The Leveson Inquiry

[Simon]

I agree - as indeed I have already made clear earlier - that the fact of a newspaper's ownership by a trust cannot of itself guarantee either the reliability and trustworthiness of all of its content or the freedom from corrupt practice that might be deployed in gathering it...

Thank you AH - yes, I noticed your earlier comment. I know that you agree with this point.

But's let's not deprive dear Flossie of the opportunity to share his wisdom, eh?

[Mr Pee]

the parpers concerned

Parp Parp.

[ahinton]

Thank you AH - yes, I noticed your earlier comment. I know that you agree with this point.

Indeed, but are quoting my post about this selectively and responding to it likewise!

But's let's not deprive dear Flossie of the opportunity to share his wisdom, eh?

No comment - or rather (as they say, even more evasively, in my country), I heard what you said (or in this instance I read what you wrote)...

[amateur51]

Originally Posted by Simon

As to hatred, I'm happy that it's an emotion that I don't seem to feel, really, now. I think that, rather as the quality of mercy seems to benefit "him that gives and him that takes", so does hatred eat away at the mental well-being of the person hating.



I'm sorry. I omitted to give credit to WS for the reference to Merchant of Venice as I assumed that most on here would recognise it, but apart from that which part of my post did you disagree with this time?

I think ignoring and mocking the spirit of the OP would do for starters

[ahinton]

Parp Parp.

Is that a Beefovenian translation of "Hear, Hear"?

I've corrected my typo; thanks for drawing it to my attention, although I'd perhaps have appreciated your post still more had you made some kind of comment on its content rather than confine yourself to referring to its typo...

[amateur51]

What a very silly comment.

So, you'd support a newspaper owned by a trust of anarchists or fascists, would you? Because it would therefore be a good paper?

No, you approve of it because it supports the ideas, principles and prejudices that you have, just like everybody else does with their own favourite papers.

You don't have a clue about The Guardian Simon because you tell us that you only read the ones that you find down at the pub, including the man who brings in the The Daily Mail for you from time to time.

Or do Mr & Mrs Khan offer you a Guardian cuttings service

But you've got your own prejudices to fall back on so that's nice

[LHC]

I think it is the best newspaper around - & a lrge part of its 'bestness' must be down to the fact that it doesn't have an individual owner, but is owned by a trust.

An added benefit of the Guardian's Trust ownership arrangements is that it allows Guardian Media Group to make large profits from its investments which are registered in the Cayman Islands while avoiding any corporation tax in the UK (I believe GMG made profits of £300M in 2008, but paid £0 in corporation tax that year) - exactly the sort of behaviour the Guardian routinely condemns in other companies.

[amateur51]

An added benefit of the Guardian's Trust ownership arrangements is that it allows Guardian Media Group to make large profits from its investments which are registered in the Cayman Islands while avoiding any corporation tax in the UK (I believe GMG made profits of £300M in 2008, but paid £0 in corporation tax that year) - exactly the sort of behaviour the Guardian routinely condemns in other companies.

But as a Trust this money saved will be ploughed back into the company, unlike My Mate Dave's dad's money which gave MMD at £300,000 lump sdum start in life - We're All In This Together, Eh?

When you say, 'I believe GMG made profits of £300M in 2008, but paid £0 in corporation tax that year' is that a guess, a known fact or wishful thinking, LHC?

[Flosshilde]

What a very silly comment.

So, you'd support a newspaper owned by a trust of anarchists or fascists, would you? Because it would therefore be a good paper?

No, you approve of it because it supports the ideas, principles and prejudices that you have, just like everybody else does with their own favourite papers.

No, I said that the Guardian's ownership played a large part in making it one of the best, if not the best, national dailies. Not the only reason. Other reasons are the quality of the writing and its political stance, as you so rightly say.

However, I think ownership by a trust makes it more difficult for a newspaper & its owner to exert the sort of political influence & interference that an individual owner like Rupert Murdoch, or the Rothermeres or the past owner of the Mirror (who's name has slipped my memory), can & does.

[ahinton]

No, I said that the Guardian's ownership played a large part in making it one of the best, if not the best, national dailies. Not the only reason. Other reasons are the quality of the writing and its political stance, as you so rightly say.

However, I think ownership by a trust makes it more difficult for a newspaper & its owner to exert the sort of political influence & interference that an individual owner like Rupert Murdoch, or the Rothermeres or the past owner of the Mirror (who's name has slipped my memory), can & does.

You may believe that and you can go on doing so if so you choose, but it does nothing of the kind; if someone wants - and is sufficiently determined - to exert certain influences and that someone has the money with which to do so, he/she will do so, be the influenced a trust, an individual owner or whatever else.

[Flosshilde]

It's difficult to tell, isn't it, in the context of British media ownership, since the Guardian is, I think, the only newspaper group owned by a trust. If it isn't the ownership structure that stops it exerting undue influence then it's even more admirable.

[amateur51]

You may believe that and you can go on doing so if so you choose, but it does nothing of the kind; if someone wants - and is sufficiently determined - to exert certain influences and that someone has the money with which to do so, he/she will do so, be the influenced a trust, an individual owner or whatever else.

It all depends on the aims and objectives of the Trust; the nature of the Trustees; and the constitution which will enpower and limit what the Trust and the Trustees can do.

I confess that I have not seen any of these documents.

[ahinton]

It's difficult to tell, isn't it, in the context of British media ownership, since the Guardian is, I think, the only newspaper group owned by a trust. If it isn't the ownership structure that stops it exerting undue influence then it's even more admirable.

Whether or not or to what exent it may be "difficult to tell", as you put it - and whether or not The Guardian is indeed the only British newspaper to be owned by a trust (which may indeed be the case but I do not know for sure and I'm uncertain as to what difference it might make in the present context if indeed it is so owned), I still question your assumption that it does not "exert undue influnce", as you suggest is the case; if indeed it doesn't do so, that may be bad for it to the extent that insufficient people take due notice of what it publishes and if, on the other hand, it does, who's to say that among those influences are no corrupt or otherwise suspect ones? No, flossie, you can't have it all ways, any more than can The Guardian or any other British newspaper!

[ahinton]

It all depends on the aims and objectives of the Trust; the nature of the Trustees; and the constitution which will enpower and limit what the Trust and the Trustees can do.

I confess that I have not seen any of these documents.

Apat from the fact that "enpower" should read "empower" (otherwise it might sound like a certain corrupt energy supply company), I'm with you here; let the newspaper and its owners that is/are without sin cast the first point-scoring victorius stone in the Leveson inquiry...

[amateur51]

Apat from the fact that "enpower" should read "empower" (otherwise it might sound like a certain corrupt energy supply company), I'm with you here; let the newspaper and its owners that is/are without sin cast the first point-scoring victorius stone in the Leveson inquiry...

thanks for trypo-spotting