patiirc Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Vince Cable was caught out by two undercover reporters from the Daily Telegraph posing as constituents. Vince Cable told undercover reporters he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch" and planned to block his efforts to take full control of BSkyB, according to the BBC's Robert Peston. The business secretary's admission came in conversation with Daily Telegraph reporters posing as constituents.  Robert Peston said the Telegraph chose not to publish the "most explosive" part of its investigaton.  But a transcript was passed to him by a whistleblower.  According to the transcript seen by the BBC's business editor, Mr Cable said: "I am picking my fights, some of which you may have seen, some of which you may haven't seen.  "And I don't know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win."  News Corporation, which is run by Rupert Murdoch, already owns 39% of BSkyB but wants to buy up the remaining 61%.  The group also owns News International - whose publications The Sun, News of the World, The Times and The Sunday Times account for a third of the UK's national newspaper circulation.  Mr Cable ordered Ofcom to investigate the proposal over concerns about press freedom and consumer choice - but he will have the final say and has stressed the need to be politically impartial.  The BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said the revelation would be "uncomfortable" for Mr Cable and could lead to questions about his future.  BSkyB has declined to comment on Mr Cable's remarks.  In the transcript, Mr Cable tells the undercover reporter:  "Well I did not politicise it, because it is a legal question..but he (Mr Murdoch) is trying to take over BSkyB - you probably know that."  The reporter says: "I know vaguely".  Cable: "With considerably enhanced..."  Reporter: "I always thought that he had BSkyB with Sky anyway?"  Cable: "No, he has minority shares and he wants a majority - and a majority control would give them a massive stake."  "I have blocked it using the powers that I have got and they are legal powers that I have got. I can't politicise it but from the people that know what is happening this is a big, big thing.  His whole empire is now under attack...So there are things like that we do in government, that we can't do...all we can do in opposition is protest".  BBC Link   Nah, still cant see what the fuss is all about.. Press after blood, want the coalition to fail, have done so since the start and are picking off the Lib Dems as they are seen as a weak touch the wankers.  Who is control papers and media strugglimg for figures and readers or the government. Utter bollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted December 21, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 21, 2010 Vince Cable was caught out bragging by two attractive young female undercover reporters from the Daily Telegraph posing as constituents. Â Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted December 21, 2010 Author Share Posted December 21, 2010 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/20/edl_hack/Â The EDL have had a large portion of their donation membership database stolen. Also people who have bought from their shop. I shall be giving the list a going over when it is released through the usual channels. With the aim of doing what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoghurt Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/20/edl_hack/Â The EDL have had a large portion of their donation membership database stolen. Also people who have bought from their shop. I shall be giving the list a going over when it is released through the usual channels. With the aim of doing what? Â Raping them, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vamp Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Nah, still cant see what the fuss is all about.. Press after blood, want the coalition to fail, have done so since the start and are picking off the Lib Dems as they are seen as a weak touch the wankers. Who is control papers and media strugglimg for figures and readers or the government. Utter bollocks  Really? Because when the coalition first started a lot of the media seemed to agree with the utter arsewank that Clegg and Cameron were spouting about how the coalition is what the public had wanted. Which, of course, wansn't in any way true when you consider that the Lib Dems had come third. The public had mostly wanted a Tory government, although were almost nearly as in favour of a Labour government and definately didn't want a Lib Dem one. Technially if it was the Coalition people wanted, then it would have been a Tory-Labour one, which obviously wasn't goign to happen, but certainly its what the public wanted more than the Con-Dem one we've got now.  The fuss though is pretty obvious. Murdoch having that much control over the media is a cause of great concern for many, not just because of how much of the media he already controls in this country but because of the power he has elsewhere too. The Conservatives are all for it and Vince Cable was probably the only person that could and would stand in the way. Personally if I were him that's a position I probably wouldn't want to be in and I'd by lying if I said a part of me didn't wonder whether or not he knew precisely what he was doing.  And technically the Murdoch media backed the Tories, just as they have done with Labour in the past, and both times they got the result they wanted. So the who is control question is a good one. Murdoch's a powerful bed fellow for the Tories and they won't be happy to lose him. He met up with the parties prior to the election, and prior to supporting any of the parties, for private meetings, and this was likely one of the items discussed. We've already seen that the government had no problem undermining the BBC in what will be, for supporters of the Beeb, quite a worrying way. Not just because they're having to make cuts but because what they're having to shoulder the cost for, and what they could have had to shoulder the cost of is actually quite surprising.  