It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Vince cables war on rupert Murdoch.

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:27 AM
Hi everyone,

I had to post this as I have just seen the story on sky news. Basically, they had a recorded conversation from vince cable (British businesses secretary) where he said " I have declared war on rupert Murdoch and I think we are going to win" and what I found most intriguing was when he said " anyone who really knows whats going On will know this is a big deal"

I believe he is hinting at the apparent takeover of our media as has happened in the united states. therefore, I fully support his comments. Now, as expected everyone is calling for him to be sacked and removed from government!!! Don't you dare criticise he NWO!

Wonder what you guys think? Below is from the guardian

Cable is reported in the transcript as saying: "I am picking my fights, some of which you may have seen, some of which you may haven't seen. And I don't know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win."

He also spoke of the importance of not politicising the BSkyB decision "because it is a legal decision", but then added: "I have blocked it using the powers that I have got and they are legal powers that I have got. I can't politicise it but from the people that know what is happening this is a big, big thing.

"His [Murdoch's] whole empire is now under attack … so there are things like that we do in government, that we can't do … all we can do in opposition is protest."

Within an hour of the transcript being released, News Corporation said it was shocked by Cable's attitude, saying it raised serious questions about due process. The Telegraph claimed it had been planning to publish the transcript, but it seemed equally likely that executives at the paper, anxious not to see the Murdoch takeover go ahead, wanted to protect Cable's role.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:36 AM
I think this stems from Murdoch's disdain for free to air national broadcasters like BBC (UK) and ABC (AUS) as well as free news content online.

The guy is stuck in the past.

I did a thread on this when he made comments about the ABC:

Rupert Murdoch and his Old World Order

edit on 22/12/10 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:47 AM
Isn't is interesting that Rockefeller in usa said he would do the same thing too, if you remember a month back or so.

Strange coincidence?

Who knows, maybe he has upset someone high up, but you would assume being who he is, the geezer must have quite a few influential friends.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:23 AM
vince is a terrorist, talking about nuclear bombs ect and that he can bring the govt down. 70 yrs since the libs were last in any kind of power. be 170 before those lying twats will ever get another go at it. Just gos to show that the politicians are all a lying thieving bunch of ass holes. String em up...

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:28 AM
I think it's worth pointing out that Murdoch controls a hell of alot of the media in the UK.

He owns the Sun (a nasty tabloid and sadly our most read paper 6 million readers I believe), he's claimed several times that he is THE King maker when it comes to UK politics. Headlines such as 'It Was the Sun Wot Won It' live on in infamy to this day...

The Times (and the Times on Sunday) (A broad sheet) currently attempting to convince people that they need to pay to access news and comment online...

British Sky Broadcasting (which is the main satellite television provider in the UK, and includes such channels as Sky News Sky sport etc. Made massive losses for the first ten years, but was subsidized by Murdoch's other holdings. Merged with British Satellite Broadcasting, gained a monopoly over satellite television in the UK and has killed any and all competition which has arises using underhanded tactics, a look at what happened to Virgin television will give a good example of this.

Basically I wouldn't put anything past Murdoch.
But like I say, he's so powerful that noone in power will piss him off.
He gives massive donations to the current ruling party (Doesn't
t matter who they are, just so long as they're in power), and makes it very clear that any actions against him will result in Sky news the Times and the Sun supporting the other political party until they're elected.

So I can see why Cable would want to do something.
Unfortunately like all Liberal Democrats (and their voters from what I've seen since the coalition gained power) he has a very naive view of how the world is run (This pains me as well because I honestly think Vince Cable is one of the best MP's we have) and he's now paying the price.

I'm sure plenty of poeple will use this as a chance to bitch and moan about how the Conservatives are ruining the country, but that's selective memory at work, Labour would have done the exact same thing in the same situation.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:48 AM
My problem with the whole thing is the way the Newspapers are setting up our politicians like this. The Telegraph, shouldn't be sending in undercover reporters to try and trip up Vince Cable then publish what he said. The newspapers are meant to report the news, not create it by using underhand tactics. I'm sure we in the UK all have strong feelings on this issue, why expect cable to be any different. The media in this country is bad enough without having more influence from NewsCorp in my opinion.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:10 AM
Well unfortunately its what sells papers

I think there's alot of disgruntled voters out there who don't understand democracy is the dialectic between two opposing views, ironed out by voting on the matters at hand.
They just want to see the coalition torn down, and they'll buy into anything that gives them a view to parrot at others around the water cooler.

I'm interested to see how this plays out. Have the Tories bought the favor of Murdoch by sacrificing Cable on the alter of public opinion? Or will this be interpreted as a challenge to Murdoch's hold over the worlds media?

Also, does anyone have any idea what Cable was refering too? On the face of things it sounds like its just a merger he wasn't going to let through, but I get the impression theres alot going on in the background.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:15 AM
Murdoch is probably the most powerful man on the planet and anyone who doesn't believe so needs to have a good look at what is included in the Murdoch empire. He owns Fox, Sky, most major newspapers in the UK, US and Aus and if you still have any doubt one of his latest acquisitions is the Wall St journal.

