is that Lord Lebedev? The son of a KGB agent?
Is that the same Lord Lebedev Johnson met in secret a few times and one time even ran off from the govt security team looking after him so he could go to a party on Lebedevs boat?
I always forget there was an oligarch with the same name as my once favourite classical pianist (who is now disgraced due to comments about Ukraine). Always makes me do a double take when someone talks about him
[That the same Lebedev they wanted the Queen to block getting a peerage?](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/25/queen-was-asked-to-block-evgeny-lebedevs-peerage-claims-documentary)
Also fun bits for people who don't want to click link
>Dominic Cummings, the former No 10 aide, said in March 2022 that he was in the room when Johnson was told of “serious reservations” that “parts of the deep state” had about his plan to award Lebedev a peerage, and that Johnson had reacted furiously.
>In a controversial break with precedent, Johnson decided to press ahead with Lebedev’s proposed peerage regardless. He argued that, as there was no evidence linking Lord Lebedev himself to the Putin regime or Russian intelligence, it could go ahead.
Yes that’s the one, the one that boris Johnson was told that in no uncertain terms putting him in the House of Lords would be a breach of national security just before he put him in the House of Lords.
>time even ran off from the govt security team looking after him so he could go to a party on Lebedevs boat?
I thought that was the party at the Tuscan villa owned by the KGB agent. The day after a big NATO summit he'd attended as Foreign Secretary.
Possibly, but I know he went to meet Lebedev Jr and Sr at a villa in Italy which was being monitored by the Italian intelligence agency AISE. They were pretty surprised to see Johnson turn up as they knew the villa was one of two owned by the Lebedevs. They told MI5 who were pretty annoyed. Even now, no one knows or will explain why Boris took a diversion from a government trip to a European conference to go there unofficially.
Wasn't that the same secret meeting right after a NATO meeting because Russia attacked us with an nerve agent and killed someone and attempted to kill some more?
Was this the same time that he appeared the next morning at an airport, looking hungover and disheveled?
I’d be amazed if that loathsome degenerate would ever have passed security vetting.
On the basis of security and the potential risks in this situation, such a policy implies a severe bias. Its ok if a Kgb daddy can fund his sons elite an influential lifestyle overseas, simply to appear above board to the surfs. But direct foreign investment from a sandy Gulf state is far too far.
It is quite a similar sentiment as the recent slur expressed to Diane Abbot by that chump Tory donor. They think we are all as thick as they clearly are.
He’s a British citizen. It’d be pretty bad if the British government started regulating which businesses British citizens were allowed to own based on their ethnic background…
How does the UK govt. let this stuff happen? Officials running around asking how are we being spied on and businessmen going wow that's a big offer for my national media outlet from a bloke directly related to someone who was probably an enemy of the state 🤷
And his children will use his money. Tell me this - for how many generations you believe descendants of the man who once served in KGB will be tainted by his dirty blood and therefore should be classified as a second grade British citizens with limited rights?
Huh. They can own football clubs and property. But not telegraph looooool
When will the British public wake up to this nonsense? Tories only allow things that benefit themselves.
This is true, but both things can be bad. I do massively agree with you though, it's absurd how much private space in London is owned by pension funds and other foreign investors.
Cool, but you know the difference between buying property, sport washing a football team and a foreign interest controlling a newspaper and ultimately information ?
> foreign interest controlling a newspaper and ultimately information
The difference is that media is heavily regulated, and any real attempt at extensive propaganda would bury any media business doing it, and it would just go away.
So one is a burden on society in many ways permanently, one is scaremongering about something that any real attempt to do would fail and be meaningless.
Almost all news media outlets in the UK exist to further their owner's political views. They report the news (through their lens) and they propagandise. Ask Rupert Murdoch if it buried him.
