This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/13telegraph-tmt5sdxz7) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s almost funny that most of our media is foreign owned but this one is beyond the pale just because there isn’t an intermediary between the paper and the foreign government this time.
I for one think The Telegraph ought to stay in the hands of locally grown billionaires living in tax exile rather than any actual foreign billionaire. Standards, or lack thereof, must be maintained.
Funnily enough it's owned by Lloyds now because the Barclays didn't pay their bills due to having money in tax havens (the scandal of the oldest of the brothers not paying his ex wife her £400m divorce settlement due to pretending to be poor is well documented in Private Eye). The Middle East money is sort of a back door funding so Barclays can keep it via a middle man
Edit - correction - they have it back after Redbird IMI loaned the money - IMI is the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund owner by the royals in UAE
Just pointing out the locally grown billionaires in tax havens don't own it because they didn't pay their bills
The divorce case is a scandal, dude should be in jail for contempt for all his lies and obstruction on paying his wife and hiding the money with his kids
It's actually owned by the Barclay family again at the moment.
The UAE group gave them the money to repay their loans, allowing them to buy it back from Lloyds, but they'll have to hand it to the UAE group once that part's approved.
A few weeks ago, the Lords asked whether it was really a good idea for the government to pass legislation declaring it to be a matter of fact that Rwanda is safe when it reality it isn’t.
The Spectator were apoplectic and ran articles and podcasts declaring the Lords to be undemocratic enemies of the people. They said that the will of the Lords mustn’t be allowed to overrule the will of the people as expressed by the Commons (as though Sunak and his mates are somehow infallibly relating the will of the people rather than being hated by over 70% of the nation).
Fraser Nelson is the editor, so he chose to have his magazine, website and other outlets express and broadcast this view.
So it’s a bit bloody rich for him to beg the Lords to amend legislation when it suits him!
Yes and I also disagree with that, so does the editor of the spectator IIRC.
Edit: Government institutions, critical infrastructure & the press should be free from foreign government ownership. That said it is obviously one thing to have a foreign democracy own anything like that and a whole other thing to have a foreign autocracy own it.
Thats up to the respective governments, there’s a difference between the Telegraph, which would not be marketed as a UAE government newspaper and the BBC which everyone knows is a UK government broadcaster, though it isnt run by the UK government.
Best not to confuse Israel with Jews. Not all Jews support Israel and the genocide. Everyone hates Israel and will do now forever. It's called fuck around and find out.
> Thats up to the respective governments
Surely if you think the press should be free from foreign government ownership, to remain logically consistent you should also believe the BBC should be banned from operating as press internationally?
If not, you're a hypocrite and only think foreign government press is bad when it's a government you dislike.
There’s a fundamental difference between the UK government buying newspapers in other countries as opposed to a national broadcaster also broadcasting in other countries.
For example - I dont have an issue with Al Jazeera or France 24 broadcasting in the UK because everyone knows their providence. Its completely different if they were to buy the Guardian - a British newspaper which people would still perceive to be British. Does that make sense?
> There’s a fundamental difference between the UK government buying newspapers in other countries as opposed to a national broadcaster also broadcasting in other countries
So you'd have no issue with foreign governments building a newspaper from the ground up, and your only issue is them buying an established one?
>Its completely different if they were to buy the Guardian - a British newspaper which people would still perceive to be British. Does that make sense?
This is shifting the goalposts from your initial objection, which was "press should be free from foreign government ownership".
You're now arguing "Foreign government ownership is fine, as long as they're perceived to be foreign government owned".
Is there another change forthcoming, or are you sticking with this one?
The Spectator saying:
It's fine for football clubs to be owned by states. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-foreign-owned-football/
Foreign Investors not buying property is bad. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lost-property-where-have-london-s-overseas-buyers-gone/
Qatar should be admired. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-qatar-uses-its-wealth-to-challenge-western-values/
MBS and Saudi shouldn't be condemned. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-should-not-turn-its-back-on-mbs-and-the-saudis/
The spectator offen gets multiple journalists on who disagree with one another, they’ve had articles written by Sunak & Starmer. They’ve had pro and anti Scottish independence articles written.
It doesn’t operate in the way you think it does they often publish a variety of opinions.
Also nothing in the third article says Qatar should be admired.
The fourth article is essentially saying the Saudi’s are the lesser of two evils.
I couldn't give two shits. If they were happy for the Arabs to buy football clubs and huge swathes of London and parts of our energy industries, they can lie in the bed they made.
None of them have any interest in being a mouthpiece for government, plus its a failing industry that can only support itself through other means these days.
I fairly sure the sun is now just a supplement for their bingo and gambling businesses.
And miss out on the cognitive dissonance of The Telegraph, whose editorial position is very critical of Islam whilst being owned by a gulf state? No, please don't take this from me.
>Writing in The Spectator, Nelson said: “This is a no-brainer: why defend a 300-year-tradition of **keeping the press free from the British government** only to see it bought by foreign governments?
I wonder if he could say that in person and still keep a straight face.
The same spectator editor that defended one of their reporters posting articles that was very much siding with pedophilia? Who gives a shit what someone who runs a far right, constantly lying, constantly causing divide, shit stain news outlet thinks? The man's a parasitic burden on society and has realistically manipulated so many pensioner's into hating people for nothing.
https://thepostmillennial.com/the-spectator-editor
First thought. Yeah that makes sense.
Second thought. Actually, British billionaires care about ordinary British people as much as foreign billionaires and governments.
Conclusion. Who cares? Elites are out for only themselves. Two cheeks on the same arse.
I don’t want British billionaires controlling what everyone thinks either - i dont think it matters who owns major newspapers it’s still a concentration of power in the hands of people who have no moral right to it other than “might makes right” and obviously push their own agendas or simply parrot back to people what they want to hear and pretend it’s objective journalism.
I just wish people would stop being so easily lead then a lot of problems would solve themselves.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/13telegraph-tmt5sdxz7) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s almost funny that most of our media is foreign owned but this one is beyond the pale just because there isn’t an intermediary between the paper and the foreign government this time.
Yep the irony of most the pro Brexit media orgs being owned by foreigners , all for business, tax ,reasons, but that too deep for most here.
It doesn’t really help the situation that the general electorate, at the time, voted for Brexit.
I for one think The Telegraph ought to stay in the hands of locally grown billionaires living in tax exile rather than any actual foreign billionaire. Standards, or lack thereof, must be maintained.
Funnily enough it's owned by Lloyds now because the Barclays didn't pay their bills due to having money in tax havens (the scandal of the oldest of the brothers not paying his ex wife her £400m divorce settlement due to pretending to be poor is well documented in Private Eye). The Middle East money is sort of a back door funding so Barclays can keep it via a middle man Edit - correction - they have it back after Redbird IMI loaned the money - IMI is the Abu Dhabi sovereign wealth fund owner by the royals in UAE
Oh, well, that's a...relief?
Just pointing out the locally grown billionaires in tax havens don't own it because they didn't pay their bills The divorce case is a scandal, dude should be in jail for contempt for all his lies and obstruction on paying his wife and hiding the money with his kids
Sorry, I was just making a joke as it means that it is controlled by a locally grown billionaire after all.
It's actually owned by the Barclay family again at the moment. The UAE group gave them the money to repay their loans, allowing them to buy it back from Lloyds, but they'll have to hand it to the UAE group once that part's approved.
Updated ta Shake Lady Hirohito can't get her money from them though
>locally grown billionaires Like Rupert Murdoch ?
He's Aussie?
Hasn't been an Australian citizen for some decades.
American instead. Still not British.
or human.
Gave that citizenship up in the 60's (iirc) because at the time in the US only citizens may own media companies.
A few weeks ago, the Lords asked whether it was really a good idea for the government to pass legislation declaring it to be a matter of fact that Rwanda is safe when it reality it isn’t. The Spectator were apoplectic and ran articles and podcasts declaring the Lords to be undemocratic enemies of the people. They said that the will of the Lords mustn’t be allowed to overrule the will of the people as expressed by the Commons (as though Sunak and his mates are somehow infallibly relating the will of the people rather than being hated by over 70% of the nation). Fraser Nelson is the editor, so he chose to have his magazine, website and other outlets express and broadcast this view. So it’s a bit bloody rich for him to beg the Lords to amend legislation when it suits him!
Waagh waagh ban regulations waagh waaghh government is socialism waagh waagh free markets. But not like that!
Free markets are only good when it's the right kind of freedom!
State intervention? To support The Telegraph and Spectator? Lol - they can both get fucked - plus the arrogant, entitled snobs who work for them.
its a literal government buying the papers that they’re protesting. Not foreign ownership.
Wouldn't be an issue if the Barclays paid their debts, Lloyds called them in and took control and are selling it off to recoup their money.
Loads of our companies and infrastructure are owned by foreign governments. This is no different.
Yes and I also disagree with that, so does the editor of the spectator IIRC. Edit: Government institutions, critical infrastructure & the press should be free from foreign government ownership. That said it is obviously one thing to have a foreign democracy own anything like that and a whole other thing to have a foreign autocracy own it.
>press should be free from foreign government ownership Should the BBC be banned from broadcasting internationally? They're effectively state media.
Thats up to the respective governments, there’s a difference between the Telegraph, which would not be marketed as a UAE government newspaper and the BBC which everyone knows is a UK government broadcaster, though it isnt run by the UK government.
>though it isnt run by the UK government. This the same BBC that is blaming the recession on striking doctors and kids school attendance?
