Maybe a Vote of No Confidence is also needed regarding David Cameron. Better still Vince Cable should demand that David Cameron hands in his resignation.

1. Mr Grunt

I think Vince Cable feel like the most vindicated man in politics. I wonder if he’ll get anything even resembling an apology?

If News International pull out of all British newspapers it’ll make the next election interesting. Who’ll decide who the next PM is if Rupert’s lost any say?

@1/2: The rest of the right wing hacks will make every effort to plug the gap, knowing that the little Englanders will be desperate for their daily fix of poison. A new right wing rag may well surface, hellbent on keeping the memory of Dear Uncle Rupert alive. Whoever or whatever replaces them, let’s just enjoy the fact that Murdoch will more than likely be gone from the UK media industry. There are even rumours coming from across the pond, suggesting that pulling out of bSKYb altogether is being seriously discussed at NC in NY.

2/ Scottie

Vince Cable can hold his head high because he has proved everyone wrong but I suspect that David Cameron and Company knew all along that Vince Cable was only telling the truth about how corrupt Murdoch and others were.

Hopefully next time Vince Cable enters the Chamber in Parliament all the MP’s will give him a standing ovation whilst Cameron hangs his head in shame. Thats if Cameron has any feelings which I doubt.

“There are times when the House of Commons has got to rise to the occasion and speak for the public.” – Ed Miliband

What is the House of Commons there for the rest of the time, Mr Miliband?

Lets see I suspect this will be a hell of a battle with Murdock using his power base and money to buy the shares,

it will be interesting to see who is the most powerful

The issue needs to pushed hard before public anger diminishes at it probably will in time.

It is vital that the “fit & proper” person test is brought to bear on the BSkyB takeover but why couldn’t a motion be tabled in the Commons to extend the test to Newspaper Ownership as well. Who would dare vote against it in the current climate?

@7
Haha, great pointing out of a Freudian slip there!

But in seriousness, credit to Ed on this one. He’s very much taken the leadership in the House of Commons. I still have to ask, where’s Dave? And where’s Osbourne for that matter too?

Oops, I meant 5…

r but why couldn’t a motion be tabled in the Commons to extend the test to Newspaper Ownership as well

Probably kept broad to keep the Libdems sweet.

Divergent assessments in the broadsheet press of the questioning of senior Metropolitan Police officers on the phone hacking scandal by the House of Commons select committee on Home Affairs on 12 July 2011:

Editorial in the FT on 13 July 2011:

The hacking scandal has left the police force looking shifty and inept
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/73d41036-acb5-11e0-a2f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RxWlG5d3

And in the Telegraph:

The self-indulgent questioning of Assistant Commissioner John Yates, in particular, had all the characteristics of a kangaroo court, not the forensic exploration of the issues we have a right to expect (though all-too-rarely get) from a committee of MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8633075/The-wrong-target.html

From the Guardian: “Cameron will also announce today that a judge is to oversee a full-blown inquiry into phone hacking, and that a panel will examine the future regulation of the media. The judge – who will be named today – will lead the main inquiry into the hacking allegations, which is expected to be modelled on the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly in 2003.”

Fuck

When I mentioned Hutton I was joking. How fucking barefaced can they get?

(http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gnm/op/s69VOkk1Dzqhi9r_gABC0lg/view.m?id=15&gid=media/2011/jul/12/rupert-murdoch-bskyb-news-international&cat=uk)

@12: “When I mentioned Hutton I was joking. How fucking barefaced can they get?”

Says it all?

Lord Hutton has rejected claims his report into Dr David Kelly’s death amounted to a “whitewash”.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3709243.stm

Dr Brian Jones was head of the branch in the Defence Intelligence Service tasked to assess incoming intelligence relating to weapons of mass destruction at the time of the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003.

He submitted this letter of 8 July 2003 to the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr Kelly:
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/mod/mod_4_0011.pdf

Dr Jones disowned the claims made in that dossier, with a forward signed by Blair, about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction presented to a special session of Parliament on 24 September 2002:
http://www.archive2.official-documents.co.uk/document/reps/iraq/iraqdossier.pdf

According to this official memo of 23 July 2002, marked ‘Secret’, leaked to the Sunday Times and published on 1 May 2005, shortly before the 2005 election on 5 May:

“C [the traditional title for the head of MI6, Britain's Secret Intelligence Service - at the time: Sir Richard Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

The final sentence is absolutely damning: “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece