Communications regulator Ofcom today ruled that Sky - which is nearly 40 per cent owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp - IS fit and proper to hold a TV broadcast licence. However Murdoch's son James - formerly chairman of BSkyB and still involved in running the family empire - was savaged by the watchdog, which questioned his …
Watchdog - watches
> However Murdoch's son James ...
was savaged was briefly sniffed by the watchdog ...
who lazily opened one eye, had a quick snuffle, farted and then went back to its slumbers.
Re: Watchdog - watches
Dear Lord James, couldn't you have made yourself scarce until this whole thing blew over? Then when everyone has lost interest and nobody's watching you can take the reigns again and carry on working on that hollowed out volcano.
I will tell you the only fact about the weasels that I know, and that is they are complete murdochs.
Also they are small, active predators
Re: The facts?
Opinion :- they are also low life, slimeball crooks, not fit to run a chip shop let alone a proper company.
WIll OFCOM re-examine this case...
... if either of the Murdochs end up in a federal pen. over the corrupt foreign payments made by their underlings...?
Little Jimmy should have been fired long ago
He would appear to have inherited none of the business sense of Murdoch Senior who obviously knew what he was doing when he built up his media empire. I'm amazed he was given so much responsibility without any justification (such as any sign of competence) and not removed more swiftly when the damage he was doing became clear.
I guess its a good thing on the whole, cos News Corp is not quite such a powerful political force as it used to be. But I don't understand why the board haven't had Murdoch Junior impaled on a spike.
How many people won't touch with bargepole?
I don't, one of the reasons I won't have it is Murdoch, for fun the others are.
I want my own kit not substandard this is what you have like it or lump it kit.
Would've been interesting if they'd been denied. Sky only broadcast their own channels(*) and the EPG. Most of the channels are owned by separate companies who are paying to be listed on Sky's EPG and (depending on the channel) paying to use Sky's encryption system.
So if Sky isn't allowed to broadcast what would it mean? Obviously any channel with 'Sky' in its name would go but what about the rest. Does the EPG have to stop? What about channels like Discovery that use Sky's encryption system but whose content has nothing to do with Sky?
Perhaps that's why Ofcom didn't want to take action. Just too difficult to differentiate.
(*)Actually that might not be quite right. I believe that Sky now handle the broadcasting for a few other channels. I seem to recall that FX switched over a year ago and now lets Sky do it all.
"Does the EPG have to stop?"
Sky's EPG would stop, but there's nothing stopping the other channels using someone else's (e.g. Virgin Media), is there?
Re: "Does the EPG have to stop?"
They'd struggle to use VM's given that as far as I know it isn't broadcast from satellites :)
But of course in principle someone else could create an EPG or perhaps they'd all move over to Freesat's. It's technically possible I imagine although would require new firmware on all Sky boxes. Contracts would have to be negotiated as well which would take time. It's safe to say that we don't need Sky to watch satellite TV but if it were suddenly to be switched off I reckon it'd be many months before the channels that are exclusive to it became available again. Now doubt VM would love that but it's rather a smack in the teeth for the other 50% of the country who can't get cable :-/
"the evidence currently available to Ofcom does not provide a reasonable basis for Ofcom to reach any conclusion that News Corporation acted in a way that was inappropriate in relation to phone hacking, concealment, or corruption by employees of NGN or News International".
It was perfectly reasonable for News Corp to engage in phone hacking, concealment, and corruption? Or is it merely the fault of a rogue employee?
Rogue employee? No - directors are not an employees.
The IT Crowd: Douglas: Conrad Black, the first rich person to go to prison in over 300 years.
And sure as hell the British establishment will never allow it to happen again.
Conveniently forgetting all of the other rich people who have gone to prison. Jeffrey Archer, to name but one, but there are plenty of others.
They sent that Guiness bloke down for...I forget...
I admit that I forget later -but I forget.
Any idea how the News of the World Newspapers got hold of its information on Mutton Jeffery?
Yes, he was the one who wrote "The Fourth Estate," a novel that was written around the rivalry of Rupert
Murdoch and Robert Maxwell.
Ernest Saunders. He got three years in Leyhill Open Prison before declaring himself senile and being released immediately.
- Does Apple's iOS 7 make you physically SICK? Try swallowing version 7.1
- Fee fie Firefox: Mozilla's lawyers probe Dell over browser install charge
- Pics Indestructible Death Stars blow up planets with glowing KILL RAY
- Video Snowden: You can't trust SPOOKS with your DATA
- Hands on Satisfy my scroll: El Reg gets claws on Windows 8.1 spring update