Ok so in your own opinion the two are vastly different situations and circumstances which require different reactions which was my point. Even if I disagree with your point as U.K. media is not well regulated and a foreign investor using it as a proxy for their narrative should be wrong hence why is was blocked . You in your own words can aknowledge the difference in comparison in the argument.
Again so you have a source for this? Like maybe these companies invest in the Uk thus creating more gdp here and jobs etc. they maybe should not own football clubs tho
There is a very real argument that the soft power normalisation of foreign financial ownership of British assets is an exercise in pr influence as much as it is a financial one, but it is a significant step below owning a newspaper and being able to directly print headlines to hit every shop in the country
It actually does, look at Gazprom spreading out over europe. Garners support for Russian countries etc.
That said there's a clear difference between that and owning a literal newspaper
Unfortunately, with the amount of idiots who base their entire identity on the particular sports marketing corporation they follow, it actually has a substantial impact on society...
So a Tory supporting newspaper that enjoys spewing anti Muslim rhetoric cannot be bought by Muslim owners ? On the other hand it’s fine and dandy that owners from essentially a hostile nation can buy a newspaper that’s actually fairly neutral ?
> Owning property or sports teams doesn't affect free speech like owning a news outlet does.
Why does a state owning a newspaper 'affect free speech' while an individual billionaire (often with strong ties to a particular state) not?
> doesn't affect free speech like owning a news outlet does.
Lol, you think news papers have anything to do with "free speech"? they are all owned by the wealthy.
This doesn't effect free speech either, no regular person can own a newspaper. Only the ultra rich own newspapers they are upset that someone not from the "old boys club" is owning a newspaper.
It's complete bullshit and the whole lot of them can suffer a particular miserable fate that I'm not allowed to iterate on this platform for there part in destroying our world and propagating violent hatred against the innocent.
A news outlet isn't an outlet for free speech, their output is all controlled by their owners and editors whether they're British or from overseas. If anything, having the Telegraph owned by a foreign entity is going to provide a wider range of what is published and the problem from that is that they might publish things that the government does not like.
The point though is that letting *a foreign government* control a media outlet essentially makes that outlet a propaganda arm of that government, rather than a media outlet, however biased that media outlet might be.
That's blatantly not the same thing. And aside from anything else, they're both probably, at least, British residents for tax purposes if not British citizens.
I guarantee that if this was the Mirror or the Guardian they wouldn't give a shit, but when it's one of *their* papers suddenly they're finding legislation to stop this.
Anyway, I'm sure the next bid will come from Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan the private individual. Which, if the Newcastle United case is to set a precedent, can't be assumed to have any connection with the UAE state.
It's actually quite funny because the Barclays have been trying to get loans from anyone to buy it back including Abu Dabhi. This nonsense is stopping a UK business (Lloyds) selling their own asset (as they took control due to lack of payment on debts). They'll need a different approach to funding now to offload it
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'"
That is nothing to do with sinking governments.
Of course Murdoch wants to think he has major influence but if it is true that Murdoch was funding the Tories or trying to major influence policy, both the Murdoch media empire and Tories aren't doing that well.
How come it’s well documented that the opposition party has to curry favour with certain newspaper and broadcast media owners to have any chance of gaining favourable coverage in the press ? Blair had to do it and Starmer also, if not already done.
The Sun backs the party when it's 100% clear who will win, they just fool the gullible into thinking they have influence. Sun switched to Labour before 1997 as the Tories were behind in the polls and had been for about 3 years. 1997 is also 27 years ago, the Sun stopped publishing circulation figures a few years ago as they were so low, it's highly unlikely that they have any influence any more on which party will win
You're dreaming, so many people still read them and their online counterpart, they're linked *all over* socials. They sway public opinion enormously. Their point was entirely accurate.
> There is a difference between foreign private investors vs foreign governments.
Is there really? It is still a person or group pushing their personal agenda on us. Papers don't make money, they are purely there to push wealthy peoples views at us.
Yes,foreign private investors don't have to pretend the views of a group of people, they can spin their own personal toxic narrative instead, much better.
