Discussion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inq...
An exploding memo.
What was Cameron thinking of, apart from the benefit of keeping Murdoch on his side?
Just to show everyone has learned their lessons, Johnson is sucking up to Murdoch in his attempt at the leadership of the tories.
I have to say that Harman is one of my pet hates. I'm trying to think of any other MP, past or present, with the exception of Archer of course, who winds me up more. I often wonder if she is a tory, planted in the labour party to put voters off. But she said something I have to say I agree with. That said, it was probably written for her:
“The Prime Minister should never have given him the job. It is clear that Jeremy Hunt was not the impartial arbiter he was required to be, and he should already have resigned.”
I love the phrase: “on the wrong side of media policy” from Hunt.
He's got to go.
The Murdoch papers have turned on Cameron already and one wonders how much longer he has in charge. I can't see Johnson's interest at the moment. Would he leave London to be PM?
An exploding memo.
What was Cameron thinking of, apart from the benefit of keeping Murdoch on his side?
Just to show everyone has learned their lessons, Johnson is sucking up to Murdoch in his attempt at the leadership of the tories.
I have to say that Harman is one of my pet hates. I'm trying to think of any other MP, past or present, with the exception of Archer of course, who winds me up more. I often wonder if she is a tory, planted in the labour party to put voters off. But she said something I have to say I agree with. That said, it was probably written for her:
“The Prime Minister should never have given him the job. It is clear that Jeremy Hunt was not the impartial arbiter he was required to be, and he should already have resigned.”
I love the phrase: “on the wrong side of media policy” from Hunt.
He's got to go.
The Murdoch papers have turned on Cameron already and one wonders how much longer he has in charge. I can't see Johnson's interest at the moment. Would he leave London to be PM?
t of the first order......Rugbyman said:
IroningMan said:
Find me an MP who would have made an impartial call on BSkyB...
Vince CablePersonally I fail to see the problem in letting a company fully takeover a company it already controls. If News Corporation were unfit to run a broadcaster then they should have been made to sell their shares in BSYKB. Anything else is just noise over a group restructuring.
JagLover said:
He was far from impartial as his private conversations revealed he was very anti-Murdoch.
Personally I fail to see the problem in letting a company fully takeover a company it already controls. If News Corporation were unfit to run a broadcaster then they should have been made to sell their shares in BSYKB. Anything else is just noise over a group restructuring.
My comment was really tongue in cheek I forgot the 'wink'Personally I fail to see the problem in letting a company fully takeover a company it already controls. If News Corporation were unfit to run a broadcaster then they should have been made to sell their shares in BSYKB. Anything else is just noise over a group restructuring.
I think (hope) Ofcom may conclude NCorp are unfit and force them to sell up
Caulkhead said:
Episode 14 of 48 - Don't forget to tune into Derek Smith's personal vendetta against Cameron the same time next week folks! 
There's five or six pages on this in the Mail today, it is one remarkable revelation of behaviour which, many might feel, borders on the corrupt, given how mately Cameron was with these poserful individuals, yet there's nothing on PH. We all know that Blair was just as bad, the next probable tory leader, Johnson, appears to be going along the same lines, so one would have thought there should be some thread on here. But no.The real person/group this is aimed at is the Murdoch empire. It is a shame that he found influencial people so easy to influence. Thatcher refused to put his bid through to scrutiny, Blair folowed her example but 'improved' on it and Cameron made a gigantic leap by having christmas with the enemy.
Many on PH have suggested that some of what goes on in politics verges of the corrupt and are, one can tell, inflamed by it. Yet on Leveson we have daily revelations of it and no one seems to be bothered. Blair and Cameron, two PMs joined at the hip by Murdoch.
I reserve the right to indulge in a vendetta against all those I see as dishonest, corrupt and ineffective.
Hunt has, it would appear, deliberately misled parliament. This is bad according to my book of nasty things. He should go.
If you want the tories to win the next election then I would assume that you would engage in a vendetta against Hunt and, because of this email, Cameron as well.
Derek Smith said:
Many on PH have suggested that some of what goes on in politics verges of the corrupt and are, one can tell, inflamed by it. Yet on Leveson we have daily revelations of it and no one seems to be bothered. Blair and Cameron, two PMs joined at the hip by Murdoch.
That's because, as we well know, if it was Labour this thread alone would be 500 pages.Derek Smith said:
There's five or six pages on this in the Mail today, it is one remarkable revelation of behaviour which, many might feel, borders on the corrupt, given how mately Cameron was with these poserful individuals, yet there's nothing on PH. We all know that Blair was just as bad, the next probable tory leader, Johnson, appears to be going along the same lines, so one would have thought there should be some thread on here. But no.
The real person/group this is aimed at is the Murdoch empire. It is a shame that he found influencial people so easy to influence. Thatcher refused to put his bid through to scrutiny, Blair folowed her example but 'improved' on it and Cameron made a gigantic leap by having christmas with the enemy.
Many on PH have suggested that some of what goes on in politics verges of the corrupt and are, one can tell, inflamed by it. Yet on Leveson we have daily revelations of it and no one seems to be bothered. Blair and Cameron, two PMs joined at the hip by Murdoch.
I reserve the right to indulge in a vendetta against all those I see as dishonest, corrupt and ineffective.
Hunt has, it would appear, deliberately misled parliament. This is bad according to my book of nasty things. He should go.
If you want the tories to win the next election then I would assume that you would engage in a vendetta against Hunt and, because of this email, Cameron as well.
Please do tell me what is wrong, lacking sense or morality, in this text...The real person/group this is aimed at is the Murdoch empire. It is a shame that he found influencial people so easy to influence. Thatcher refused to put his bid through to scrutiny, Blair folowed her example but 'improved' on it and Cameron made a gigantic leap by having christmas with the enemy.
Many on PH have suggested that some of what goes on in politics verges of the corrupt and are, one can tell, inflamed by it. Yet on Leveson we have daily revelations of it and no one seems to be bothered. Blair and Cameron, two PMs joined at the hip by Murdoch.
I reserve the right to indulge in a vendetta against all those I see as dishonest, corrupt and ineffective.
Hunt has, it would appear, deliberately misled parliament. This is bad according to my book of nasty things. He should go.
If you want the tories to win the next election then I would assume that you would engage in a vendetta against Hunt and, because of this email, Cameron as well.
The memo read: “James Murdoch is pretty furious at Vince’s referral [of the bid] to Ofcom [the broadcasting watchdog]. He doesn’t think he will get a fair hearing from Ofcom. I am privately concerned about this because News Corp are very litigious and we could end up in the wrong place in terms of media policy.
“Essentially what James Murdoch wants to do is to repeat what his father did with the [Sun] move to Wapping and create the world’s first multi-platform media operator, available from paper to web to TV to iPhone to iPad. Isn’t this what all media companies have to do ultimately? And if so, we must be very careful that any attempt to block it is done on genuine plurality grounds and not as a result of lobbying by competitors. The UK has the chance to lead the way … but if we block it our media sector will suffer for years … I think it would be totally wrong to cave in to the Mark Thompson/Channel 4/Guardian line that this represents a substantial change of control given that we all know Sky is controlled by News Corp now anyway.”[/i]
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff