If things develop and News Int. becomes more enveloped in this, then obviously no one will swallow giving News Int. permission to make the deal.
Yes the consultation was purely on grounds of competition and plurality, so what? That's obviously with the implicit assumption that News Int. does not act illegally.
In fact it's already been said there is an explicit mention that there are grounds to block the deal if News Int. are not 'fit and proper' or some legalese like that.
To all intents and purposes, the deal is as it were before this story, News Int. are not known, or perceived, to be implicated. So, of course Hunt and the like wont rock the boat, so the line remains the same "the consultation is only on grounds of competition etc" but all that can change.
If things develop and News Int. becomes more enveloped in this, then obviously no one will swallow giving News Int. permission to make the deal.
Yes the consultation was purely on grounds of competition and plurality, so what? That's obviously with the implicit assumption that News Int. does not act illegally.
In fact it's already been said there is an explicit mention that there are grounds to block the deal if News Int. are not 'fit and proper' or some legalese like that.
To all intents and purposes, the deal is as it were before this story, News Int. are not known, or perceived, to be implicated. So, of course Hunt and the like wont rock the boat, so the line remains the same "the consultation is only on grounds of competition etc" but all that can change.