Verbal

The question of 'why now?' presupposes that The Guardian has only just broken this story. They haven't. Here's a list of Nick Davies' stories on the subject going back two years - not quite far enough, in fact, to include the article he wrote which broke the criminal conspiracy angle in 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/nickdavies

If Murdoch throws his UK toys out of the pram what happens to the prem? The implications of all this for football could get interesting.

Anyone investigating THAT would not have proceeded because they were too busy laughing at the loonytunes mock-Irishman who used to peddle the crap that sent the price through the roof. Not QUITE the same thing, though, is it, trousers?

We're getting into flying saucer territory here, Phil. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a good principle to apply to your arguments because you'd end up discarding all of them, or at least acknowledging how out there they are.

At the very least it's a stretch to argue that Murdoch deliberately orchestrated the utter chaos that has befallen his entire empire in order to play hoopla with the share price of a small-ish bit of it. The idea that he would have thought it worth the trouble to alienate some of the biggest institutional investors in his corporation, and subject his senior employees to prolonged police investigation, political scrutiny and public opprobrium, all in the name of a little bit of share-price skimming, amounts to saying merely that he is guilty of yet one more criminal act (as the manipulation of share prices is). On top of the mountain of accusations and charges that NI now faces as a result of this criminal conspiracy, I'm sure a bit of share-price fraud it's exactly the kind of thing he would think it a good idea to do... It's bonkers.

Go on...

I think your two sentences are related in ways you've yet to fully comprehend.

Stain, you're timing is off. Slightly.

Unlikely, since it was the Guardian - and a Guardian journalist, Nick Davies - who've pursued this story through to its bitter end. I don't think you understand very much about the different newspaper cultures - hardly a surprise.

How sweet. delldays and dune have fallen in love.

And one more poster disappears into the MLG Circle of Hell.

I told you it was too long.

The monopolies question has as much to do with his ability to outbid any rivals, terrestrial or non-terrestrial, for rights to movies and sports in particular. Given that he's already been able to do that with a 39% holding in BSkyB, monopolising football in particular, it seems a fair question to ask whether his having 100% of the company is in the interests of competition. (The answer is no, by the way, should you be wondering). Of course, part of his modus operandum is to assault everyone who gets in his way. Hence James Murdoch's persistent attacks on the BBC, through speeches like the last one in Edinburgh TV festival, and through his newspapers, which keep up a constant drip-feed of anti-BBC rhetoric. In Murdochworld, all the components work towards a single common end - by hook or by crook, putting his empire into a position where they are the last man standing.

Hunt does not refer to Ofcom - it alone decides the 'fit and proper person' test and has now belately said that it will and is watching unfolding events closely. Hunt has not to date referred the bid to the Competition Commission. He is under pressure to do so, mostly from Lab and Lib Dems. Vince Cable, who was originally considering the bid and is known to be hostile to it, was removed from the decision-making process some months ago, and the much more compliant Hunt put in the driving seat. So no, the government has done anything but play a straight bat with this.

The problem - or one of the far too many to mention - with this is that it is disconnected from the real world. In the latter, we have regulators - and we have regulators because unfettered competition left to its own sordid devices allows bigger players to drive out competition with price cuts and whack prices back up into the stratosphere when the competition has been driven out of business. So unless you want to live in some western equivalent of authoritarian capitalism like China, or a mafia state like Russia, it's probably best to allow regulators to do their job than have them ignored by the Jeremy Hunts of this world and their other hobnobbers in Chipping Norton.

Because it matters more than God herself.

Are you sure? Are you absolutely sure? Because I'd hate for anyone to commit to clean underwear based on just a random opinion on Saintsweb.

Trousers, allowing the BSkyB bid to go through has serious consequences for competition. It staggers me but doesn't surprise me that this bid wasn't referred to the Competition Commission in the first place. But the bottom line is that Murdoch has built his empire only with the help of politicians, whose cooperation has been secured in a climate of inducement and intimidation. By the same token, they should take it away. For once let the normal rules of competition policy and practice apply to Murdoch Inc.

So when you tune in to watch the alternative providers of live premiership football, which channel do you select?

This thread is too long.

Send me a complete list of the CD collection and I'll tell you.

State intervention? It's a petition! Remember also that Murdoch's empire both here and in the US has been built on state intervention favouring him and disfavouring his competitors.

The rest of us make allowances. It takes that long to get the apron off.

Which happened because of the UKIP campaign banner it was hauling got caught up in it. The pilot was so entertained by this that he subsequently threatened to kill Farage. There has GOT to be a joke in here somewhere - if it's not there already.

Doesn't look like this dispute is going to end any time soon. The council has just been caught secretly planning to sack up to a quarter of its staff. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/9737651