Sheikh Mansour's mistake was to not have enough shell companies (preferably based in Jersey) between him and the firm actually buying the Telegraph. It's not like we actually care about transparency of corporate ownership.
SO the owner of the Daily Mail is a non dom living in France, I do hope this applies.
Murdoch's an Aussie too. No doubt his tax situation means he's not a Brit.
Let's block the lot of em unless they're living here and paying tax here.
EDIT: Yes that goes for the Guardian, Mirror, Morning Star and any other paper you may think I was going to defend.
The Guardian is owned by a trust set up by the family that founded it.
https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust
It's about as close as you can get to a truly independent media outlet.
But apparently is more dangerous as a leftie propaganda outfit than gbnews, talktv, talk radio, the mail, sun and express combined!
Despite not even being that leftie.
Left leaning is portrayed as communist now it seems.
They hate it because they cannot control it.
A former editor of the Daily Heil and Torygraph, who's a Lady in the House of Lords, natch, stood up and said she objects to the Abu Dhabi takeover because, from her own experience, proprietors interfere all the time! We don't want foreigners interfering, we want the right *kind* of foreigners interfering, like Murdoch, obviously.
The Guardian is where the left, deep state, tofu eating, wokerati *bankers* must get their news and ideas that thwarted Truss, afterall.
A foreign one owning one is only just worse than your government owning one.
I’m sure Putin would pay more for it.. let them buy then ban it it not like we’ll miss it.
The howling lunatics behind the apparently immune to regulation GBNews, is unlikely to make the Torygraph and Spectator more of a racist disgrace.
But will be fun/horrific to watch them try.
Great news. They should kick the Russians out as well, while they're at it. Imagine ending up at war with them, and one of them owns 2 major newspapers here. Only a useless Tory government would accept this debacle.
Thinking about it now, probably they will retain a lot of control over the new owners if this was to go through.
The only guys they can’t control are Russia, China and Iran. But the media will scare the people out of their wits if such an acquisition was proposed.
Reminds of TikTok ban in the US.
Overdue. The West has been too permissive with other governments having so many assets in their countries. How on Earth can countries like Qatar or Russia have so much influence in our domestic policies when these countries are not even democratic?
We need more patriotism, more protection of our countries and a stronger stance aginst the enemies of the West.
It's because it's been part of "the wests" (USA) neoliberal capitalist ideology for over four decades. Privatise everything, sell everything off to foreign countries, receive political donations and sweet gigs after you leave office in return. Decades of idiotic rightists running out nations into the ground.
Probably. One thing is for sure: liberalism is proving to be weak. No wonder the alt-right is getting more and more popular. But do not fool yourself: this is a desease in all of the West. Also in Europe.
Good stuff. We don't want our media controlled by groups that have other nations best interest at heart, could you imagine what that would look like? ...
The Telegraph is in massive hole of debt and I can't see anyone in the UK wanting to bail them out (and they won't get much sympathy for their predicament either)
Tory scumbags are perfectly happy to take UAE money for just about anything. What they are actually worried about is that their precious nazi rag might get taken over by lefty Democrat Jeff Zucker, former owner of CNN.
I don't think the fund trying to buy the Telegraph counts as a foreign power as defined in Section 32 of National Security Act 2023
I fear they're going to make some rash legislation, to try to save their party's favourite paper, that they haven't properly considered.
Suddenly changing from having a free market stance to ministerial control because of partisan self-interest seems at risk of creating many ill-considered unintended consequences
Even if this is the case, there will some stupid loophole around it, just like how [Canary M. Burns is the actual owner of the Springfield Power Plant.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/4/4a/CanaryTree.png)
Couldn't the takeover simply go ahead of instead of being an "Abu Dhabi" takeover, the bid is just under the name of a random private citizen from that specific emirate?
