Rupert Murdoch / News International's UK News of the World

[Jason]

Labour have got their knives out for Hunt and are doing a lot of digging.

We've created a system where the reporting requirements for MPs are so onerous that it is likely that every single MP has breached them. The system works (up to a point) when MPs make sure they report important stuff - but that leaves it up to MPs to decide what is important.

Hunt will be investigated on this matter and if he has done something fraudulent is of course for the high jump. But the media is quiet on the story, probably because they've had a look at it and there's nothing in it. Hunt will ultimately apologise for a technical breach, one made some years ago.

We've got a media circus. People want to believe that politicians are nasty and corrupt. The key issue is that we've got to reform systems:
- get rid of expenses, maybe replace by a flat rate. Even better get rid of MPs salaries and make MP a voluntary job.
- get rid of unworkable reporting systems, where if an MP shakes someone's hand he's supposed to know their full name and investigate all their business interests.
- get rid of something as stupid as the ministerial code where we have the fiction that ministers are responsible for things they cannot know about.

 

[dandelion]

Hunt will be investigated on this matter and if he has done something fraudulent is of course for the high jump.

Will he? the PM refused to refer his leaking information to Murdoch to the relevant authority, when he was able to refuse. Doesnt suggest he will be pressing for a full enquiry here.

I see you again propose that MPs should not be paid. Myself i do not fancy changing to a system where only rich men can afford to be MPs. Though I am somewhat concerned that now they become rich men from being MPs.

 

[Jason]

The argument for paying MPs was that it would enable a wider group of people to enter parliament. In its day I think this argument held water.

But society has changed. Yes it is a restriction to say that MPs should not be paid, but it is not as big a restriction as it once would have been - and we don't pay magistrates. It would stress that people should be MPs out of conviction not as a career - and make it clear that MPs are serving their constituents and the country.

 

[FuzzyKen]

Within each system of government there are differences. The one thing that is consistent here is that there is little doubt that the Murdoch owned organizations have violated numerous privacy laws and possibly other laws in other jurisdictions.

Each generation has had it's issues throughout history and the fights that ensued won both rights and protections for people. One of the biggest and yet most important rights now under attack is the "right to privacy". Worldwide, people must stand up for this right. As it is right now simply by typing a small amount of information into a personal computer the amount of information that any other individual can find out about you is staggering.

Individuals with profit motives are now selling your personal information and if enough of this personal information is gathered from multiple locations identity theft is for those with bad motives quite simple.

The quantity of information out there and the places it is now stored also can create situations where your personal information can be altered in order to do harm to you.

Though this problem reaches far above Rupert Murdoch and his corporate entities, the reversal of the misuse of this type of information starts with court cases and evidence that this problem exists. This is a landmark case worldwide and has incredible implications for the personal security of all of us in the future.

I hope that the U.K. is only a beginning of a close examination of the potential for damage by the unauthorized harvesting of personal information. Prosecution and changes in statute are needed worldwide on this issue. This over time is one to watch.

 

[dandelion]

The enquiry continues. Michelle has been giving evidence. He denies exaggerating when telling his bosses how well things were going and how cooperative Jeremy Hunt was being. He stated that he received a communication form Hunt saying they could no longer communicate directly but that he could continue corresponding with Adam smith. Michelle took this to mean Smith was directly reporting Hunt's views. There were more than 1000 exchanges of emails, messages and phone calls.

Meanwhile, Hunt had argued that the arrangement for Smith to liase with News International had been cleared by the relevant senior civil servant responsible for making sure no inappropriate arrangements exist. It has been confirmed that permission was sought and agreed. However, the guy who gave the permission is now saying that the relationship evidenced by all the correspondence, etc, was not at all how it was represented to him.

 

[dandelion]

Been a busy day. I was surprised to hear a one line headline in the news which said Hunt had admitted sending a memo to the prime minister, before he was appointed to decided whether Murdoch should be allowed to take over BskyB, in which he said he was in favour of it.

Some quotes from the memo: BBC News - Leveson Inquiry: Hunt memo reveals BSkyB support
Mr Hunt said the UK's media sector "would suffer for years" if the deal was blocked,

Mr Hunt said News Corp executive James Murdoch was "furious" about Mr Cable's handling of the matter. (I think that would be when Cable was refusing to talk to Murdoch.)

it would be "totally wrong to cave in" to opponents of the deal

So then Cameron decided he would be a good person to put in charge of unbiasedly deciding the merits of the takeover.

This is a farce. Cameron refused to allow Hunts behaviour to be investigated, but it becomes increasingly clear Hunt was picked for the job knowing he would decide in favour of the deal. Cameron himself therefore biased the outcome.

 

[Jason]

This is the insanity of the media raking over of this matter. Anyone who knows anything at all about the Murdoch takeover bid will have a view on it. Inevitably any minister will have a view. If they don't have a view then they don't know anything about it.

Cable had strong views expressed prior to his appointment. This in no way made him inappropriate to act in a quasi judicial role on the matter - ministers must operate Chinese walls and set aside their personal views. Cable made the mistake of expressing his strong views after appointment. This was not considered a sacking offense from his role as minister though it may have made him inappropriate to continue in his role (though even this is doubtful - the role is around public statements, nit private comments made in a private environment).

Hume had strong views expressed prior to his appointment. This in no way made him inappropriate to act in a quasi judicial role on the matter - ministers must operate Chinese walls and set aside their personal views. Hume did not make the mistake of expressing his strong views after appointment. If an interested party had objected to his appointment they should have been listened to at that time (just as a Murdoch objection to Cable should have been looked at).

The issue is like trying to find a jury who know nothing about a case and have no pre-conceived ideas to judge a case. I suggest that 99% of government ministers had a view on the Murdoch takever (and the 1% was living on a different planet and not fit to comment).

One thing that is completely clear is that Cameron originally put the issue in the hands of Cable, indicating Cameron's readiness to see Murdoch get harsh scrutiny. When Cable made a fool of himself and had to be replaced (very quickly) Cameron went to the only other minister whose ministerial brief could reasonably include the Murdoch bid.

We have a media circus. We actualy have a government trying to sort out the Murdoch empire - something Labour failed to do - yet the opposition and media have decided that it is far more fun to spread the rumour that the Conservatives had bought favours from Murdoch. Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.

We all saw the extent of the dirty tricks department operating in Brown's Downing Street - the willingness to create a slur to blacken a political opponent. We are still seeing this sort of dirty trick brigade. It stinks. Labour should be working to solve this problem, not make some sort of political capital at the expense of the Conservatives.

 

[Ryan10]

This is quite simply disgraceful. The way these 'newspapers' (I use the word loosly as they don't have much news in them!) treat the general public is absolutly terrible. Why do people still buy these immoral rags? Hopefully these hate filled papers will lose sales in the modern, internet age.

 

[dandelion]

Hume did not make the mistake of expressing his strong views after appointment.

So what you are saying is that a perfectly acceptable choice for a juror would be someone who thought it 'totally wrong to cave in' and acquit? It would be perfectly OK to chooses someone who told the judge beforehand that these were his views, just so long as the juror did not mention to the public that he had these views. Sounds to me an ideal choice if someone is trying to ensure a particular outcome and trying to keep it quiet. Hunt didnt just say he was pro-takeover, he said he would not stop fighting to ensure it happened.

We all saw the extent of the dirty tricks department operating in Brown's Downing Street - the willingness to create a slur to blacken a political opponent. We are still seeing this sort of dirty trick brigade. .

It does seem that way, doesnt it. Its quite remarkable how the story about Cable got into the newspapers when his conservative opponents found he was not looking favourably on the bid. Just taken by itself that might have been bad luck, but given everything which has gone on here to get the takeover passed, what is the likelihood it was an accident?

The only justification for removing Cable from deciding the issue was that he was biased. He had the task because it was part of his ministerial job description to make the decision. If the principle has been established that a biased person cannot make the decision, then it is more than clear Hunt should never have been appointed. We now have evidence Cameron exactly knew Hunt's views when he was appointed, so deliberately accepted him in full knowledge that he was not suitable for the job. Either a politician doing this must be impartial, so neither person was appropriate, or it doesnt matter if they have views, in which case Cable should simply have done it because he happened to be the minister whose job it was.

It is becoming increasingly clear why Cameron is afraid to allow the matter to be properly investigated.

 

[Jason]

So what you are saying is that a perfectly acceptable choice for a juror would be someone who thought it 'totally wrong to cave in' and acquit? It would be perfectly OK to chooses someone who told the judge beforehand that these were his views, just so long as the juror did not mention to the public that he had these views. Sounds to me an ideal choice if someone is trying to ensure a particular outcome and trying to keep it quiet. Hunt didnt just say he was pro-takeover, he said he would not stop fighting to ensure it happened.

....

It is becoming increasingly clear why Cameron is afraid to allow the matter to be properly investigated.

My comparison is imperfect, but the basic idea stands. We do seek jurors who have no preconceived view on a case. However the idea that we can ever find ministers with no preconceived view is a non-starter - rather we have to trust them to act impartially notwithstanding. That's how our system works. And no one can suggest Hume didn't do this. The result is that Murdoch did NOT get BSkyB, not the outcome Hume apparently wanted.

