This is only a Preview!

You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.

Posting a Diary Entry

Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.

When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.

If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.


  1. One diary daily maximum.
  2. Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
  3. No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
  4. Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
  5. Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
  6. Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
  7. Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
For the complete list of DailyKos diary guidelines, please click here.

Please begin with an informative title:

For several months we have been waiting for a report from OFCOM the UK broadcasting regulator and it has rolled out this morning. Now it was a long shot that the Murdoch organisation might be staked through the heart by the UK regulator, but the  publication is interesting

BBC News - Ofcom says BSkyB 'fit and proper' but James Murdoch criticised

UK media regulator Ofcom has concluded that BSkyB is a "fit and proper" company to hold a broadcasting licence.

Ofcom was investigating the broadcaster in the wake of the phone hacking scandal that engulfed Rupert Murdoch's media empire, which owns 39% of BSkyB.

However, Ofcom has criticised former BSkyB chairman James Murdoch, Rupert's son, for his role in the scandal.

Ofcom said his actions "repeatedly fell short of the conduct" expected of a chief executive officer and chairman.

Now Sky is trying to sell this as a complete vindication,  with its statement  
BBC News - Ofcom says BSkyB 'fit and proper' but James Murdoch criticised
"Ofcom is right to conclude that Sky is a fit and proper broadcaster. As a company, we are committed to high standards of governance and we take our regulatory obligations extremely seriously."

You must enter an Intro for your Diary Entry between 300 and 1150 characters long (that's approximately 50-175 words without any html or formatting markup).

The report however contains a few bombs lobbed casually at the Murdochs.

Firstly paragraph 18

Nor, in our view, can it reasonably be concluded on the available documentary evidence
that there was an awareness on James Murdoch’s part either that evidence existed
indicating the involvement in unlawful activities of journalists other than Clive Goodman,
or that the desire to preserve confidentiality was a key factor in the settlement. There is
some documentary evidence that James Murdoch was aware of the Taylor claim prior to
10 June 2008. There is some documentary evidence that Tom Crone and Colin Myler
intended to brief James Murdoch in more detail, but there is no documentary evidence
showing that they actually did. In particular, Colin Myler forwarded to James Murdoch
the email chain of 7 June 2008, which contains information that ought to have caused
him significant concern. However, James Murdoch’s evidence is that he did not read
the chain to its end and there is no evidence to contradict his account
This paragraph runs pretty much in Paralel to the Murdoch defence advanced at both the Leveson Inquiry and the  later DCMS committee appearances.  It may stand up to scrutiny at the present moment, but in the coming weeks, when people end up standing in the courts, or when the report of the Leveson Inquiry is published, we may see an entirely different implication emerge.

Then we have Paragraph 28

Over the following months, proceedings were issued against NGN by a number of persons who thought their phones had been hacked. James Murdoch has given evidence to the Leveson Inquiry that he assumed that information relevant to the
litigation was being preserved. We have no evidence that this is not the case.
A paragraph that  suggests that defence information is being taken as read. once again something that could come apart quickly if things go badly in the court cases.  But all is couched in such terms that OFCOM is taking no responsibility for its current answer.

and then we have  paragraph 40

However, we would be concerned if statements, which have surfaced from time to time
in the course of the Leveson Inquiry and the work of the CMSC, that News Corporation
and its subsidiaries have exerted pressure over politicians and others in support of News
Corporation’s commercial interests, went beyond the legitimate area of political debate
and transgressed into inappropriate pressure or behaviour related to furthering News
Corporation’s commercial interests. News Corporation has a large shareholding in Sky
plc and has made assertions in other contexts about the degree of control it exercises
over it. Should further material evidence or findings become available we will take them
into account in relation to our continuing duty.
which lays it open for OFCOM to come back, if the situation changes, and seems to be worded in such a way that it leads towards the new wave of burglary allegations covered in the previous two diaries here. If you follow the logic of this paragraph it is rather as if OFCOM has painted itself into a corner, and if further happens, thenthey will have little choice but to act more strongly.

In other news, We have had a further four arrests in the last two days. Three more News international journalists, (two for corruption and one in connection with stolen phones) and a police officer

Its all coming along

11:35 AM PT: And a comment from The BBC's Business editor

Twitter / Peston: Clear implication of Ofcom ...

Clear implication of Ofcom report is BSkyB would have been declared "not fit & proper" if James Murdoch had not stood down as chairman
Extended (Optional)

Originally posted to ceebs on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 10:08 AM PDT.

Also republished by Murdochgate Investigators.

Your Email has been sent.