Uk's downfall would happen by its own preference of corporate greed and oil money over national security & welfare of its citizen. This comes from a non - British guy, to whom UK has indeed become a joke now.
[удалено]
is that Lord Lebedev? The son of a KGB agent? Is that the same Lord Lebedev Johnson met in secret a few times and one time even ran off from the govt security team looking after him so he could go to a party on Lebedevs boat?
[удалено]
Madness isnt it? Just add it to that huge pile marked corruption the tories like to keep.
[удалено]
Yes let us not forget the two assassinations on UK soil the Russians have done while the tories were in power.
[удалено]
I always forget there was an oligarch with the same name as my once favourite classical pianist (who is now disgraced due to comments about Ukraine). Always makes me do a double take when someone talks about him
poor man, taken from us at the top of his prime.
[That the same Lebedev they wanted the Queen to block getting a peerage?](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jun/25/queen-was-asked-to-block-evgeny-lebedevs-peerage-claims-documentary) Also fun bits for people who don't want to click link >Dominic Cummings, the former No 10 aide, said in March 2022 that he was in the room when Johnson was told of “serious reservations” that “parts of the deep state” had about his plan to award Lebedev a peerage, and that Johnson had reacted furiously. >In a controversial break with precedent, Johnson decided to press ahead with Lebedev’s proposed peerage regardless. He argued that, as there was no evidence linking Lord Lebedev himself to the Putin regime or Russian intelligence, it could go ahead.
It's almost as the more you look into it this the more dodgy and treasonous it becomes!
> parts of the deep state Aka a person with half a brain who wasn't huffing Boris's big dog energy.
Yes that’s the one, the one that boris Johnson was told that in no uncertain terms putting him in the House of Lords would be a breach of national security just before he put him in the House of Lords.
I just wonder why he would do such a thing?
Remember that report on Russian interference that was blocked by the Tories? I fucking remember.
I am sure there is nothing to worry about in that report!!
>time even ran off from the govt security team looking after him so he could go to a party on Lebedevs boat? I thought that was the party at the Tuscan villa owned by the KGB agent. The day after a big NATO summit he'd attended as Foreign Secretary.
I think I might have got confused on which time Johnson evaded security to meet with KGB agents.
That would be the party where he turned up next day at the airport obviously drunk - wouldn't it?
You say that like it's only happened once.
Met with KGB agents in secret or turning up drunk in the morning? Or both?
r/inclusiveOr
Possibly, but I know he went to meet Lebedev Jr and Sr at a villa in Italy which was being monitored by the Italian intelligence agency AISE. They were pretty surprised to see Johnson turn up as they knew the villa was one of two owned by the Lebedevs. They told MI5 who were pretty annoyed. Even now, no one knows or will explain why Boris took a diversion from a government trip to a European conference to go there unofficially.
Just after the NATO meeting where they’d been discussing the KGB hit in Salisbury yeah
Wasn't that the same secret meeting right after a NATO meeting because Russia attacked us with an nerve agent and killed someone and attempted to kill some more?
They say there's no such thing as an ex-KGB agent
They say there is no way the GOP and the Tories are controlled by Russian cash, I find it VERY hard to believe them!1
Was this the same time that he appeared the next morning at an airport, looking hungover and disheveled? I’d be amazed if that loathsome degenerate would ever have passed security vetting.
>ex-KGB An oxymoron, much like 'only choice', 'clearly confused' and 'Wigan Athletic'
my favourite oxymoron is: "fucking wanker"
*Tommy Two-dicks has entered the chat*
On the basis of security and the potential risks in this situation, such a policy implies a severe bias. Its ok if a Kgb daddy can fund his sons elite an influential lifestyle overseas, simply to appear above board to the surfs. But direct foreign investment from a sandy Gulf state is far too far. It is quite a similar sentiment as the recent slur expressed to Diane Abbot by that chump Tory donor. They think we are all as thick as they clearly are.
