Is it time OFCOM revisited its fit and proper person test for Sky?

Today we hear the news that James Murdoch returns to  the Chairman's post at Sky   the BBC reports 

He quit after News Corp, his father Rupert's business, failed to push through a takeover of the broadcaster.

News Corp owned 39% of the BSkyB business.

James Murdoch also resigned as chairman of News International after claims that journalists working for the organisation had hacked into phones of celebrities

shouldn't that be he mainly quit in the aftermath of reporting of the Phone Hacking scandal to prevent BskyB failing a Fit and proper person test and losing its broadcasting licence?

Let's look at the Ofcom Report here  In its conclusions  Ofcom says

"33. In our view, the evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to find that James Murdoch knew of widespread wrongdoing or criminality at NOTW or that, by allowing litigation to be settled and by allowing NGN and News International executives to make the representations they did, he was complicit in a cover up. 

34. However, a company director is required to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence in the exercise of his functions. He may delegate, but has a duty to supervise appropriately. We consider James Murdoch’s conduct, including his failure to initiate action on his own account on a number of occasions, to be both difficult to comprehend and ill-judged. In respect of the matters set out above, in our view, James Murdoch’s conduct in relation to events at NGN repeatedly fell short of the exercise of responsibility to be expected of him as CEO and chairman. 

35. James Murdoch has apologised for his conduct. He has acknowledged in a letter of 12 March 2012 to the CMSC that “wrongdoing should have been uncovered earlier. I could have asked more questions, requested more documents and taken a more challenging and sceptical view of what I was told, and I will do so in the future He has said that “I do think - and I share responsibility for this and I am sorry for it - the company took too long to come to grips with these issues. We agree. 

36. We consider that the events set out above raise questions regarding James Murdoch’s competence in the handling of these matters, and his attitude towards the possibility of wrongdoing in the companies for which he was responsible.

The final paragraph being particularly damning  on James ability to fulfill the role as Chairman.

After Discussing Rupert's lack of Involvement it comes back to say in effect that Because  James has stood down from his position as Chairman, he is just to be considered as an ordinary director, and as an ordinary director doesn't have enough influence to call the broadcast licence into question

45. Sky plc’s board has been subject to several recent changes. In addition to James Murdoch, it comprises 11 non-executive and two executive directors. James Murdoch is no longer the chairman; that role is now held by Nicholas Ferguson. The other non-executives are experienced individuals who would be expected to be capable of exercising effective independent oversight. Only three board members besides James Murdoch hold roles outside Sky plc which are linked to News Corporation. We have obtained an account from Sky plc of its governance structure, including the arrangements for board oversight of risk management and other controls within the business. 

46. In the circumstances, and notwithstanding our views in relation to James Murdoch’s conduct, we do not consider, having taken into account all the relevant factors, that on the evidence available to date Sky is no longer fit and proper to hold broadcast licences. Whilst we consider that James Murdoch’s conduct in various instances fell short of the standard to be expected of the chief executive officer and chairman, we do not find that James Murdoch’s retention as a non-executive director of Sky means that Sky is not fit and proper to hold broadcast licences. We recognise that whether it is appropriate for James Murdoch to be a director in light of the events is a matter for the Board and shareholders of Sky.

But the  decision concludes with the following paragraph

47. Our duty to be satisfied that a licensee is fit and proper is ongoing. Further evidence may become available in the future, which Ofcom would be obliged to consider in order to fulfil its duty. In particular, Ofcom considers that the findings of the Leveson Inquiry and the results of pending criminal proceedings (including evidence given in such proceedings) could be relevant to its performance of its duty under section 3(3).

Surely the re-installation of James in the position of Chairman is something  OFCOM is " obliged to consider in order to fulfil its duty." having criticised him so heavily in the report. as having raised questions to both his competence and attitude to wrongdoing, it is hard to see how the increase in influence gained in this promotion wouldn't cause OFCOM to at the very least ask some questions.

One thing that Might prevent OFCOM from having to make any decision yet might be the second part of Leveson. It could be seen as reasonable to delay till all the  evidence is in from that and that could give James an opportunity to develop a  reputation of competence and business ethics in post that they seem to think he was previously lacking.

Some odd coincidences in the Young Britons Foundation poster campaign

Some days odd details stand out like a sore thumb, and the one really odd detail in the last post was the £55,000 payment from Healthgear Contracts to the YBF. Why odd?  Well looking at it there are several details that ratchet up its inherent strangeness.

Firstly Healthgear contracts, and its successor companies main business appears to be  making  " furniture, furnishings and hardware that is designed to be unbreakable, anti-ligature and tamper-proof." for prisons, secure units and mental hospitals,  That is shower curtains that you can't use to hang yourself. A rather remarkable  coincidence for  a group that funded a poster and advertising campaign that had a main feature of Parliament in a noose. so far so coincidental. and you'd  consider that this could either  be entirely legitimate, or it could be down to one of Blaneys mob faking the details as to where the money has come from. and slipping in Healthgear as an inside joke  and a bit of a giggle for those in the know.

