Is James Murdoch on the lam?

Wanted?

Rupert Murdoch promises to spend the next three months in Britain launching his replacement for the disgraced News of the World and supporting the Sun’s beleaguered journalists. The latter is not a very easy balancing act as he has also set up an operation to turn those same journalists over to the police. The whole of News International in Britain has reached that tipping point that anti organized crime fighters in American police departments and the FBI look for. This is when as more senior figures are thrown to the wolves they in turn will implicate those above them. You know Tom Watson wasn’t  so wrong in comparing the Murdochs to a mafia family.

What’s interesting is that Rupert was accompanied by his son Lachlan instead of his usual companion on business trips to Britain, his other son James, who is among other things the head of their British operations. Could it be the most recent disclosures of emails that James received have given  him the feeling that he could be arrested if he returns to Britain? Is the head of BSkyB on the lam? Will he be a fit and proper person according to Ofcom?

  • Swatantra

    What I find surprising is that the NOtW is to be reprised as the SUN on SUNDAY! So the closure of the NOtW was in fact a slieght of hand because a lot of the NOtW Staff will no doubt be taken back on to un the SoS. This is in no way a bad thing: British jobs for British Workers. Everybody happy, punters get their weekly fix of vicars n tarts, sport and conspiracy theories about EdM being an alien. 
    No, things will not be as they were back in the days of sleaze and bribing coppers and stalking Prezza’s private life. This time the few corrupt journalists will be on their best behaviour, at least until Levinson comes out. 
    Incidently James is a loser, a lam; any Chief Exec with a haircut like that deserves not to be taken seriously. Rather like EdM.
    Les is right, James is going to have to  take the rap for all the wrongs of NI, unfairly, I think; it really wasn’t his fault but that of the editors like the disgraced Coulson.
    Watson is wrong as usual about the Mafia bit; more like ‘Dynasty’ or King Lear.
    A better example of the Mafiaosa would be our own Royal Family.

  • Anonymous

    The Royal family, which one Blair’s lot or the one now sitting on the thrown

  • LesAbbey

     Speaking of being on the run, it does now seem there was some truth to the rumours that Lucan escaped with help from powerful friends like Goldsmith and Aspinall. Seems the BBC is going to do a story on new witness testimony.

    • Anonymous

      Well yes they would come out now and say Lucan related to the Murdock’s.

      Tories are looking to go to war with Iran or another cold war.

      it’s great to be alive well and with a good sense of humour.

      • LesAbbey

         Ha-ha treborc I think it’s only me that’s linking Lucan with the Murdochs. Still I think we should be allowed to make mischief with the tabloid owners reputations about on par with what their papers do to other people. I’m not sure what I’m going to accuse Rupert of next.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that Alex Hilton writes a great article on labour list, yet does not write it on here, has this placed died a death  because it really looks like it.