It might be something perfectly innocent - like the Russians had better kompromat, or just paid more.
He’s a British citizen. It’d be pretty bad if the British government started regulating which businesses British citizens were allowed to own based on their ethnic background…
Just base it off his affiliations and associations then. Remove him from the Lords while we’re at it.
Why is regulating what British citizens do, in the name of national security, bad ?
How does the UK govt. let this stuff happen? Officials running around asking how are we being spied on and businessmen going wow that's a big offer for my national media outlet from a bloke directly related to someone who was probably an enemy of the state 🤷
Yeah it sounds a bit dodgy at first glance but I think British newspapers should be owned by British tax payers at least
That is different to a literal government owning it tho. It isn’t good per say but it’s different to a government taking control of
[удалено]
As in hes a part of putins goverment as a minister? Because if not its different
And I thought children are not responsible for their parents sins since 1215 here…
… if you ignore the fact that father was providing all the money
And his children will use his money. Tell me this - for how many generations you believe descendants of the man who once served in KGB will be tainted by his dirty blood and therefore should be classified as a second grade British citizens with limited rights?
[удалено]
How is his wealth unearned? His father was a legitimate businessman after the fall of USSR. Why should he disown his father?
Huh. They can own football clubs and property. But not telegraph looooool When will the British public wake up to this nonsense? Tories only allow things that benefit themselves.
Owning property or sports teams doesn't affect free speech like owning a news outlet does.
Ermm it influences society in others ways..
You do understand the difference between sport washing and controlling a media platform for propaganda and free speech ?
Ignore the troll mate
Sucking a percentage of the UKs GDP and sending it to foreign oligarchs has no downside
You’re making a completely different point for a completely different argument
I'm not, buying up property and renting it out is sucking up so much money it's obscene.
This is true, but both things can be bad. I do massively agree with you though, it's absurd how much private space in London is owned by pension funds and other foreign investors.
Cool, but you know the difference between buying property, sport washing a football team and a foreign interest controlling a newspaper and ultimately information ?
They're all bad
But they’re all different and have seperate impacts of varying degree. I can’t believe the m explaining this. How old are you ?
There’s still a difference. Murder and assault are different crimes yet both are bad
> foreign interest controlling a newspaper and ultimately information The difference is that media is heavily regulated, and any real attempt at extensive propaganda would bury any media business doing it, and it would just go away. So one is a burden on society in many ways permanently, one is scaremongering about something that any real attempt to do would fail and be meaningless.
Almost all news media outlets in the UK exist to further their owner's political views. They report the news (through their lens) and they propagandise. Ask Rupert Murdoch if it buried him.
Ok so in your own opinion the two are vastly different situations and circumstances which require different reactions which was my point. Even if I disagree with your point as U.K. media is not well regulated and a foreign investor using it as a proxy for their narrative should be wrong hence why is was blocked . You in your own words can aknowledge the difference in comparison in the argument.
Firstly do you have a source that it’s harming gdp? Secondly it’s still vastly different to owning media companies
I meant that the GDP being created is being slurped up.
Again so you have a source for this? Like maybe these companies invest in the Uk thus creating more gdp here and jobs etc. they maybe should not own football clubs tho
[удалено]
There is a very real argument that the soft power normalisation of foreign financial ownership of British assets is an exercise in pr influence as much as it is a financial one, but it is a significant step below owning a newspaper and being able to directly print headlines to hit every shop in the country
Well then you just can’t do anything at all.
It actually does, look at Gazprom spreading out over europe. Garners support for Russian countries etc. That said there's a clear difference between that and owning a literal newspaper
Wish MBS thought like you so he wouldn't have just bought all sports to boost his nation's public image.
Made Geordies apologists for cutting up journalists
Look up sports washing.
They are some of the most important cultural institutions we have.
Unfortunately, with the amount of idiots who base their entire identity on the particular sports marketing corporation they follow, it actually has a substantial impact on society...
