Comments on: Does Murdoch’s paywall reversal signal a sale of The Times? http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/10/03/does-murdochs-paywall-reversal-signal-a-sale-of-the-times/ Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:42:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Rebootnik1 http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/10/03/does-murdochs-paywall-reversal-signal-a-sale-of-the-times/#comment-460 Mon, 08 Oct 2012 15:24:02 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/?p=137#comment-460 Just to be clear, the ‘£2 a week’ deal is a trial period subscription-only deal, with a full and binding 12-month standard subscription to follow unless you cancel during that period. Single-issue subscriptions are mobile-platform-only, not web-available at all. So it’s not really *that* much of a U-turn. Enough to look ‘kind of U-turney\': not enough that anyone’s decision whether or not to subscribe might be influenced by actually having read a Times article in living memory.

]]>
By: NeilMcGowan http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2012/10/03/does-murdochs-paywall-reversal-signal-a-sale-of-the-times/#comment-458 Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:19:25 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/?p=137#comment-458 No, it signals that Rupert Murdoch is a washed-up, senile, mad Ocker freak whose ideas aren’t worth fourpence. When is this evil lump of excrement going to face trial for hacking the mobile phones of thousands of people in Britain? Never, because Cameron and Millyband are too gutless to take a pop at the Ocker Arsehole.

]]>