So yeah, this is actually pretty important. It also comes at a time when the Director General of the BBC publically stated that he thinks that a television news show that isn't mean to be impartial shoud be encouraged in this country. He actually suggested something like Fox news, that's quite worrying. Or at least I think it should be. It'd be nice to say people are media savvy enough in this country not to have strong opinionated news lead them tobelieve things they probably shouldn't, but I'm not sure they are. There's people in this country that still believe media is a soft subject when its quite possibly one of the most crucial subjects on the curriculum when you consider the amount of sway the media arguably has now. We've been a country that, bar the newspapers, has maintaiend a fairly impartial news. We haven't completely, certainly the BBC have made dodgy political decisions in the past (they didn't cover the General Strike a few decades back because the government didn't want them to) and now there seems to be a somewhat liberal tendency to the broadcaster but certainly don't have anything openly biased. If Murdoch's allowed this he'll have a staggering amount of media coverage in this country, rivalling the BBC, and if as I suspect he will be he is given free reign to have a politcally biased television news channel then he'll be able t osay whatever he wants in his papers and through Sky. He's already backed winners at elections and some would suggest that they won because of his support. If that's true than Murdoch would have a lot of say politically as well. Don't forget tha Fox news, owned by the news corporation, is incredibly biased and a lot of the times its quite scary. A lot of people believe some of the more paranoid stories on that channel, and that's why we have the America we do now where there's some quite loony right wing beliefs, and equally left wing. Its because of their media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Nah, still cant see what the fuss is all about.. Press after blood, want the coalition to fail, have done so since the start and are picking off the Lib Dems as they are seen as a weak touch the wankers. Who is control papers and media struggling for figures and readers or the government. Utter bollocks  Really? Because when the coalition first started a lot of the media seemed to agree with the utter arsewank that Clegg and Cameron were spouting about how the coalition is what the public had wanted. Which, of course, wansn't in any way true when you consider that the Lib Dems had come third. The public had mostly wanted a Tory government, although were almost nearly as in favour of a Labour government and definately didn't want a Lib Dem one. Technially if it was the Coalition people wanted, then it would have been a Tory-Labour one, which obviously wasn't goign to happen, but certainly its what the public wanted more than the Con-Dem one we've got now.   Yes really! The hatchet was out for David Laws in June.. Same paper, Same agenda and plenty of exposition/proof by me in this very thread The Tory papers are not happy with the joining of the two parties, the muddied waters makes it harder to have a villain of the day and sell papers with scandal and whatnot. To this effect it is being manufactured and stage managed and quite frankly its's pathetic and worst of all, boring, because it;s all so predictable.  Remember that the Telegraph was the paper that kicked off the expenses row as well, okay that envisages all parties, but its clear that the Barclay Brothers are still pissed at something and it isnt just for the 'greater good'.  The whole going after ministers, specifically Lib Dem ministers, as the party is seen as the weak link, in the coalition is somewhat of a witch hunt to try and either force a new election, the dissolution of the current government or so on. The press has been itching for this for some time and the copy and reporting of the 'unbiased' (sic) BBC and other outlets have pointed directly to this and nothing else. Nick Robinson's eulogy about how shit things were after the Coalition was formed said it all and he is meant to be a 'Dyed in the wool Tory'.   The fuss though is pretty obvious. Murdoch having that much control over the media is a cause of great concern for many, not just because of how much of the media he already controls in this country but because of the power he has elsewhere too. The Conservatives are all for it and Vince Cable was probably the only person that could and would stand in the way. Personally if I were him that's a position I probably wouldn't want to be in and I'd by lying if I said a part of me didn't wonder whether or not he knew precisely what he was doing.  Murdoch' is Grade A 'flip flopper' see how quickly the Sun changes its persuasion when the politics of the country changes. Yes, the Conservatives have been strongly linked to the empire. See from before the election from the BBC where James Murdoch is supposed to have been a chief policy writer yet is also Chairmen of BSKYB  However, it didnt stop Labour getting into bed, or at least trying to do so with the Murdoch's either  Basically, Murdoch's empire already hold's too much sway in terms of political power. To hang a Minister out to dry over something which really is insignificant on the grand scheme of things is bordering on the completely insane.  News reporting and so has been politicised since the year dot afaik. With things getting more fragmented and people not buying papers in the same numbers, or indeed gathering their information from the same Ideological Apparatus that they did even 10 years ago. Media empires have to struggle to maintain some semblence of importance in this new digital age: Manufacturing the news, as opposed to reporting the news is once such endeavour.  We've already seen that the government had no problem undermining the BBC in what will be, for supporters of the Beeb, quite a worrying way. Not just because they're having to make cuts but because what they're having to shoulder the cost for, and what they could have had to shoulder the cost of is actually quite surprising.  