    Dear Ed,I do wonder how often you
    receive letters from party members and whether they all start by saying
    how long they have been party members. In my case it is 21 years. As a
    15-year-old I was going to be part of a tidal wave sweeping Neil Kinnock
    to power. I was optimistic in those days.Since then I have been a
    parliamentary candidate twice, a school governor and a councillor –
    generally what you would call an activist. I grew up in the party; my
    parents were councillors, my mother was a parliamentary candidate three
    times, my grandfather was a party agent and my great grandfather was the
    chair of Poplar Labour Party. I’m saying that this party is in my DNA.All
    of this makes my current concerns very hard to resolve; mainly that I
    no longer have any faith that the Labour Party will make a better
    society – or even wants to do so. This is a feeling that I have been
    trying to ignore for some time, but I think it is time to raise it with
    you.Firstly, the party’s attitude to democracy is pitiful.
    Internally, it’s a joke and the people and factions competing for power
    seem to despise party members. I had hoped your review led by Peter Hain
    would tackle this problem but what came out of that was not a
    meaningful change from the current state.It might be forgivable
    if this rejection of democracy were just an internal thing, but the
    party’s approach to democracy for the public is just as qualified. After
    the expenses scandal, Gordon Brown let a lot of basically dirty MPs off
    the hook and then offered the weakest possible reform to parliamentary
    accountability (AV) as a sop to the electoral reform movement.After
    the election, all it would have taken to have shown some vision and
    understanding would be for one of the putative leaders to say how
    ridiculous AV is and have proposed an amendment to the Bill to allow for
    a third option of STV. But no candidate was willing to upset one third
    of the electoral college – the MPs – by suggesting there was anything
    wrong in principle with safe seats.Your election as Leader also
    upset me because the party was so desperate to elect someone who would
    recant the sins of New Labour that they refused to consider whether you
    actually meant it or whether you would be any good at the job of
    leading. It shocked me that anyone believed your proclaimed principles
    when at no time in your career had you espoused them before standing for
    the leadership. It shocked me that party members, unions and MPs would
    back you regardless of the fact that you were so clearly not up to the
    job, have no vision for Britain and can’t communicate very well. That
    said, I hoped I would be proved wrong once you had won.Your
    leadership has shown me how lacking in vision you and Ed Balls are in
    particular but your team is in general. You talk nonsense about good
    companies and bad companies as though companies can have ethics. It’s
    not about companies, it’s the people who make decisions who are, or are
    not, ethically driven. And your confusing position on austerity is
    simply small minded.Austerity may be a necessity but our party,
    with our values, ought to be standing up for people. And if that means
    “embracing” austerity, that should be conditional on an outright mission
    to attack the cost of living for the people who will have to pay for
    austerity. You know that the major cost of living is housing and that’s
    driven by a perverse, ever-inflating housing market. But you won’t push
    for real, meaningful policies that would reduce this overweight cost
    because any such policy would take the heat out of the housing market
    and lead to house price deflation. You won’t countenance policies to
    help the many if the few who will pay are Daily Mail reading swing
    voters in marginal seats.This is the core of your problem.
    Because you believe in power over principle, you can’t tell the
    difference between vision and triangulation. You think you can keep the
    left just enough on side through pointless attacks on individual
    bankers’ bonuses or honours and that you can win the centre ground by
    attacking the unions and embracing austerity. This ridiculous lack of
    vision means that I have to wait to see what your latest quote is to
    know whether – this week – the party’s left wing or right.While I
    don’t believe you are any more left wing than Blair or Brown, I don’t
    particularly care if you’re left or right wing. Leaders have to take a
    direction and it’s reasonable to ask party members to support the vision
    – the destination – even if the course isn’t the one those members
    would prefer.My problem is that you are not a leader. You are not
    articulating a vision or a destination, you’re not clearly identifying a
    course and no-one’s following you. You’re simply coming out with
    unintelligible guff in response to the latest headlines and seemingly
    hoping that we’ll think its impenetrability is down to our lack of
    understanding rather than your lack of coherence. The nonsense you say
    isn’t even well crafted and your “something for something” speech at
    conference was simply embarrassing.I have come to fear that you
    might actually win the next general election. Your absolute lack of a
    vision for Britain or any leadership qualities, and in particular your
    willingness to dissemble about your beliefs to win the Labour leadership
    makes me fear what you would do if you had any actual power. I don’t
    believe you know what you would do with power and I fear what you would
    do to keep it. It’s a formula that would lead to a government with a
    similar inertia to that of Gordon Brown. Except that you don’t have
    Gordon Brown’s talents.People try to tell me that it would be a
    problem replacing you, but if we excluded the outright mad or bad MPs
    there’s at least a hundred Labour MPs who couldn’t do a worse job than
    you.It is all about talent. I’d love us to have a leader with the
    articulacy of Emily Thornberry, the intelligence of Stella Creasy, the
    easy charm of John Woodcock or the tangible decency of Hilary Benn. But
    somehow the Labour Party seems to drain the talent from its people.Our
    shared history and values imply that we will stand for the people who
    need us most. Right now that’s more than half of the population of this
    country. But it’s disproportionately people who don’t vote and it’s not
    swing voters in marginal seats. So we don’t stand for them. Nearly any
    Labour MP you speak to wants to stand for them but collectively we are
    incapable of doing so.The Labour party stands for its leader and
    his interests first. Then it stands for its MPs and securing their jobs
    as best as possible. It stands for the union general secretaries (but
    not their members) just enough to keep them affiliated. After that it
    stands for swing voters in marginal seats and the media proprietors who
    can influence them. After that, if we’re lucky, we get to do something
    for the people for whom the party was created.And it’s not that
    we’re any worse than the other parties, who operate just the same. We’re
    just supposed to be better than them and so our failure is more
    disappointing. Whether you think we’re a democratic socialist party or a
    social democrat party, you’re wrong. We’re an illiberal elitist
    capitalist party with no taste for democracy and a misplaced belief that
    the masses are better off in our care than that of other parties.I’m
    not sure whether your departure would really make a difference to this.
    Would the next leadership election deliver us a leader or just another
    functionary fearful of his or her vulnerability and incapable of
    inspiring?For all his faults, Blair had a real vision of a
    Britain that was better and fairer than the nation he inherited. And he
    had the leadership skills to keep the party together even when we didn’t
    like the details.So what am I asking you to do? To prove me
    wrong maybe? To resign? To be honest I don’t particularly care anymore.
    I’d like it if you were honest and told us who the Labour Party’s going
    to help, and how, and set your policy direction consistently with that
    declaration. And then if we didn’t agree with you, we could just leave
    rather than persisting with vain optimism.Alex Hilton

