Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Just a thought...

Since pretty much everyone agrees that some employees of a different part of the group breaking the law through phone hacking / tapping means that News International is not a fit organisation to own a majority share in a television company, what does MI5's record of illegal phone hacking / tapping say about the British government being fit to 100% own the BBC...?



( 30 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 13th, 2011 08:49 am (UTC)
I always thought it was supposed to be legal if MI5 did it. Not that this makes it ethical unless they're doing it to someone they've got very good reason to suspect, but that's unfortunately not the same thing.
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:34 am (UTC)
Does it? I thought there were certain hoops they had to jump through. There have certainly been news stories in the past about "illegal MI5 phone tapping".
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:38 am (UTC)
You would probably know better than I do. What's undoubtedly true is that newspapers aren't supposed to do it, and it appears to have been endemic (not just the NotW).
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 13th, 2011 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 13th, 2011 09:15 am (UTC)
Does it make a difference if the organisation at least theoretically has as its ultimate goal the security of the the state as embodied in its citizens (all of them, not just the ones with disposable income to invest), rather than a requirement to maximise filthy lucre shareholder revenue?
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:51 am (UTC)
Yes, I think it does. But MI5 has certainly been criticised in the past for surveillance of various people by various people. And if you apply the News International logic, every time the Security Service (or the Police) receives such criticism, it enhances the argument of people like me who think there is no place for a state-owned broadcaster in a modern liberal nation.
(no subject) - pellegrina - Jul. 13th, 2011 11:33 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 13th, 2011 01:20 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 13th, 2011 01:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 14th, 2011 03:50 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Jul. 13th, 2011 09:39 am (UTC)
I was under the impression that RIPA included MI5 and that even before that Act they needed a judge's warrant to tap phones.
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:37 am (UTC)
That's what I thought. I'm definitely no expert though.
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:00 am (UTC)
I don't think the British government does own the BBC.
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:37 am (UTC)
OK. Replace "government" with "Crown".
(no subject) - parrot_knight - Jul. 13th, 2011 10:43 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 13th, 2011 11:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - parrot_knight - Jul. 13th, 2011 11:42 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - wellinghall - Jul. 13th, 2011 03:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 13th, 2011 04:18 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 13th, 2011 01:31 pm (UTC)
The fact that parts of the British state have been known to do regrettable things is not, in my view, an argument for a completely different semi-detached arm of the British state to not exist, any more than the proceedings of the NOTW is a reason to sack, I dunno, all the cleaning staff or all the facilities managers in the employ of News International.

MI5 and the BBC may have the same ultimate owner, but only a conspiracy maniac would argue that they share staff, operating procedures, or even broad aims.

Television and print journalism are pretty closely related. I don't think MI5 and the BBC are.

Also, unless we are going to have total anarchy, when it comes to the state, we kind of have to accept that sometimes, it's not going to operate how it should, and sometimes it's going to balls stuff up or operate in a deeply embarrassing or shameful manner.

We don't actually have to accept this from any other single organisation, because everything other than the state is replaceable. For this reason, non-state organisations are always held to higher standards than the state. It is easier to find alternatives to any non-state organisation, but the state is the state, and short of secession or revolution, we are stuck with it.
Jul. 13th, 2011 04:01 pm (UTC)
But the proceedings of the NOTW are apparently a reason to deny a different part of the group the right to buy the remaining 60% of BSkyB/

No, I doubt that MI5 and the BBC have the same ultimate aims. It would make for some odd John le Carre books if they did.

Television and print journalism are closely related (although watching Sky News's coverage of the NOTW story, there seemed to be to be a distinct hint of schadenfreude suggesting rivalry and / or snobbery at Sky News). Would the issue be different if BSkyB didn't include Sky News then? Print journalism and dramatisations of epic fantasy literature are probably less closely related.

I don't think we should accept that the state sometimes doesn't operate how it should. When it doesn't it should be brought to book. And it should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. We are admittedly stuck with the state, but that doesn't mean that liberal, morally thinking people shouldn't attempt to reduce its power and influence over individuals as much as possible.

Edited at 2011-07-13 04:03 pm (UTC)
Jul. 13th, 2011 05:42 pm (UTC)
I'm not convinced anyone owns the BBC.

It's governed by the BBC Trust, which exists because the Crown says it does. But the Crown doesn't lay claim to any of it, so far as I can tell.

Jul. 13th, 2011 07:42 pm (UTC)
Yes isn't it an independent body established by royal charter - like the Institute of Chartered Accountants?
Jul. 13th, 2011 10:04 pm (UTC)
MI5's corruption proves that the Institute of Chartered Accountants must be DESTROYED!
(no subject) - philmophlegm - Jul. 14th, 2011 03:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - skordh - Jul. 14th, 2011 07:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
( 30 comments — Leave a comment )