Investigate the politicians!
Following on from the farce that is the great Commons culture committee debacle on the hacking of telephones by News of the World staff we now have a clear Conservatives Versus the rest divide on whether or nor Murdoch is fit to be the head of Newscorp/News International. Of course the statement does appear to be outside the remit of the committee and the addition of a codicil that Ofcom (and others) might find the evidence given to them to be of interest might well have delivered the fatal blow that some intended, hoped for, or wanted.
For me the biggest area of concern has nothing to do with Murdoch but actually calls into question those who formed the committee and brings to the fore 'something of interest' to us, the electorate.
Tom Watson presented an ill-concealed hatred of Murdoch throughout the proceedings and even though this made for great television, it does call into question the final 'not fit' statement. What we needed was a balanced affair and this, sadly, was never present. Had it been then the coup de grace that some hoped for might have been the result!
Louise Mensch has been on the radio this morning telling all who were tuned in that the 'not fit' clause was never discussed. If this is true then there is something very wrong with this committee and the findings and observations fall, impotent, to the ground. Snipers have but one shot and with regard to this operation, if Murdoch's demise was the intention, it has failed.
Mensch's statement means that either the committee is flawed or she is! To have drawn a line, as she has done, is to ask people to judge what is right and true and if the 'not fit' lobby can prove it was raised (as they claim) then Mensch has placed her political future firmly before the hangman! To this end, the comments on twitter (Barnaby Edwards) regarding what might be considered to be an interest which might see her support Murdoch does call into question her lack of personal interest in this whole affair and might explain her rejection of the clause. I'm not sure about this but you can read the comments for yourself and draw your own conclusions:
"Louise Mensch [defends] Rupert Murdoch [who owns] HarperCollins [who publish] Tilly Bagshawe [whose sister is] Louise Mensch."
So who's fitness are we concerned with? A committee whose divisions and obvious (and implied) bias will result in the fire falling short from Murdoch as the media look at the chaos of this committee and its controversial report. Damage has been done but not perhaps to Murdoch :-(
Blimey - you couldn't have paid for this get out (or could you - always good to have a conspiracy theory)!
6 comments:
Vic,
A Kent MP, who was also on the committee was on Radio Kent this morning saying exactly what Ms Mensh is saying. That these extra's were a last minute item, added to the report against their wishes.
His view was that the addition of extra criticism was outwith the remit of the committee, whose brief was to investigate whether any of the witnesses had misled Parliament in earlier hearings.
I'm not a Murdoch admirer, but feel that this particular report being 'fixed' in this way, is inaccurate and there falls at the first hurdle.
A fair impartial view was abandoned due to party politics - and since New Labour are not innocents in the whole business, they are virtually hoist by their own petard.
I too have little love for Murdoch and much that surrounds him and I would love to find that Ms Mensch is in the right with this, especially in the light of a potential interest being brought forth.
And if it proves to be the case that the Labour side of the shop sought to stitch Murdoch up he is not only given a reprieve (due to the bias and underhand dealings) but those who have acted wrongly replace Ms Hensch before the gallows!
The whole integrity of the select committee is in the balance here (and not just for Murdoch)!
Thanks for the comments.
V
Listen back to Today programme, Radio 4, 7.50 a m., Wed.2nd May, and you''ll hear Paul Farrelly MP insist that Louise Mensch is not telling the truth
Will do - that really draws a line - Farrelly or Mensh, who's telling the truth?
Surely there are minutes that can be used to verify the claims one way or the other.
Hey Ho!
V
Have had a quick listen and indeed he does lay down the gauntlet - so will have to wait and see as both appear very definite (which is sill for one of them as there must be records of when motions were laid before committee and discussions held).
Oh what a tangled web we weave . . . .
Reminds me why I don't do politics!
The interview with Paul Farrelly started very strangely with the R4 interviewer seemingly very reluctant to accept that he had answered her question. She appeared to assume that he was being evasive even when he gave an unequivocal "Yes".
Post a Comment