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

[butchersapron]

It's ok. You misread something off me, won't back down. Finished.

 

[butchersapron]

He didnt. He corrected your post, pointing out that the "expenses scandal" was basically handed over to the relevant paper on a plate after it paid the mole some money. That is, after all, what happened.

Hang on, nothing of mine needed correcting. Nothing.

POI: not essentially labour and never has been. Who would turn down these police leaked exposes? Who did the expenses scandal?

What need correcting? How is that not me pointing out that peoples expectations of what papers will do can be wrong? And how is the next reply not a misreading of me doing that? You're an honest chap, answer me that.

 

[weltweit]

So, it is OFCOM who have to determine whether News Corp / News International is a fit and proper part or full owner of BskyB.

Does anyone know anything about OFCOM?

Who runs it? what its record is like?
Has it ever found someone to be NOT fit and proper in the past?

 

[London_Calling]

I don't think it's had to. I've asked about OFCOM, we're all... on a learning curve, I believe. So is OFCOM. I hope they can handle the politics about to come their way.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Some NofW journalists are threatening to put up a blog tomorrow with tell all articles: https://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno

apparently it is a group of 16 of them

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Key thing about Ofcom is that they only investigate the question of fitness and propriety after someone buys a media asset. They have no business commenting on the issue before an acquisition. Directors of News Corp would need to be convicted of a serious offence (perverting the course of justice would count, though) before the question of whether they were fit and proper applied.

 

[claphamboy]

So, it is OFCOM who have to determine whether News Corp / News International is a fit and proper part or full owner of BskyB.

Yes.

Does anyone know anything about OFCOM?

Who runs it? what its record is like?

Sadly yes, they have been a fairly useless, but as a government appointed regulator that should come as no surprise to anyone.

Has it ever found someone to be NOT fit and proper in the past?

TBF, I don't think it has ever come up in the fairly short history of OFCOM, this is something totally new for them, well out of their comfort zone. I hope as this is such a major issue and there's so much pressure & media attention on them, they may grow some balls.

But, I am not holding my breath.

 

[London_Calling]

Key thing about Ofcom is that they only investigate the question of fitness and propriety after someone buys a media asset. They have no business commenting on the issue before an acquisition. Directors of News Corp would need to be convicted of a serious offence (perverting the course of justice would count, though) before the question of whether they were fit and proper applied.

Q: You're sure on 'convicted', and Directors?

 

[ska invita]

Some NofW journalists are threatening to put up a blog tomorrow with tell all articles: https://twitter.com/#!/ExNOTWJourno

apparently it is a group of 16 of them

 

[two sheds]

You'd imagine they'd risk a long and expensive libel case if they said NI *wasn't* a fit and proper owner.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Q: You're sure on 'convicted', and Directors?

Convicted, or admit to.

Directors, or major shareholders.

 

[claphamboy]

Key thing about Ofcom is that they only investigate the question of fitness and propriety after someone buys a media asset. They have no business commenting on the issue before an acquisition. Directors of News Corp would need to be convicted of a serious offence (perverting the course of justice would count, though) before the question of whether they were fit and proper applied.

Not sure about, because thinking about it they did prevent a certain company taking over a small group of radio stations just over a year ago, which IIRC was in fact on the basis of that company's directors not being fit for purpose.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Not sure about, because thinking about it they did prevent a certain company taking over a small group of radio stations just over a year ago, which IIRC was in fact on the basis of that company's directors not being fit for purpose.

That goes against some quite clear advice I've had from professionals in this space. Have you got a link? Perhaps the transaction had got far enough for Ofcom to be notified and was then cancelled.

 

[London_Calling]

Sayeth The Guardian two days ago:

Ofcom's position in law is a little different in reality. It has to ensure, every day, that anybody owning a television or radio station is "a fit and proper person to hold it". It is a test that applies to senior company directors – and so in order to bite in the case of the News Corp/Sky merger, it would have to apply to board members of News Corporation – in particular Rupert Murdoch, but also to James in his capacity as the man in charge of the company's European and Asian operations.

