You would think “no”, and this has been bandied about as a way to stop Murdoch getting his hands on BSkyB. However, it seems that this can not be considered as a reson. Why? The Government - ie Vince Cable - didn’t think to add that clause in to the terms.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14064430

Fair enough - drawn up before this proverbial hit the fan, but surely “fit and proper” should be a default test for such an important takeover?

Anyway:

The one possible sliver lining the large and angry cloud is when various other politicos see the utter shelacking Jeremy Hunt (oh, if ever there was an appropriate name...) is going to get when this goes through, it'll possibly mean the next time they're inclined to bend over for corporate interests they'll think twice about it.

To use a rather macabre analogy, I once saw an ex member of Mossad talking about how they really wanted to deal with the guys firing rockets across the border. 'You kill the leader', he said 'Well someone else will just come along in his place..' the interviewer replied. The ex-spook looked the interviewer square in the eye and responded 'yes, and you kill him too. And the guy who comes after him. By the time you've done it 6 or so times, nobody will want to be leader any more'.

Jon

Yes but so many slimy Tories will want to climb up the greasy pole. New Labour were no better, though maybe they were petrified to do anything to stop Murdoch.

The simple answer to the title of the thread is NO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmivsA3iJw8

Cameron will be looking for a sign.

Four words news of the world

I don't see much purpose in considering whether a company is fit and proper to won Sky. It's just a digital entertainment delivery system. Whether the owners are f and p is only really important to newspaper ownership imo. And in those terms the Express, Times, Sun - and arguably the Mail, Guardian, Independent and Telegraph - should all be forcibly separated from their current owners (by reason of pornography, espionage, espionage, tax evasion, tax evasion, KGB, and more tax evasion respectively)

I just don't see how Sky Sports, Sky Box Office 2, and History Channel +1 make any real difference to our social and political lives. Same can't be said of newspapers (sure, there's Sky News, but who watches that?)

Murdoch newspapers have only commented on the recent allegations regarding their phone hacking by getting third rate columnists (like famously blunt speaker-of-his-mind mister Jeremy Clarkson iirc) to comment on what a waste of public money it was to revive the investigation. This was clearly an attempt to influence politicians by crudely manipulating the public. An appropriate punishment would remove the means of exerting such pressure.

Of course, with the NoTW shut down, it would be much easier now to sell the Sun...

I still haven't worked out why RM can get into a position of owning so much of the news media, a level that would not be allowed in the US or Australia.

Reminds me of that train bid that was in the news yesterday. "yeah, the Germans and the French have worked out how to play the rules to favour themselves, but we didn't really think about that."

Phone hacking: Ofcom monitors police investigations

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/ju ... estigation

If Ofcom do not find reason to suspend the takeover then they are useless. If they are found to be unfit then News International should be forced to sell its shares in BSkyB. That is why News International are scrambling around trying to destroy evidence.

The rules that were set up do not include a "fit and proper" test, so it is not in the remit for the take over to be given the yeah and neigh over.
Also if you have to be a fit and proper person to own a newspaper that would mean quite a few owners would have to sell or shut down the newspapers they own.
Plus Murdoch may be a odious [LIFTED] but are we to have owners of companies based on public opinion? A lynch mob mentality to decide who can own what?

The rules for television broadcasting are much tighter than those for newspapers, hence one Richard Desmond gets away with a lot more with the Daily Express than with Channel 5.

Anyhoo, as for the "fit and proper" test - the DCMS can't find against a takeover on this basis because as you say, those were not the terms of the original inquiry. Ofcom, however, can decide whether News International/News Corp. will be a "fit and proper" owner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14064430
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14082668

We're even copping it from the Russians now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14109531


Abso-bloody-lutely!

NotW, their readers, NI and the Government have made all of us, at least politically, look like a right set of w*nkers. And considering how bad our reputation was, that wasn't easy

Well I have not bought the NOTW for more than a year, though it was just a rag like any of the others. The gossip element could have been kiss and tells. None of us knew that it was gained illegally.