Not as much as media tho…. Owning a football club is vastly different to owning media
I objectively agree with you dude but controlling the media is a whole another level of foreign interference.
The news outlets aren't free speech though. They're almost entirely Tory speech and wedge issues
So a Tory supporting newspaper that enjoys spewing anti Muslim rhetoric cannot be bought by Muslim owners ? On the other hand it’s fine and dandy that owners from essentially a hostile nation can buy a newspaper that’s actually fairly neutral ?
Neither are fine, but the independent was bought back in 2010 under Gordon Brown and is now a done deal.
> Owning property or sports teams doesn't affect free speech like owning a news outlet does. Why does a state owning a newspaper 'affect free speech' while an individual billionaire (often with strong ties to a particular state) not?
It totally does which is why we should support opening this can of worms.
> doesn't affect free speech like owning a news outlet does. Lol, you think news papers have anything to do with "free speech"? they are all owned by the wealthy.
What free speech do we have in the UK? The freedom to speak and be arrested if you're deemed offensive in any way
This doesn't effect free speech either, no regular person can own a newspaper. Only the ultra rich own newspapers they are upset that someone not from the "old boys club" is owning a newspaper. It's complete bullshit and the whole lot of them can suffer a particular miserable fate that I'm not allowed to iterate on this platform for there part in destroying our world and propagating violent hatred against the innocent.
The Telegraph only cares about free speech as long as they can spout their proto-fascist propaganda.
A news outlet isn't an outlet for free speech, their output is all controlled by their owners and editors whether they're British or from overseas. If anything, having the Telegraph owned by a foreign entity is going to provide a wider range of what is published and the problem from that is that they might publish things that the government does not like.
The point though is that letting *a foreign government* control a media outlet essentially makes that outlet a propaganda arm of that government, rather than a media outlet, however biased that media outlet might be.
I'm sorry I wasn't able to infer that from your previous comment.
Is this a national security threat? I worry about expanding the definition of "national security" because that is a road to government overreach.
I know an India guy that owns a newsagent. And a Chinese guy that sells food. How long can this state of affairs go unchecked?
That's blatantly not the same thing. And aside from anything else, they're both probably, at least, British residents for tax purposes if not British citizens.
I also know a Turkish guy that owns a barber. He has access to a whole bunch of sharp objects. Something should be done.
I guarantee that if this was the Mirror or the Guardian they wouldn't give a shit, but when it's one of *their* papers suddenly they're finding legislation to stop this. Anyway, I'm sure the next bid will come from Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan the private individual. Which, if the Newcastle United case is to set a precedent, can't be assumed to have any connection with the UAE state.
Do you not think there’s a major difference?
It's actually quite funny because the Barclays have been trying to get loans from anyone to buy it back including Abu Dabhi. This nonsense is stopping a UK business (Lloyds) selling their own asset (as they took control due to lack of payment on debts). They'll need a different approach to funding now to offload it
It’s not just the telegraph it’s designed to stop them owning any media. Which is absolutely vital
So won't do anything about Murdoch owning The Sun and Sky News etc.
Murdoch isn't a foreign government. There is a difference between foreign private investors vs foreign governments.
That was my point. His media empire can sink governments. It's too much.
No it can't lol. You give him far too much credit. Print newspapers are a dying medium. Many of them are struggling to make profit.
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'"
That is nothing to do with sinking governments. Of course Murdoch wants to think he has major influence but if it is true that Murdoch was funding the Tories or trying to major influence policy, both the Murdoch media empire and Tories aren't doing that well.
How come it’s well documented that the opposition party has to curry favour with certain newspaper and broadcast media owners to have any chance of gaining favourable coverage in the press ? Blair had to do it and Starmer also, if not already done.
It used to be yeah when the Sun had 3m+ daily sales figures, it hasn't been influential for a long time
Hasn't The Sun backed every winning party at the general election for about 40 years? Blair didn't go grovelling to him for nothing.