I should think Cameron is terrified at the prospect of more investigation. This is emphatically not investigation designed to establish the truth. It is investigation designed to damage the government. It is a witch hunt with retribution applied at the court of public opinion, ie the lynch mob.

 

[dandelion]

Why do you keep saying hume instead of hunt? Did i make a mistake, did you not read the post, or are you trying to make the posts not turn up in a searcjh engine on Hunt?

Thw whole point is that Cable was taken off the job for bias but replaced by someone equally biased in the opposite direction. Hunt was clearly a bad choice. The official solicitor was apparently consulted and said the appointment could go ahead but he was a bad choice. Everyone on the country things it was obvious gerrymandering.

 

[Jason]

Why do you keep saying hume instead of hunt? Did i make a mistake, did you not read the post, or are you trying to make the posts not turn up in a searcjh engine on Hunt?

Because iPad keeps correcting it to Hume. iPad has some glorious quirks. It always puts an apostrophe in it's and is quite clunky to manually take it out. It insists that Mark must always have a capital. And the one I love is that it capitalises BORIS.

Cable was biased while on the job, which isn't a good idea - being biased off the job is a fact of life. Hunt :smile: might well have been a bad choice, but who was there who was a good choice? The job really fell to Cable's department - Hunt is the obvious second choice.

Most public appointments are bad choices. I look at committees I'm part of - most of the people on them (no doubt including me) are not very good choices. They do the job because there's no-one else. Are we saying after Cable put his foot in his mouth Cameron should have said he could not find anyone to do the job? This was probably about what it came to. And the Labour benches certainly couldn't offer anyone (even if they could serve in this role).

 

[dandelion]

Apparently Hunt asked his lawyers whether he could just pass information to Murdoch without passing it to other parties opposing the takeover. They said no. So why was he wanting to do this?

And his lawyers having thus answered, how come his aid was doing it?

 

[Jason]

Apparently Hunt asked his lawyers whether he could just pass information to Murdoch without passing it to other parties opposing the takeover. They said no. So why was he wanting to do this?

And his lawyers having thus answered, how come his aid was doing it?

Hunt would have asked very many questions around who he could and could not give information to, when he should give it, and a whole lot more. It may well appear reasonable to pass to Murdoch information about his own bid without passing this to others - it seems Hunt asked about this, and was told no. And Hunt did what he was told.

The aid got it wrong. The aid got it seriously wrong and has lost his job. The aid was acting in contravention of the legal advice. The reasons for the mistake may be work stress, human error - in the end he gummed up. In fact the information passed is minimal and doesn't appear to have any consequence.

 

[dandelion]

Are we saying after Cable put his foot in his mouth Cameron should have said he could not find anyone to do the job?

Are we saying everyone in the tory party is hopelessly biased in favour of the bid? Dont we have civil servants for that sort of thing? Justice Leveson, for example.

 

[Jason]

Are we saying everyone in the tory party is hopelessly biased in favour of the bid? Dont we have civil servants for that sort of thing? Justice Leveson, for example.

The problem is not been biased in favour. The problem is being biased either way. Or perhaps the problem is being perceived to be biased either way.

I do not think there is a single MP in parliament who could not be perceived to be biased one way or the other as all MPs court the media during elections. Certainly all ministers have a bias. This is exactly why they must act with advice from civil servants and the lawyers. And Hunt did just this. It is a civil servant who gummed up - and in fairness gummed up in one email which didn't have much or any impact on anything.

 

[dandelion]

It is a civil servant who gummed up

Do you mean the civil servant who said it was OK for Hunt's adviser to carry on discussing the bid with Michelle? He has since said he was misled as to the nature of the exchange between them.

It seems hunt has now committed another dismissable crime, misleading parliament. He told them his department was not communicating with Murdoch and Co,. when it was. We have the same arguments as ever, either he sanctioned this and therefore plainly lied, or he did not know and was therefore incompetently handling something sufficiently important that he was being questioned about it in parliament.

He said he had done nothing to influence the outcome of the bid while Cable was running it, but is now on record as lobbying Cameron pro the bid.

At the point Hunt was about to be appointed he sent a message to James Murdoch, 'Great news on Brussels, just Ofcom to go', congratulating him getting clearance for the takeover from the EU.

