999, thanks for that -- I'm very pleased to hear it.

Richard, thanks for your knowledgeable and articulate support; I really appreciate it (although I think letting your opponent suck you into getting personal is counter-productive).

DebC & Sandie (& 999!) -- sorry about that -- I should have inserted an "R" before Murdoch...

Jim Dixon, I'm sure/I hope Richard will correct me if I'm wrong; I believe the way it works is that you don't necessarily need a licence to publish a newspaper, but if you own/want to own a "controlling portion" of a large media company which is likely to have a lot of influence in the country, then OfCom and/or the government get to decide if you/your company is "fit and proper" to do so.

My take is that lots of people (particularly if they are rich and/or powerful) can do a lot of unethical stuff that is not technically illegal (as well as managing to get away with doing stuff that is), so I'm happy for this assessment to be made.

For more information, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofcom, where it says (amongst other things):

Ofcom (officially the Office of Communications; Welsh: Y Swyddfa Gyfathrebiadau) is the government-approved regulatory authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.
and
In July 2011, in the wake of the News International phone hacking scandal, Ofcom came under pressure to launch an inquiry into whether the parent company of News International, News Corporation, was still the "fit and proper" owner of a controlling stake in the satellite broadcasting company British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB). On 13 July former Prime Minister Gordon Brown urged Ofcom to launch an investigation. On 15 July the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg stated that the Government would launch a review of laws on what constituted a "fit and proper" owner for broadcasting companies in the United Kingdom, and that anyone found not to meet that standard can be forced to give up their current holdings in a company. On 22 July it was reported that Ofcom had begun an investigation into whether the phone-hacking scandal may have changed BSkyB's status as the "fit and proper" holder of a UK broadcasting licence. On the same day Ed Richards, the Chief Executive of Ofcom, replied to Simon Hughes MP, Don Foster MP and Tim Farron MP following a letter which they had written to him on 8 July concerning News Corporation's shareholding in BSkyB. In the letter Richards confirmed that Ofcom considers that News Corporation's current shareholding of 39.14% in BSkyB does give it a material influence over the company; that Ofcom is not precluded from acting by ongoing police investigations; and that Ofcom's process is not dependent upon a criminal conviction being secured. (note: bf added by me.)

DaveMC and PDQ, it's clear we strongly disagree. I suspect there's nothing I (or anyone on Mudcat) could say that would change your minds, and it's highly unlikely that you'll change mine, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I posted this thread for like-minded (UK -- meant to preface the thread title with UK! Oh well...) Catters, to let them know there's some (admittedly small) thing they can do if they feel strongly enough.

If you don't want to sign the petition, fine by me.

If you want to debate it &/or slag it off on this thread, that's fine by me, too (for one thing, it will keep its visibility high and more folks will see it), although it would sadden me to see the discussion deteriorate into nastiness and name-calling instead of reasoned debate.

DaveMC -- I may be misremembering, but I believe Avaaz has a tick box that lets you opt out of receiving further e-mails from them. If they don't, then I agree it doesn't reflect well on them (although it's easy enough to opt out using a clicky at the bottom of every e-mail they send); I do think it's a bit OTT to describe their behaviour as "unethical" -- especially compared to the (IMHO) illegal/immoral (and usually outrageous) behaviours of the people/governments who are the subjects of their petitions.