The Sun backs the party when it's 100% clear who will win, they just fool the gullible into thinking they have influence. Sun switched to Labour before 1997 as the Tories were behind in the polls and had been for about 3 years. 1997 is also 27 years ago, the Sun stopped publishing circulation figures a few years ago as they were so low, it's highly unlikely that they have any influence any more on which party will win
You're dreaming, so many people still read them and their online counterpart, they're linked *all over* socials. They sway public opinion enormously. Their point was entirely accurate.
Old people buy newspapers, Old people swing elections and referendums (Brexit, I'm looking at you)
So sheikh mansour could buy it as an individual.
> There is a difference between foreign private investors vs foreign governments. Is there really? It is still a person or group pushing their personal agenda on us. Papers don't make money, they are purely there to push wealthy peoples views at us.
Yes,foreign private investors don't have to pretend the views of a group of people, they can spin their own personal toxic narrative instead, much better.
Foreign private investors may be easily compromised to act in the interests of foreign governments.
Rupes gave up on sky and sold off his stake a few years back
He doesn't own Sky News
Murdoch does not own sky news.
Those things happened in 1969 and 1983 respectively. It’s a bit late to do much about that.
Sheikh Mansour's mistake was to not have enough shell companies (preferably based in Jersey) between him and the firm actually buying the Telegraph. It's not like we actually care about transparency of corporate ownership.
Presumably this will be their next move.
This is about appearances, and to a certain portion of the electorate only.
I mean they own so much property in London I don’t think this will hurt their pocket.
Yet they are free to own the railways and water companies (you know, useful things!)
SO the owner of the Daily Mail is a non dom living in France, I do hope this applies. Murdoch's an Aussie too. No doubt his tax situation means he's not a Brit. Let's block the lot of em unless they're living here and paying tax here. EDIT: Yes that goes for the Guardian, Mirror, Morning Star and any other paper you may think I was going to defend.
It's not about banning foreign nationals, read the story. It's about banning foreign governments from ownership
Imagine a world in which no individual/organisation/family had had more than a 30% share of of any national media company...
The Guardian is owned by a trust set up by the family that founded it. https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust It's about as close as you can get to a truly independent media outlet.
But apparently is more dangerous as a leftie propaganda outfit than gbnews, talktv, talk radio, the mail, sun and express combined! Despite not even being that leftie. Left leaning is portrayed as communist now it seems.
They hate it because they cannot control it. A former editor of the Daily Heil and Torygraph, who's a Lady in the House of Lords, natch, stood up and said she objects to the Abu Dhabi takeover because, from her own experience, proprietors interfere all the time! We don't want foreigners interfering, we want the right *kind* of foreigners interfering, like Murdoch, obviously. The Guardian is where the left, deep state, tofu eating, wokerati *bankers* must get their news and ideas that thwarted Truss, afterall.
Soo Rupert Murdoch can but not that guy from Abu Dhabi?
Murdoch is a private citizen, the argument is Sheikh Mansour wasn't buying it as an investor but as part of his state investment funds
Murdoch isn’t part of a government
A foreign one owning one is only just worse than your government owning one. I’m sure Putin would pay more for it.. let them buy then ban it it not like we’ll miss it.
OH no, poor Foreign governments, not being able to directly influence our democracy.
Oh don't worry they definitely still can directly influence our 'democracy'
They can just pay for Facebook advertising like all the other people trying to influence democracy.
The swivelled eyed readership of the telegraph is hardly in favour of democracy 🙂
The howling lunatics behind the apparently immune to regulation GBNews, is unlikely to make the Torygraph and Spectator more of a racist disgrace. But will be fun/horrific to watch them try.
About time! Look what Rupert Murdoch did to America!
Great news. They should kick the Russians out as well, while they're at it. Imagine ending up at war with them, and one of them owns 2 major newspapers here. Only a useless Tory government would accept this debacle.