He is now very much the maker and breaker of world governments and he sees the internet as the biggest threat to his empire. Murdoch is at war with governments around the world in an attempt to force the implementation of strict internet censorship and internet copyright regulations to protect the empire. In 2011 all news on websites owned by the Murdoch media empire go behind a pay wall and they know that this will not succeed until they can stop bloggers and other social media outlets plagiarising there news reports.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 07:25 AM
I thought Vince Cable was one of the few politicians of conviction left in the UK.

Unfortunatly I changed my mind after his complete U-turn and his role in the Student fee's fiasco.

Maybe he would have a bit more integrity with the UK electorate if he had fought that fight first.

Rupert Murdoch appears to be a supporter of freedom of speech and choice only if it's his choice one chooses and agree's with him.

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by Freeborn

As one of the Libdems pointed out, they're part of a coalition, and a coalition is about give and take, they had to let the tuition fees slide to get other stuff on their manifesto supported by the torries.
Are you actually saying you'd prefer they dropped any chance of getting any of their pledges carried through?

Added to which, the LibDems have 57 seats, Conservatives have 306, so, as 1/6 of a coalition doesnt it make sense that they'd have to drop some of their pledges?
(Im not trolling here, really interested in your views, because alot of my friends have simmilar views and the whole midset strikes me as being childish like what they mean to say is:

'I didn't get what I want, therefore the ENTIRE democratic process is flawed and must be torn down! Also the Librals must be forever shunned and Conservatives eat babies!'

I'm sure thats not the point, but I really don't understand what is behind this mindset, it's how democracy works, if you really don't like it, what system do you propose we replace it with?
(And if you're about to say proportional representation you've fallen into my trap, because the Libdems dropped Tuition Fees SO they could get Conservative support on electoral reform!
edit on 22-12-2010 by MaxSteiner because: Wanted to clarify a few points

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:07 AM
I realise how much Rupert Murdoch actually owns, and I was of the opinion that Vince cable was against this. I am even more convinced that this is all a set up because sky news is now saying that Vince cable has been removed from the position of making any decisions on Rupert murdochs sky takeover. Hmmm how convenient!

Fishy. Typical setup

Just wanted to add that they just had Andrew Neil from fox news on sky saying that news Corp are now so confident that they will take over bskyb, that they have pulled an expensive ad campaign that would have promoted news corps bid to take over. They said they can save the money now!
edit on 22-12-2010 by DARKJEDIG because: Add further comment

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by MaxSteiner

I think (if I am correct) an easier way of saying it is 'all of the media in the UK is controlled' either by Murdoch or others...I think (IMO) the independent is the only newspaper not controlled?......

To the OP, I applaud Cable's sentiments, however, how is he going to achieve his war when essentially he is just a man with 0 political power IMO?

2bh I 'm on the side of direct action (not the student protests, although I agree I think its more a question of dismantling the staged politics we have in this country and the banking system (think anonymous) - this sounds like more blah, blah, blah (politician noise) bit like the pathetic speech by one of the Miliband brothers saying he didn't agree with the war in Iraq after the facts etc etc.....yawn

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:14 PM
Vince Cable is the Ron Paul of British politics (only he’s a member of the LittleDimWits).
But thanks to this "non-scandal" he has now been stripped of his role in the BskyB takeover deal.
Newscorporation shares have risen in the expectation Murdoch will be able to extend his monopoly over the both the electorates information-spin.

It is Red Millibrain (the Lab party leader) who is making the most puss, out of this; because he wants to suck Ruperts socks so he can have full media-propaganda support during the next "election".
If David CanCon had any guts he would stick by Cable all the way, introduce a law to break up all media monolplies, and have it passed in time to smash Labour at the next election. As it is he will probably loose now, for not sucking up to Murdoch enough (i.e. not getting rid of Cable completely; for acturally caring about parliament -democracy).

Why is it wrong to declare “war on Rupert Murdoch”, when he is a media powerful tycoon, not just some standard little guyl?
There is already a joke which goes: “Why is Rupert Murdoch the Son of God? Because he owns: The Sun, The Sky, The Times, and News of the World”

Vince Cable is being sacked for doing what is right for Britain, and that is a career destroying offence in British politics (i.e. you’re only allowed to promise doing the right thing, not actually challenge the people who own British politics) by owning the media the electorate is has little choice but to build its decisions on.

Really we need a protest (if only the police wouldn’t beat the peaceful people, whilst letting the violent ones go of unpunished because they help the governments, by defaming the movement) (i.e. like the recent student slave-fee rises).
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:27 PM
Its all a bit sad really.

Vince Cable is obviously on the right side of the issue, we sincerely don't need any more Newscorp influence in the UK. Unfortunately he has shot himself in the foot and had himself carried from the field on a stretcher.

What he was doing was correct he was just very silly to admit it. Politics is dirty.

With a Tory handing the brief I now expect a win for Newscorp. Bummer. This whole Wikileaks thing has shown anybody paying attention that the UK media (including the BBC) is ineffective enough as it is. We'll soon be like the USA and the only real news available will be on the internet.
edit on 22-12-2010 by justwokeup because: typos

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Liberal1984

Very well said.....

Apart from your last comment abt peaceful/violent protest...It doesn't matter which it is, the Police still attack ...remember G20....

Back on topic, I think we have 2 accept the media is going 2b completely controlled by Murdoch, via Rockefeller, Bilderberg, Rothschild etc etc..... And people say we still have the net, lol, look around this site on the views on the future of the net.....we're all doomed....

new topics

top topics


log in