    • Swatantra

      Alex reflects all the frustrations of being in Opposition. Basically no one is interested or bothered even if you happen to come up with a basically good idea.  And we have several years more of Opposition.
      Changes are afoot within the Party with Refounding Labour; the Electoral College will change, the Party won’t in the hand of the Unions; we will eventually make it to a Social Democratic Party on the European Model (unlike Owens SDP); there will be more democracy in theParty and changes to selecting MPs and quotas and getting rid of  ’safe’ seats and jobs for life.
      Ed may not be Leader to see get the benfits of these changes, but he will have done the Party a service by setting the motion in process.

      • Anonymous

        It will take ten or twenty years for new labour to die by that time who the hell cares.

        • Swatantra

          Blair is already dogmeat, and newlabour  just  figment of the imagination, so I shouldn’t bother worrying too much about it. There’s always been only one Party and its called the Labour Party.
          But LH definitely needs a direct link with LabourList and Fabians and Left Foot Foreward and the Coop Party, so that all their best articles come directly to LabourHome.

    • LesAbbey

       Robert, maybe Alex’s post on LabourList explains in some way why he isn’t posting on here.

      • Anonymous

        Well he’s wasting his time with that lot they think Blair was the reincarnation of Jesus.

        • LesAbbey

          You do seem to find the true believers on there.

          • Anonymous

            Well a minority of them

    • Anonymous

       I bet Alex was really pleased to hear his article quoted in PMQs today; by David Cameron. Maybe his third attempt as a Parliamentary candidate will be with a blue rosette on. After all David Cameron is  a leader. He are articulating a vision and a destination. He is clearly identifying a course and people are following him.

      • Swatantra

        Alex is to be congratulated on his polemic being used by Dave to embarass EdM. I doubt the blue rosette. People who change sides like the Gang of 4 are the pits,  fairweather friends.I always remember that stirring speech of Gaitskills:  ‘… fight fight and fight again for the Party I love … etc’. And thats what Alex should do. Gaitskill never made it to be PM although Wilson did, but it was close in 64.
        The fact is Labour are always the ‘occassional Party’, never blessed traditionally with Govt. So when they happen to find themselves in Govt, they should always make the best of it.
        But I’m always wary of idea of Dave as a Leader.Too soft on Europe and too soft on austerity for the likes of the rednecks in his Party. And the Country are not buying into this Old Etonian nonsense.

        • Anonymous

           I don’t think Alex was impressed by my comment. He emailed me to say he accepted he’d torpedoed being a future candidate and that he thought Cameron was a leader (though he doesn’t agree with his destination)

  • Swatantra

    Stick with it Alex. Things will only get better. I can assure you.

    • Anonymous

       yes labour can be out of power for a life time.

      • Swatantra

        ‘… though cowards flinch and traitors sneer …’

        • Anonymous

          yes that true, born and bred.

  • LesAbbey

    Well it seems that James Murdoch is divorcing himself from the British News International newspapers, having been dropped from their chairmanship. Will he ever return to Britain or is the fear arrest too great? Is there a mole in the Met or the government telling him or his father that James faces arrest if he sets foot in Britain? Will he now have to give up his chairmanship of BSkyB? So many questions still unanswered.

    • swatantra

      The truth is James is mighty relieved to be rid of the Newspaper side of the business which is lossmaking apart from the SUN. Leaves him more time to spend with BSKYB.
      You have to remember that it was his father who revolutionised the ailing Newspaper Industry 30 years ago and modernised it, and he did the same with an ailing Satelite Broadcasting company saving it from falling into oblivion by taking it over. 
      There is always the Extradition Treaty which we can invoke to get James over here if charged with any crimes.