Both Labour and the Coalition have taken pot shots at the BBC in recent times as its tax/license fee is something that can score easy points for those who think it has become a bloated money blackhole and doesnt serve the 'public and should be streamlined. Remember it's Labour who have made it stream lined so it will be multi centric and not just based in London and few outlying places. TV centre to be sold as well  The BBC is having to change, because of political whim and fancy and is being moulded into something it was never designed to be, for political gain. In the short term this may have great benefits. In the long term it's going to polarise things further. The BBC copy is already not unbiased. See Andrew Gilligan and other recent scandals or the BBC Bias link that follows regarding reporting. The allusion by Mark Thompson to a Fox News thing as you said isnt that far off where we are already there to some degree with definite Labour (BBC) Conservative (SKY News) news already being produced.  In this context then Vince Cable's comments dont really count for much. The underlying infrastructure is in place and in the grand scheme of things referring it to Ofcom, who really are shit as a regulatory body, insequential fines, and closing TMTV are hardly the stuff of legend counts for dick all.  The brouhaha is thus over nothing, to try and destabilise the status quo, the higher the target, the more plum the scalp, despite the complete and utter bullshit trumped up charges.  Media studies arent as important as you seem to think, as they (used to) deal much with the theory including Semiotics, the Frankfurt School and Post Modern Theory and less so on the engendered politics of the thing as that would be a more historical stance. This may have changed, but making everyone aware of the 'media' wont help because many people dont give a shit. Just because they can read it doesnt mean that they will take a step back and reassess it.   I therefore stand by original assertion, I cant see what all the fuss is about in terms of Vince Cable because it doesnt matter realisticall. The media controlling of the government despite losing its traditional power base is much more interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 Well, Cable's war against Murdoch didn't last long then - Murdoch won! Â The Telegraph absolutely HATE the Lib Dems, far more than Labour. They are waging a serious campaign against all Lib Dem coalition members, it's well known around Fleet Street that they'll buy any story that discredits them. Â In this instance, Cable was bragging a bit to two young laydeez who of course turned out to be undercover reporters. Some might call that entrapment, which it is, but Cable should watch who he brags to, even his own constituents. Â The sad thing about all this is that the public, rather than seeing all the positive influence the Lib Dems are having on what would otherwise be an even more idealistic tearing down of the public services, are buying that it's ALL THEIR FAULT! I guess people expect the Tories to be bastards, so they get a pass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 (edited) Trust the Muslims to remind us of the real meaning of Christmas: Â Â http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ive-period.html Edited December 22, 2010 by Happ Hazzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted December 22, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 22, 2010 It's actually quite impressive the muslims managed to get that leaflet out. Imagine the logistics of getting 1.2 billion people to all collaborate on a single publication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 22, 2010 Share Posted December 22, 2010 That's just being pedantic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted December 23, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2010 You're right. Also, if somebody shot Alan Sugar, they'd have committed the holocaust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 No they wouldn't. If Hitler had ordered one Jew to be killed, that wouldn't have been a holocaust either. Â The poster and website were created by Muslims. Not ALL Muslims. Â "Students protested in London against the increased tuition fees." Do we need to define "some students" or can we just take it as read that not every single student was involved? You're the plain English guy, you should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members WWFChilli Posted December 23, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2010 I've read enough of Lister's posts to know he was joking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted December 23, 2010 Share Posted December 23, 2010 Trust the Muslims to remind us of the real meaning of Christmas:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ive-period.html  So Muslim's dont contract STD's, commit rape, get pregnant during their teens, go to raves, have Jesus as a prophet ( admittedly not as son of god, but has god in him.. huuuuge difference I'm missing something?, the same 'super powers' and the virgin birth. Same dude, different interpretation), blaspheme, exploit, be promiscuous, go to night clubs, commit crime, are paedophiles , commit domestic violence, live without a home, commit violence or vandalism or do alcohol or drugs.*  The group are trying to uses extremes, but arent even looking back at what the followers of their own religion do. So it strikes me as a social commentary rather than a religious one, because it applies equally whatever the religious background and thus to some extent the message is somewhat redundant.   * Paganism seems to be hated by all religions but Id not seen a Muslim - Pagan conversion until Id read this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted December 23, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted December 23, 2010 No they wouldn't. If Hitler had ordered one Jew to be killed, that wouldn't have been a holocaust either. The poster and website were created by Muslims. Not ALL Muslims.  Muslims or "the Muslims"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts