Is this the beginning of the end of Rupert Murdoch's media empire?

If Mr Hunt was persuaded by such a powerful argument why shouldn't he help the bid succeed.

What makes you think the anti-bid coalition had our interests at heart? Its opposition was entirely commercial.

I was simply asking you to elaborate on why you believe a News Ltd takeover of BSkyB was "good thing for the country", spendius.

But I do have a view about governments following proper procedures in such bids.

And I also strongly believe that diversity of media ownership is far healthier than too much media ownership in the hands of any one company.

( I have very good reason for that view, given the results of News Ltd's 70% ownership of Oz newspapers. That should never have been allowed. )

You were fond enough of quoting from those papers at the time the Chinese ship ploughed into the reef. What happened about that?

What are proper procedures?

Former Prime Minister Contradicts Murdoch Testimony at Hacking Inquiry
By ALAN COWELL

LONDON — Starting four days of evidence by political leaders about the sway of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers over public life here, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown flatly denied Mr. Murdoch’s depiction of some of their most contentious exchanges and accused a leading Murdoch newspaper, The Sun, of undermining Britain’s war effort in Afghanistan.

e also rejected assertions by a former editor of The Sun that Mr. Brown’s wife, Sarah, had approved a story in 2006 on the medical condition of the Browns’ infant child, who had been diagnosed at four months with cystic fibrosis.

Mr. Brown said The Sun caused “huge damage to the war effort” in Afghanistan, where British troops have been the main allies of American forces in the international coalition, by publishing stories suggesting that his government, in office from 2007 to 2010, “didn’t care about our troops.”

He referred specifically to a story in 2009 disclosing that Mr. Brown had misspelled the name of a British soldier killed in Afghanistan and aspects of what he called a “campaign” by The Sun over Afghanistan.

“The whole focus of their coverage was not what we had done,” he said, “but that I personally did not care about our troops.”

Mr. Brown said that Mr. Murdoch told him in a private letter that he disagreed with Britain’s “management of the war effort.”

The former prime minister was the first in a series of past and present political heavyweights to appear before the judicial inquiry led by Lord Chief Justice Sir Brian Leveson into the phone hacking scandal that exploded over Mr. Murdoch’s British tabloids last summer.

Mr. Brown’s testimony, delivered in his hallmark Scottish burr, seemed among the most forthright in contradicting sworn testimony by Mr. Murdoch and by Rebekah Brooks, a former editor of The Sun who became chief executive of News International, the British newspaper subsidiary of Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation. She resigned as the hacking scandal broke last July.

Ms. Brooks has testified to the Leveson inquiry that Mr. Brown’s wife, Sarah, gave permission for the article on their son to be published, but the former prime minister said he “absolutely” denied that.

“I don’t think any child’s medical information should be broadcast,” he said. “There was no question ever of implicit or explicit permission.” Rather, he said, he and his wife were presented with a “fait accompli” that the story was to be published.

In messages on Twitter, journalists at The Sun rejected Mr. Brown’s version of events both relating to the newspaper’s Afghanistan coverage and about the newspaper’s source for the story about his son’s medical condition.

In her own testimony to the inquiry, Ms. Brooks said the story came from the father of another child with cystic fibrosis, but Scottish health authorities who dealt with the case said in a statement on Monday, that it was “highly likely” that a local employee “spoke, without authorization, about the medical condition of Mr. Brown’s son, Fraser.”

Robert Jay, the inquiry’s lead counsel, also pressed Mr. Brown about a conversation with Mr. Murdoch in which the tycoon testified that the former prime minister threatened to “make war” on Murdoch companies after their tabloids switched to the Conservatives in late 2009.

In April, Mr. Murdoch told the Leveson inquiry that Mr. Brown had said, “Well, your company has declared war on my government and we have no alternative but to make war on your company.” Mr. Murdoch also said that Mr. Brown did not seem to be in “a very balanced state of mind.”

“This conversation never took place,” Mr. Brown said. “I’m shocked, surprised, that it should be suggested.” He added later: “This call did not happen. This threat was not made.”

“I couldn’t be unbalanced on a call that I didn’t have,” Mr. Brown said.

.....
....
“This conversation never took place,” Mr. Brown said. “I’m shocked, surprised, that it should be suggested.” He added later: “This call did not happen. This threat was not made.”