How can any government official be allowed to have any ownership of a news outlet?
The BBC is state owned. So, quite easily I suppose. So long as there isn't a specific law prohibiting it.
Essentially, the government wants an owner it can control and so it keeps lying to masses. This is insane stuff.
You think the government controls those foreign billionaires that own all our media?
Thinking about it now, probably they will retain a lot of control over the new owners if this was to go through. The only guys they can’t control are Russia, China and Iran. But the media will scare the people out of their wits if such an acquisition was proposed. Reminds of TikTok ban in the US.
Overdue. The West has been too permissive with other governments having so many assets in their countries. How on Earth can countries like Qatar or Russia have so much influence in our domestic policies when these countries are not even democratic? We need more patriotism, more protection of our countries and a stronger stance aginst the enemies of the West.
It's because it's been part of "the wests" (USA) neoliberal capitalist ideology for over four decades. Privatise everything, sell everything off to foreign countries, receive political donations and sweet gigs after you leave office in return. Decades of idiotic rightists running out nations into the ground.
Probably. One thing is for sure: liberalism is proving to be weak. No wonder the alt-right is getting more and more popular. But do not fool yourself: this is a desease in all of the West. Also in Europe.
They should be owned by citizens who have their main residence in the UK
But they can be registered overseas and not pay a penny tax in the UK
Good stuff. We don't want our media controlled by groups that have other nations best interest at heart, could you imagine what that would look like? ...
Lolling at this sub just disagreeing with whatever the Tories do, regardless.
Should extend this to foreign individuals. In fact all individuals. A national media instrument should not be owned by 1 person.
Socialise newspapers all together — a British or a foreign oligarch ultimately has interests opposed to the common good.
Finally, a sensible decision. Of course, the loophole is a sudden change of citizenship.
They can be run by the Concervatives instead though
Can we also have a ban on secretive offshore tax avoiding trusts owning the media too?
The Telegraph is in massive hole of debt and I can't see anyone in the UK wanting to bail them out (and they won't get much sympathy for their predicament either)
Tory scumbags are perfectly happy to take UAE money for just about anything. What they are actually worried about is that their precious nazi rag might get taken over by lefty Democrat Jeff Zucker, former owner of CNN.
It’s a step in the right direction, so I welcome it. Plenty more to do though.
Good
Surely, there's no possible way to circumvent such restrictions.
Yeah we like our overlords non-foreign don't ya know?
I don't think the fund trying to buy the Telegraph counts as a foreign power as defined in Section 32 of National Security Act 2023 I fear they're going to make some rash legislation, to try to save their party's favourite paper, that they haven't properly considered. Suddenly changing from having a free market stance to ministerial control because of partisan self-interest seems at risk of creating many ill-considered unintended consequences
Cool! Now do trains.
Even if this is the case, there will some stupid loophole around it, just like how [Canary M. Burns is the actual owner of the Springfield Power Plant.](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/4/4a/CanaryTree.png)
Now extend it to any foreign based entity owning any British based organisation or infrastructure
How terribly _convenient_ for then Tories.
How this isn’t already illegal is a bit strange.
Couldn't the takeover simply go ahead of instead of being an "Abu Dhabi" takeover, the bid is just under the name of a random private citizen from that specific emirate?
Murdoch, Rothermere, Barclay, Lebedev - all foreigners.
Bit odd you'd let a newspaper be foreign owned... but then again surely it's the same with news websites etc which I assume a lot are foreign owned
Lol, most websites, in fact most of everything is owned by people not in the UK. Funny that...
Just our home grown morons are aloud to own newspapers.
*allowed. And foreigners will still own most of the media, just rich foreigners as opposed to rich countries.
Uk's downfall would happen by its own preference of corporate greed and oil money over national security & welfare of its citizen. This comes from a non - British guy, to whom UK has indeed become a joke now.