stuff coming out from when the BBC first reported it ( 2-30 on the 21st), not from date time the actual article went up on the Telegraph site (9-30 on the 20th) - so the text to Murodoch came after the Cable story had been broken, not before.grauniad have put together a timeline. Just on its own this should kill him:
Around midday: The European commission unconditionally approved News Corporation's bid to take full control of BSkyB on competition grounds.
12.57pm: Jeremy Hunt text to James Murdoch: "Great and congrats on Brussels. Just Ofcom to go."
2.30pm: The BBC publishes Vince Cable's comments to undercover Daily Telegraph reporters, in which the business secretary said: "I don't know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win."
3.56pm: News Corporation statement: "News Corp is shocked and dismayed by reports of Mr Cable's comments. They raise serious questions about fairness and due process."
4pm: Hunt has a phone call with James Murdoch, discussing Cable's comments.
4.08pm: Hunt texts George Osborne, the chancellor, to say he is "seriously worried we are going to screw this up" regarding the BSkyB bid, and, in a second text, says Murdoch is accusing Cable of "acute bias" over the bid.
4.58pm: Osborne texts Hunt: "I hope you like our solution."
5.45pm: Downing Street announces that Cable has been stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB decision and that responsibility has been handed to Hunt.
Didn't the Telegraph story come out in two waves? First the redacted conversation with no reference to Murdoch, then the full story. Is this reflected?The guardian have totally missed a trick here - potentially the key trick in fact. They've taken the time/date of the Cable stuff coming out from when the BBC first reported it ( 2-30 on the 21st), not from date time the actual article went up on the Telegraph site (9-30 on the 20th) - so the text to Murodoch came after the Cable story had been broken, not before.
Ah yes, well remembered - the one about cable/murdoch went out 3-36 on the 21st.Didn't the Telegraph story come out in two waves? First the redacted conversation with no reference to Murdoch, then the full story. Is this reflected?
Didn't the Telegraph story come out in two waves? First the redacted conversation with no reference to Murdoch, then the full story. Is this reflected?
IIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.
Well, someone was leaking it for sure - we know that for a fact.IIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.
come to think of it, the editorial hierarchy at the Torygraph must be crawling with people who'd be only to happy to shaft a lib demIIRC there were rumours going around that the redacted bit was "leaked" out of the Torygraph newsroom as well, so they (either Hunt/Cameron/Osborne or NI) could potentially have known about it before the story actually broke.
Still, the timeline is a lovely example of that (Ralph!) Miliband v Poulantzas stuff on the nature of the elite, personal links vs structural power. In the age of texts and email, the elite are able to manoeuvre in real time!Ah yes, well remembered - the one about cable/murdoch went out 3-36 on the 21st.
come to think of it, the editorial hierarchy at the Torygraph must be crawling with people who'd be only to happy to shaft a lib dem
They're mostly civil servants/enquiry staff - Robert Jay doesn't stay up all night wading through through thousands of ring binders full of evidence - he has these people to do it for him.Plus are all the people in the background supposed to be working, because sod all work seems to be being done!!
...and it appears that of of Hunt's two favoured journo is/was Andrew Porter of the Telegraph. I cannot believe he had no inkling of what was coming.Which was the irony - they allegedly sat on the Cable / Murdoch stuff because they realised it could have destroyed their own anti-Murdoch efforts.
Yep - should ensure the news isnt completely dominated by Leveson/Huntoh look a massive u-turn from Gideon on Charity Taxes
convenient timing.
no link just yet, seen it on twitter
Brixton Hatter said:Yep - should ensure the news isnt completely dominated by Leveson/Hunt
BBC have it as lead item. Fantastic.Yep - should ensure the news isnt completely dominated by Leveson/Hunt
Yep - should ensure the news isnt completely dominated by Leveson/Hunt
I wonder if that's what all these cuts and the like are really about - something in the pocket to distract from shitstorms, if necessary.
Toby Helm @tobyhelm
Osborne's week. Coulson (his rec for No 10) charged for perjury. Three budget u turns. Leveson entanglements with Hunt. Anything else?
12:43 PM - 31 May 12 via web · Details