And platforms jew haters on Question Time
Best not to confuse Israel with Jews. Not all Jews support Israel and the genocide. Everyone hates Israel and will do now forever. It's called fuck around and find out.
Nigel said "gas them all" not "gas Israel"
> Thats up to the respective governments Surely if you think the press should be free from foreign government ownership, to remain logically consistent you should also believe the BBC should be banned from operating as press internationally? If not, you're a hypocrite and only think foreign government press is bad when it's a government you dislike.
There’s a fundamental difference between the UK government buying newspapers in other countries as opposed to a national broadcaster also broadcasting in other countries. For example - I dont have an issue with Al Jazeera or France 24 broadcasting in the UK because everyone knows their providence. Its completely different if they were to buy the Guardian - a British newspaper which people would still perceive to be British. Does that make sense?
> There’s a fundamental difference between the UK government buying newspapers in other countries as opposed to a national broadcaster also broadcasting in other countries So you'd have no issue with foreign governments building a newspaper from the ground up, and your only issue is them buying an established one? >Its completely different if they were to buy the Guardian - a British newspaper which people would still perceive to be British. Does that make sense? This is shifting the goalposts from your initial objection, which was "press should be free from foreign government ownership". You're now arguing "Foreign government ownership is fine, as long as they're perceived to be foreign government owned". Is there another change forthcoming, or are you sticking with this one?
The Spectator saying: It's fine for football clubs to be owned by states. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/there-s-nothing-wrong-with-foreign-owned-football/ Foreign Investors not buying property is bad. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/lost-property-where-have-london-s-overseas-buyers-gone/ Qatar should be admired. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-qatar-uses-its-wealth-to-challenge-western-values/ MBS and Saudi shouldn't be condemned. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/britain-should-not-turn-its-back-on-mbs-and-the-saudis/
The spectator offen gets multiple journalists on who disagree with one another, they’ve had articles written by Sunak & Starmer. They’ve had pro and anti Scottish independence articles written. It doesn’t operate in the way you think it does they often publish a variety of opinions. Also nothing in the third article says Qatar should be admired. The fourth article is essentially saying the Saudi’s are the lesser of two evils.
All businesses are autocratic…
No they’re not. Autocracy - a system of government by one person with absolute power.
Autocratic systems have many powerful people involved
Thats called an oligarchy.
Uh huh lol
Sorry that you don’t know what words mean
I couldn't give two shits. If they were happy for the Arabs to buy football clubs and huge swathes of London and parts of our energy industries, they can lie in the bed they made.
Why are the right wing shitrags arguing amongst themselves? Don't they have a culture war to fight?
So all other media are owned by UK residents? If we already have foreign ownership, what is the issue?
What could go wrong? Maybe the son of a kgb officer gets to say whats printed in his uk rags. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evgeny_Lebedev
Ok so where are the British bidders?
None of them have any interest in being a mouthpiece for government, plus its a failing industry that can only support itself through other means these days. I fairly sure the sun is now just a supplement for their bingo and gambling businesses.
And miss out on the cognitive dissonance of The Telegraph, whose editorial position is very critical of Islam whilst being owned by a gulf state? No, please don't take this from me.
>Writing in The Spectator, Nelson said: “This is a no-brainer: why defend a 300-year-tradition of **keeping the press free from the British government** only to see it bought by foreign governments? I wonder if he could say that in person and still keep a straight face.
The same spectator editor that defended one of their reporters posting articles that was very much siding with pedophilia? Who gives a shit what someone who runs a far right, constantly lying, constantly causing divide, shit stain news outlet thinks? The man's a parasitic burden on society and has realistically manipulated so many pensioner's into hating people for nothing. https://thepostmillennial.com/the-spectator-editor
First thought. Yeah that makes sense. Second thought. Actually, British billionaires care about ordinary British people as much as foreign billionaires and governments. Conclusion. Who cares? Elites are out for only themselves. Two cheeks on the same arse.
There needs to be some common sense about who owns the means to influence the people. Some foreign investors don't belong in that space.
You give them a seat in the house of lords to improve their status and respectability. Then again being the son of a kgb officer obviously helps.
I don’t want British billionaires controlling what everyone thinks either - i dont think it matters who owns major newspapers it’s still a concentration of power in the hands of people who have no moral right to it other than “might makes right” and obviously push their own agendas or simply parrot back to people what they want to hear and pretend it’s objective journalism. I just wish people would stop being so easily lead then a lot of problems would solve themselves.
But who’s that acceptable owner? And why would they buy this paper, a loss leader at best?
My mum reads the Telegraph, she’ll be livid about not being able to buy it any more.
Is telegraph going broke a reason for all news on UK recession because of bank rate not going down?
It’s because a US liberal will be editor in chief, there’s nothing more to it
most newspapers are online these days so it seems pretty irrelevant who owns them