http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/24/news-corp-leveson-inquiry-jeremy-hunt
Can't believe he still hasn't quit.
Can't believe he still hasn't quit.
So are you saying the mandarins in Whitehall are the "political representatives of international capital"? Do we not have a similar protocol in this country with regard to equal airtime - I think you'll find we do.
Also did the Guardian support Thatcher, or The Mirror? Being at the University at the time where there was much debate, to say there was no public debate is sheer nonsense.
He got stuck in on a subject then moved onto to another without going after murdoch to get any real detail, IMO.
I thought it was really interesting....if you read the transcripts then you'll see they covered an awful lot and they could really have had Murdoch up there for a week and still not make a dent in 50 years of subterfuge.
Jay's only intention was to get Murdoch's answers on the record, under oath....then his forensic analysis (which he's good at) will come later.
Unless they really are after murdoch when it comes to the crunch I`ve seen too many whitewashes over the years.
I thought he did well to extract so much because Murdoch was obviously pausing and rambling as much as possible to avoid giving straight answers.....but they can say quite reasonably that they gave him a fair chance, lots of time and didn't put him under duress.
The one thing they really missed asking him about were the Camillagate tapes (the old Prince Charles tampax thing), which is a big thing in Australia.
The Sun could not break this story because it was based on an illegal act and they would have been legally culpable in the UK.
The story was mysteriously broken in a Murdoch Australian paper, then the British press were able to freely report that story, because they were just reporting "news".
That would have smashed his defence that the "problems" are isolated within the UK sector and not the rest of NewsCorp worldwide.
How the system is manipulated but the illusion of democracy pervades. A few years ago the former ambassador to Uzbekistan exposed the UK complicity in torture, he was then sacked and stood against Straw in Blackburn, http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/04/blackburn_counc/
.."Bushra Irfan has erected a large election poster in her own garden of her own property. Within three hours, several men from Blackburn council arrived to take it down on the grounds Bushra did not have planning permission to erect a hoarding.
What speed, and what an incredibly efficient council!
Election advertising is in fact exempt from planning permission regulations as class E of schedule 1 of The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 which exempts:"..
.."However that won’t stop Blackburn Council, which has no concern at all for the law when it comes to organising Jack Straw election victories. I still recall their blank refusal to allow me the use of public rooms for election meetings when I stood against Jack Straw.
I pointed out to the council electoral administrators that not only did candidates have a right to public rooms for meetings, but the returning officer had a legal obligation to maintain a register of such rooms in state schools and community centres, and to make the list available to candidates at any reasonable time. The council simply replied “We don’t do that in Blackburnâ€.
When I telephoned the Electoral Commission to complain, they said enforcement of the law was the job of the local returning officer. When I told them that it was the returning officer I wished to complain about, they said there was no way to do that."..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/05/bbc-london-mayor-election-coverage
.."The BBC maintains that its guidelines only require it to give airtime to candidates from parties with a track record in a previous relevant election, or with clear evidence of support in the polls. London Tonight, the flagship London ITV I programme presented by Alistair Stewart has also decided that only the four candidates Johnson, Livingstone, Paddick and Jones should appear in an hour long programme on 24 April. ITV said they were conforming to the standards of the Ofcom code and would work to ensure other candidates also received a chance to put over their views in other formats.
The Ofcom guidelines state: "Due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period. Broadcasters must also consider giving appropriate coverage to other parties and independent candidates with significant views and perspectives."
http://www.broadcastersliaisongroup.org.uk/about.html
Party Election Broadcasts (PEBs), which are offered to qualifying political parties, registered with the Electoral Commission, in the run-up to elections.
Party Political Broadcasts (PPBs), which are offered to the main political parties each year, usually around the autumn party conference season and around the time of the Queen's Speech.
Budget Broadcasts, which are offered at the time of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement.
Ministerial Broadcasts, which, in exceptional circumstance, are offered to the government followed by responses by the main opposition parties.
The Ofcom Broadcasting Code defines the main parties as: The Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. In Scotland , the SNP is also included as is Plaid in Wales . In Northern Ireland the main political parties are the DUP, Sinn Fein, the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists."
So the main parties get equal air time - your point is? I have seen party election broadcasts from a broad spectrum of opinion. During the Thatcher years Labour etc would have had air time to argue against her policies - I seem to recall Foot and Kinnock doing an appalling job - so to reiterate, to say that there was no debate is utter utter nonsense.
My word I split my sides I laughed that muchI loved the Dennis Skinner comment in the Commons today after Hunt kept name-dropping his permanent adviser at the Dispatch Box;
"When rich boys have a problem, they sack the servant!"
Three parties (who all believe in the same thing) control along with the media what you are allowed to hear on the media, Not the same as All parties.
I notice you have no comment to make on how Murray was allowed to debate the election, and there is a long list.
If the debate is between groups which all share the same ideology what is the purpose of that debate apart from saying my eye candy is better than yours and giving the illusion of `open honest debate` and democracy and they get away with it.
People can only act on the information they have and if that information is controlled we do not have a democracy but an elected dictatorship.
Are you seriously telling me Foot had the same ideology as Thatcher? If we had to give equal air time to every party who put up candidates either the time each would be measured in minutes or there would be nothing but party election broadcasts for a whole month before the election. I am fairly certain this doesn't happen in France either.
As mentioned previously I have seen broadcasts from many idiots ranging from the National Front to the Communist Party. If they cannot muster any meaningful number of votes they do not deserve to b given the time to peddle their views. The time is better spent by allowing the public to see the differences between the parties who are likely to form the government.
However as you will be aware, in good old anarchism phraseology, it don't matter who you vote for the government always gets in.