48 hours to stop Murdoch's UK media takeover

It's got the lot; Freemasonery, corrupt cops, email trojans etc.

No magnets. :(

BREAKING NEWS

News Corporation "Uninterested in a deal for BSkyB that does not include Sky News".

Make of that what you will.

I can't remember for sure, but wasn't this always the case? Even before the scandal broke?

^^^ I think that we are thankfully, passed a point where a few sacrificial lambs will abate the public revulsion of all this.

No crystal ball here, I'm just posting my fears. However, with something this big and involving people this well connected, I would bet there are people involved who will get away.

^ Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that they had suggested the whole "We let go of Sky News, but then reel them back in in 5 years" thing. I could be wrong though.

^ Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that they had suggested the whole "We let go of Sky News, but then reel them back in in 5 years" thing. I could be wrong though.

I'm not 100% sure. I tried to do a search but it's near impossible (for me) to find anything relevant with google right now with all the news that's happened since.

Gordon Brown has alleged that the Sunday Times targeted him trying to obtain personal details, including the medical records of his son Fraser who had cystic fibrosis. Now I am no expert on these matters but, if proven to be true, wouldn't this show systemic wrongdoing within a company and therefore put the directors of NewsCorp (and NewsInt) in the firing line in the States under SOX legislation?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14112097

i think the sky news bit was to do with monopoly and mergers
having sky news in with b sky b and news corp would mean they had too much control / too high a percentage of media coverage in the uk thus they said they would sacrifice sky news to allow them to buy b sky b

So I had it backwards? Ooops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzgIBVYQQ-Q

I was at University with that presenter, Anna Jones, as she was then and may now still be.
Very bright, very nice, ended up at Sky News.
Cool story, bro. Yes, I thought so too.

Got this just 5mins ago

Dear Lilian,

Thank you for your email to Sarah Teather MP. Sarah has asked me to assure you that she will look into the issues you raise and respond to you as soon as possible.

Kind regards,

Omar Deedat
Head of Office
Tel: 020 8459 0455
Fax: 020 8830 3280
Office of Sarah Teather, Member of Parliament for Brent Central
Minister of State for Children and Families

The film maker Adam Curtis's blog has lots of old BBC footage of Rupert M on his way up.

The next stage will be the unravelling of the email/computer hacking and particularly Jonathan Rees who basically appears to be the reason the cops did not want to go after anyone except Glen Mulcaire.

It's got the lot; Freemasonery, corrupt cops, email trojans etc.

He went to jail for trying to frame someone for cocaine posession and on release in 2004 was employed exclusively by, you guessed it, Andy Coulson for NOTW. Who knows nothing about anything of course.

Whats Pigfarmer got to do with all this?

So deal was to buy BskyB, competition comission say it's too much, they need to sell sky news. Deal is given approval by Hunt on these grounds, shit hits fan, everyone wants the deal off all together, but Hunt says it can only be reviewed on grounds of competition which haven't changed.

So why does News Corp now demand to keep Sky News? Yes it means Hunt will refer it to the competition commision and delay its review, but doesn't it also give immediate ground for dismissal? The Comission already rejected that deal.

It will put it on the back-burner for 6-months to a year (time line from an ex-OfCom guy). Therefore, not killing the deal, but letting it stew a bit while people move on to the next scandal. When/if OfCom reject it they can then try to spin off Sky News again.

Why accept to review a deal which has already been rejected?

Why accept to review a deal which has already been rejected?

It will put it on the back-burner for 6-months to a year (time line from an ex-OfCom guy). Therefore, not killing the deal, but letting it stew a bit while people move on to the next scandal. When/if OfCom reject it they can then try to spin off Sky News again.

Why let a deal die now when you can slow down the process and hope things will be better in the future.

I did read your post, you were repeating what I already mentioned in my original post; I know it is to delay things, that wasn't my question.

It's absurd to refer a deal which has already been rejected. They say the deal hasn't changed on the grounds of competition, so what has changed?

I'm sure they're all OK with it being absurd if it passes the hot potato, but they still have to give a reason come the review, I'm wondering what they're banking on.

When/where was the he deal rejected? It hasn't been looked at by the Competition Commission before, as far as I'm aware? Although it wouldn't be the first time I've miss remembered something. The spin off of Sky News was to prevent the Competition Commission from getting involved in the first place.

^^I have a feeling News Corp is going to drop all other interest in the UK apart from BSkyB. Then there will be no oligarchy issue & it will leave RM & clan to persue its cable/satelite & internet dreams.
That why they are playing for time (methinks)
Motherfuckers

well the future isn't in newspapers thats for sure
he'd be mad if he stuck with newspapers

what happened to his daily ipad paper? did that work?

^^ that's why he spent about a billion clams on MySpace... which was money well spent.

he should stick to what was going on in the early 70's and what he did well, all this new media seems to be confusing him somewhat !

I think he will slowly corner online news feeds, the only challenge will be controlling 100% user controlled feeds like twitter.

so he will become big brother you mean ?