The news of the world

The other big story in the world, beyond the limit biggie debt in the U.S., the UK is the deployment of phone-hacking scandal tabloid News of Rupert Murdoch to the world. Some are seen as a turning point for the press in the UK, with politicians to be free from the domination of Murdoch. The question is whether to look at Murdoch's offer to take control of others through Sky News broadcaster is allowed to move forward by the Conservative government, which had been tempted to go along. Things have changed dramatically, however, and the revelations of hacking really could not come at a better time in terms of stopping this offer. Here, the Guardian editorializes against the offer that the scandal is getting worse:
The outlines of the story are familiar enough: it is a giant media organization headed by one of the great magnates of the press last who played ruthlessly limits of politics and business. As he grew older, bolder and more effective, less people in public life wanted to take it. This reluctance was well founded, as it now appears that his company has kept criminals in the pay to dig dirt on everyone.

It is this power and domination that links the phone-hacking (and worst) of the impending decision of the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt on whether to allow Mr. Murdoch to become even more powerful and dominant. It is obvious to most people who followed the twists and turns sordid saga of the phone-hacking, it would be highly desirable to let Mr. Murdoch - who already owns nearly 40% of the national press - have complete control over a wide distribution and operation. M. Hunt (and yesterday, Mr Cameron) repeat that this is a "quasi-judicial" decision and that they should simply follow due process. But, as both the former Minister Gerald Kaufman and the former leader Liberal Democrat Menzies Campbell argued in the Commons, there is an abundance of room for trial of ministers.

Main Government ofThe members - including Mr. Hunt and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve - have attracted the attention of Ofcom's powers to use a "qualified person" test to judge the appropriateness of a company individual or a person to own media. But Ofcom can now trigger such a test: it would require criminal charges against the leaders before the regulator could act.

The police operation has led to several arrests and there is a distinct possibility of such expenses. Indeed, some lawyers have even raised the possibility of lawsuits against the company directors in accordance with Article 79 of the Rules of the Law on the investigative powers that can be leveled it can be shown that the directors went guilty of "negligence, consent or connivance." Knowing these results, it would be extraordinary for Mr. Hunt to the wave of the merger now.

We suggested that Mr. Hunt should pause for a period while the police to know who does what, and who knew what, when - and at what level in the company. This suggestion met with range of all parties in the Commonson Wednesday. During the 24 hours to respond, we have learned from journalists NOW bribe the police, the CEO News International has been advised by the police in 2002 on the behavior of private investigators, and that the document hacked the phones of the family of seven / 7 victims. How much worse does it have to get before Mr. Hunt listening?
The commentator at the Independent made a good argument on legal issues facing Murdoch (Exhibit), as raised in section 79 above:
Forgive me for now deep into the thickets of the law, but finally, in the widening scandal of the New behavior of the world, turns on section 79. I hope that charges will be laid under this section. It is entitled "Criminal accountability of leaders, etc.." (I like the "etc"). It states that "Where an offense under the provisions of this Act ... is committed by a corporation and that it is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to negligence on the part of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the corporation or any person who purported to act in that capacity, he (and the corporation) must be guilty of the offense and liable to be prosecuted and punished accordingly.