With the BSkyB AGM approaching, Matthew Butcher of Fair Pensions tells us why it matters to all of us that James Murdoch is removed from the board.
Matthew Butcher is the media and communications officer for FairPensions
Tomorrow, a small army of mostly grey-haired serial AGM attendees will come together for one of the last times this year. These small shareholders – who regularly enjoy the cakes and coffee at plush conference centres decked out in corporate colours – are dwarfed by the power of institutional investors. It is these big investors like insurance companies and pension funds that can make a difference to how companies act, and who should make company directors appropriately nervous.
At the BSkyB AGM, one of the company directors to take to the stage at the front of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre will be James Murdoch. Shareholders, both big and small, should be trying to ensure Halloween isn’t the only frightening thing in Murdoch Jr’s week.
Murdoch is seeking re-election to a board on which he has served for almost a decade. He has served as the company’s CEO and chairman and still sits on the top table as a non-executive director. This non-executive role would see Murdoch keeping an eye on management.
It is hard to believe he is the best man for the job.
Earlier this year the usually conservative communications industry regulator, Ofcom, had strong words to say about James Murdoch’s role in the covering up of phone hacking at the News of the World.
The regulator questioned Murdoch’s “competence” as chairman of News International and BSkyB, noting:
“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.”
This dressing down by Ofcom came after the House of Commons culture, media and sport select committee concluded Murdoch showed “wilful ignorance” of the extent of phone hacking during 2009 and 2010.
But why does any of this matter? And why are we trying to get Murdoch out?
Murdoch’s behaviour matters to people like the families of Millie Dowler and the soldiers whose phones were hacked after they died.
It matters to the employees of the companies under his watch, many of whom lost their jobs through no fault of their own.
It matters to shareholders, because his inability to provide good oversight presents them with a risk to their investments.
It matters because some of the company’s biggest shareholders are pension funds and insurance companies.
Having someone like James Murdoch at the top of BSkyB matters to all of us.
Fair Pensions has been urging shareholders to use their votes at BSkyB’s AGM to reject the re-election of James Murdoch.
Unfortunately, BSkyB is a company where ordinary shareholders have less power than usual. This is because News Corporation, a company owned by Rupert Murdoch and where his son James has a senior managerial role, owns a whopping 39% stake in BSkyB.
You won’t be surprised to hear they’ll be voting in support of James Murdoch. If non-News Corp shareholders were to oust James Murdoch 83% of them would have to vote against his re-election.
It is with this unusual shareholder situation in mind we thought we’d take alternative action. Tomorrow we will be joining the tea and cake brigade at the BSkyB AGM, and we’ll be taking the call for Murdoch’s removal straight to the board. Even if shareholders have been placated, and the media furore has died down, we want Murdoch to know we’re still not happy.
Sign our petition: www.fairpensions.org.uk/bskyb.
42 Responses to “Fit and proper? Why James Murdoch must go”
newton
I read things like this and just fail to care.
Newsbot9 has cast iron evidence that England will become uninhabitable due to climate change sometime soon. So does anything really matter? We aren’t going to stop burning coal or putting petrol in cars. That means England is going to be uninhabitable soon. Nothing matters – not how many houses we build, or how many kids eat breakfast, or the levels of benefits. It is all irrelevant because the country is finished. The only way out I see is for the entire economy to be devoted to colonising Mars.
LB
Lets see.
On a scale of 1 to 10, phone hacking is a 1.
On a scale of 1 to 10, covering up for a paedophile, enabling him to carry on molesting children, and raping them. That’s a 10.
Time for the BBC to be broken up.
Lets start with children’s programs. All children’s programs removed from the BBC, along with the license fee for them.
I suggest them that the a punitive fine is imposed.
Those running the BBC should also be removed. The trust should be forced to resign on mass and be replaced by new people.
LB
Well, the state is finished. They can’t dig themselves out of their Ponzi fraud on pensions.
That’s going to finish lots of people off. They’ve been forced to trust the good old state for their entire retirement, and its going to screw them over.
newton
I agree with the Ponzi description but I think we’ll somehow meddle through. I think people will work far longer and it will be a bit unfair for one generation to have bought cheap houses, retired early and basically stolen off the rest, but then life isn’t fair.
g&t
Have to agree with that. If listening to a celebrity’s phone messages gets a newspaper closed down then facilitating hundreds or thousands of sexual attacks on children by staff should get the BBC closed down, I won’t though. I suggest they make the license fee voluntary. Those that knew but didn’t report it should be in prison as convicted paedophiles.