The  next odd detail that stood out was the payments registered with the electoral commission, one of £45,000 the other of £9,999, both in cash and both on consecutive days.  Now leaving aside the total for the moment, the second payment rather stands out, in cash it looks like an attempt to miss Mandatory cash transfer reporting limits, which from a quick search of the internet you'd assume to be £10,000. If you pay  More than the limit in, then you need all sorts of paperwork to suggest where the cash has come from and you aren't part of some organised crime ring. Now the initial £45,000 payment is also cash, and so suggests that it isn't just a joke on the part of one of Blaneys minions, but that it actually has come from Healthgear contracts, but the second payment makes  you think that healthgear is just being used as a collection point for funds, but they are sourced somewhere else and somebody didn't quite get their cash together on time.  all very strange.

The next oddity is  if you look at the Electoral commissions  Register of unincorporated associations making political contributions over £25,000 there are 63 of these registered with the Electoral commission,  groups like the Local Government Association Labour Group, and the Carlton Club all of which  are fairly public spirited bodies, members clubs, Union social clubs, that sort of thing all apart from one. Healthgear Contracts, which rather stands out as something just not like all the others. It makes you wonder how the Electoral Commission allowed this registration in this way. Aren't Unincorporated  associations  legally described as non profit making groups?

Healthgear Contracts appears to have changed post 2010 into a group of attached companies under the same Management, one Mr Rodney Dummer and a Mrs Jane Dummer. Of the four companies, three appear to be only just  trading, with at  most  £50 in the bank.  and the fourth appears to be  gradually working its way through its cash reserves at a rate of about £20,000 a year.  Hardly the sort of group that would have £55,000 knocking around to throw away on a political campaign unconnected with the business.

So where did the money come from? I've rung to ask but  although I've been promised replies, nothing has happened yet.

Another Chain of Coincidence

When the Liberal democrats first spotted a group of odd people turning up in their constituencies delivering the leaflets paid for by the Young Britons Foundation, and donated for by Healthgear Contracts,  there was much discussion of  whether  the  unrecognised groups delivering the printed work were agency staff, and cheap Immigrant workers employed by them working for the Tory Party at that.  however as with many other disagreements, between the two parties, any attention to this vanished after the  Coalition was formed. It wasn't in the LibDems interest to suddenly  point out  that the party that they shared Government with had links to some extremely unsavoury practices just before the election that had swept them into power.

An election later we find out via the Times that the people delivering those leaflets appear to have been  members of a group called the "PlymouthBrethren Christian Church" 

further articles suggest the same   as here

Many of the MPs who supported the Brethren’s cause had already received valuable help from the sect in marginal seat campaigns, however. Since 2009, Brethren members have been strongly encouraged to distribute political leaflets on behalf of mainly Tory MPs to thousands of homes across their constituencies. “When David Cameron was coming to power, the Brethren were suddenly told to leaflet as many areas as possible,” said one ex-member, who left in 2012. “They were told from the very top. There was a letter read out after one of the local meetings that we must help the Conservatives.”

 Looking further, at around this time the Plymouth Brethren  were involved in a Feud with the Charities Commission,  it was reported that a massed letter writing campaign took place to the charity commission, and to Mp's who then put further pressure on the commission. 

Now the minutes  of  the Brethren Committee discussing this appear to have been leaked and are available at http://wikipeebia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/RC-Meeting-Notes.pdf and here we have a strange  coincidence.  Mentioned in the middle of  these minutes is the phrase "Rod Dummer email is a warning." as the Plymouth Brethren have a doctrine of separation, that would suggest that Rodney is a member

.

 Rodney Dummer isn't a common name, according to the Registry of Births Marriages and Deaths, there were only one born since 1900, and there are no Roderick Dummers either, so what are the links between Rodney Dummer and the Plymouth Brethren? could they be the people who provided the cash that Rodney Dummer  passed on to the YBF for use in their poster and advertising campaign?

Why is this significant? well the Brethren, under their former name the Exclusive Brethren got into trouble over a Poster campaign trying to fix the election in New Zeeland back in 2005

The New Zeeland Herald said this at the time

Costly anti-Government leaflet drops throughout the country have been identified as the work of a conservative offshoot of the Brethren faith.The revelation is a surprise, as the Exclusive Brethren supposedly divorce themselves from worldly matters and do not normally vote.Exclusive Brethren socialise only with other Exclusive Brethren and eschew technology such as televisions, computers and cellphones.The anti-Green and anti-Labour leaflets printed by Business Printing Group in Onehunga are estimated to have cost between $30,000 and $40,000. New Zealand Post estimated distribution to major centres alone to cost between $55,000 and $60,000.The Green Party's own inquiries confirmed the identities of five people listed on the smear pamphlets as Exclusive Brethren.

This pamphlet campaign (similar to the YBF leaflet campaign eventually is thought to have lead to the resignation of the Leader of the NZ opposition.  and all together the Brethren spent over $1.2 Million NZ on their election campaign. After the  collapse of this campaign in New Zeeland, is it really so far fetched to think that the Church tries the same in the UK, only disguising its actions by using  the YBF , Media Intelligence Partners and Rodney Dummer as cut outs to disguise their campaigning? It is all coincidence, but are there too many all pointing in the same direction for it to be just fantasy?

 Have the YBF an apparent right wing entryist group trying to force the Conservative party down a right Libertarian line actually been taken advantage of by a group described as a religious cult?

Questions must be asked,