Baroness Varsi on the radio supporting Hunt seems to have fallen back to insulting the politician put up to attack him, rather than answering the charges. Not a good sign in a reasoned debate. At least, I think it was her I missed the name but sounded like her. Baronness Varsi herself has been accused of fiddling her expenses, and in her own case referred herself to the relevant regulator for investigation. Perhaps she should be suggesting Hunt follow this example. Had the regulator investigated Hunt, by now he would have found Hunt blameless and the matter ended. Or not, of course.

Hunt's defence so far seems to be that he has bent over backwards to follow all the forms and referring the bid to anyone it might be referred to before making a decision. Which is exactly what I would do if I wanted my final ruling to be bullet proof, especially if it was likely to be controversial and I did not want to give anyone an opening to attack it.

 

[Jason]

A point that has come from today's evidence has been the complexity of the matter. At a time when Cable had responsibility for looking at the bid, Hunt had responsibility for media. At the same time he was both advised not to meddle in the issues Cable was considering yet also had to keep abreast of his own ministerial brief. He had to not communicate with Murdoch on some issues while communicating on others. Tricky!

The underlying issue is around a quasi judicial role. Ministers will have personal views on a matter - nonetheless they must act impartially. Hunt did this. It is Smith who acted as a back-channel - and has lost his job for this.

Any opposition politician can comb through hours of evidence and find something to make into a story, but there really isn't one. The underlying accusation that the Conservatives got Murdoch's support because they promised to give him the bid is just not correct.

The issue needs putting to bed. The country is bored with it. For that matter note the lack of interest in this thread.

 

[dandelion]

It would seem quite clear that Hunt believed Murdoch should be allowed to take over monopoly control of British satellite television, with the potential to dominate all UK television as satellite keeps growing. Did you notice they have been providing free or very cheap satellite systems during the current shutdown of analog services across the UK?

It is quite plain Hunt was biased in this in a way which in other realms of life would have made him ineligible for this task. The fact Cable was replaced automatically made Hunt ineligible. Either both were unacceptable because of bias or neither was. For Cameron to have quite deliberately replaced Cable with Hunt squarely puts the blame for bias in the conduct of this matter on to the Prime minister. This as Cameron's own special adviser who was also forced to resign over his actions on behalf of Murdoch has just been arrested for purgery. The conservatives seem to have some very uncontrolled special advisors, isnt that three now who have had to go? How likely is it that they were really all out of control?

Hunt may or may not have conducted a fair review, but facts overtook his decision and the Murdoch bid was withdrawn because it was guaranteed to fail on the basis of facts disclosed about how Murdoch ran his news organisations. In that sense too, Cable's position opposing the bid has been vindicated by facts, whereas Hunt's supporting it has not. Has Hunt said publicly whether he also now opposes the takeover, or is he still in favour despite the facts now made public?

 

[Jason]

It is quite plain Hunt was biased in this in a way which in other realms of life would have made him ineligible for this task. The fact Cable was replaced automatically made Hunt ineligible. Either both were unacceptable because of bias or neither was.
....
Has Hunt said publicly whether he also now opposes the takeover, or is he still in favour despite the facts now made public?

Many areas of public life use experts and specialists of one sort or another. Inevitably they have personal views on the topic. However they are constrained by a remit (to look at X in the light of Y) and carry out their task without reference to their bias. In academic research a fundamental concept is for the researcher to identify their inherent bias.

The issue around Cable's ineligibility is an interesting parallel. Hunt expressed his views before accepting the post; Cable while doing the post. The timing is relevant. That said Cable thought he was speaking privately. I think the subsequent problem was not so much him being able to continue to do the job but in the wrong perception and the ammunition it would have given Murdoch.

And in a full day of witch-hunt today I assume the witch finder general did ask Hunt for his present views - and presumably they were uninteresting and uncontroversial and so did not get an airing.

The growing realisation is the total disinterest most people have in this issue. Most people absolutely don't care. If Labour keep bashing on about it I think they risk boring the public.

Meanwhile the Andy Coulson story is getting surprisingly little coverage. For example no-one seems to have asked why Strathclyde police sent seven men to detain him, why they detained him at the crack of dawn, why they drove him to Glasgow (haven't they heard of planes?) - then having previously decided they felt he needed seven police to detain him they decided he could be released. Who pays for his overnight in Glasgow and his fare to London? This story has more holes than a Swiss cheese. After an operation of this scale they just had to arrest him - but I wonder if the procurator fiscal will consider there is enough evidence for a trial. I think this decision could be rapid, though a trial if it happens will take months. It is also very hard to see what evidence there could be against him. That there was hacking at the NoftheW is not in doubt - but Coulson says he didn't know about it. Unless someone can prove he did then I don't see there is a case.