It is understood that Ofcom is only prepared to pronounce that somebody fails the "fit and proper" test if they are charged with a criminal offence – and the regulator can ultimately enforce its will by revoking the owner's right to broadcast. But if Rebekah Brooks, say, were ever to be charged with hacking-related offences, that would not be enough to unwind the Sky takeover, or force Sky channels off air, because she could step down – if that is, she was appointed as a director of a relevant Sky subsidiary of the enlarged News Corporation in the first place.

Once again, the "fit and proper" test would only have an impact if charges were ever brought against one of the Murdochs. The family are too senior within the company to be able to resign.

'Charged' will do, but it'll have to be James Murdoch - they'll ditch Brooks overboard if need be.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/06/bskyb-bid-jeremy-hunt-newscorp

 

[Maurice Picarda]

'Charged' will do

I think I'm right and the Guardian is wrong. Just because Rusbridger's mob are squeamish about hacking doesn't mean they are trustworthy on matters of fact.

 

[London_Calling]

Possibly. It is, though, a shambles that NI could still go ahead with this hugely significant takeover in the current circs.

 

[butchersapron]

It is understood that Ofcom is only prepared to pronounce that somebody fails the "fit and proper" test if they are charged with a criminal offence

There's the obvious point for people to attack then. Is this understanding customary or is is statutory? If the first, who decided this? Who, how and when? Who appointed these people? What access do we have to their decisions? etc

 

[Maurice Picarda]

It's legal interpretation, to be fair, rather than fact, but clearly the principle here is one of innocence until proof of guilt is established. Merely charging someone with an offence shouldn't allow any judgements to be made about their character.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

There's the obvious point for people to attack then. Is this understanding customary or is is statutory? If the first, who decided this? Who, how and when? Who appointed these people? What access do we have to their decisions? etc

Her Majesty's Government. You know the process by which the legislature is constituted perfectly well. Presumably you are making some sort of point. In which case, make it clearly.

 

[butchersapron]

It's legal interpretation, to be fair, rather than fact, but clearly the principle here is one of innocence until proof of guilt is established. Merely charging someone with an offence shouldn't allow any judgements to be made about their character.

It's an interpretation of a situation - it's not a 'legal interpretation'. Is it?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

It's an interpretation of a situation - it's not a 'legal interpretation'. Is it?

It's an interpretation of statute, so if it was ever tested it would be tested by lawyers.

 

[London_Calling]

It makes it easier to take over BSkyB than a Premiership football club, and that is saying something.

 

[Divisive Cotton]

Paul Mcmullan again on Newsnight! surely there must be other hacks about

 

[London_Calling]

They're all in the pub this time of night.

Edit: Presently company excluded...

 

[spartacus mills]

Paul Mcmullan again on Newsnight! surely there must be other hacks about

Steve Coogan about to punch him out!!!

 

[Maurice Picarda]

It makes it easier to take over BSkyB than a Premiership football club, and that is saying something.

It's not surprising, as plurality of ownership is even more important to football than it is to media.

 

[Liveist]

I'm expecting a full blown fight on Newsnight at the moment

 

[butchersapron]

Her Majesty's Government. You know the process by which the legislature is constituted perfectly well. Presumably you are making some sort of point. In which case, make it clearly.

What's wrong with you?

Is this understanding customary or is is statutory? If the first, who decided this? Who, how and when? Who appointed these people? What access do we have to their decisions? etc

There is a whole range of regulatory stuff that is based on custom rather than law. A regulatory body may act more in accordance with custom as a priority guided by the chair or the body responsible rather than relying on the law. I ask which this (unevidenced) 'understanding' is based on.

It is understood that Ofcom is only prepared to pronounce that somebody fails the "fit and proper" test if they are charged with a criminal offence

Is this the law, or is this custom? Get it Morris?

 

[spartacus mills]

I'm expecting a full blown fight on Newsnight at the moment

Top notch entertainment!

 

[London_Calling]

It's not surprising, as plurality of ownership is even more important to football than it is to media.

I should have been clearer, I meant from the pov of a 'fit and proper person' test - it's not retro in the PL.