Who at Ofcom is sitting doing nothing effectively supporting Murdoch and what his people did at NOTW

[bkgirl]

Why on earth has Ofcom not stepped in.....admissions have been made, they need to take action. If not - why not? It makes me wonder have they been targeted themselves by News International. After all if MP's and police can be allegedly threatened/blackmailed, it's not such a jump to think other people could be.

Also surely blackmail is a criminal offence? Have the police begun investigating these threats?

Ofcom (in my 20+ years of experience in the communications industry) are not often as speedy at wading in where one might expect... Not necessarily evidence of them being either implicated or victims.

Ofcom's trumped by a judicial inquiry and police investigation, surely?

Ofcom can play the "unfit person" card if a director is so morally corrupt as to be incapable of complying with the Broadcasting Code from day one. A convicted fraudster, paeophile or rapist would fit the bill. However much revulsion we feel, Sky would probably claim that there are multiple layers of separation between them at people proved to be in the know. They would also argue that Sky is not News International - it's only 39% owned. The killer argument would be that over the past few years there have hardly been any upheld complaints against Sky programs, and they would argue that proves they are trustworthy. Compare their track record with the BBC and ITV, both of which attract complaints in their 1000s. Not saying I like it, just that's the way it is. And for the record I have dropped a few packages.

yeah, but aren't all the other shareholders non-voting or something?

Mind you, Ofcom reckoned Desmond was a fit and proper person to own TV and national newspapers... what on earth do you have to do to be considered unfit and improper?

A convicted con artist could use a TV channel to syphon millions off gullible viewers in a few days. A psychopath could convince the feeble minded that the world was about to end and commit suicide. By contrast Desmond is a know quantity whose motivation seems to be making huge amounts of money by legal means - even if those means are socially dubious. However itdoes seem odd that he was able to take over a Public Service Broadcaster, but the idea that Five is a bastion of PSB values would have seemed laughable 6 years ago, particularly given the former German owners RTL used to be known for soft-porn.
What else? An ex-broadcaster with a serious track record of deliberately breaking the Broadcasting Code and failing to improve matters might find they fail that test.
"Fit and proper" does not mean squeaky clean. Let's not forget that the BBC was fined thousands for fraudulently manipulating Blue Peter phone votes and ITV was fined millions for keeping phone lines open after results of phone votes had been decided (Comedy Awards) yet both the BBC and ITV are still in business because they accepted their errors and cleaned up their acts.
My point was Ofcom could use it's muscle to stop Freeview settop boxes having easily accessible Adult channels, but they can't be bothered.

Blue Peter were wrong but they weren't trying to fleece anyone, just avoid naming a cat after what they thought was a drug reference, IIRC. Hardly in the same category as Ant & Dec, Murdoch or Desmond.

Let's not forget James Murdoch's savage attack on the Beeb last year, when he had the cheek to talk about the 'chilling' effect of 'state sponsored journalism' and how the profit motive is the only guarantor of press freedom. And he got away with it too - the government has been hostile to the BBC, dumping the responsibility for funding the World Service on them, which means they are having to make journalists redundant, reducing the scope and quality of the major source of unbiased and independent news in this country and an vital service around the world.

Agreed, I'm just saying that whatever definition you use of unfit and proper, if Sky fits it then so do other big name broadcasters. The acid test would be what sort of television would they produce, not what newspapers.