Although the Government insists there was no link, the decision to accept his money infuriated many Labour MPs.The report said most of the 23 representations to it from third parties suggested that Mr Desmond was “unsuitable to be the proprietor of a family newspaper” because he published adult magazines. They considered that editorial or ethical standards might suffer.Its report concluded: “The OFT is not well-placed, however, to assess the non-competition issues … These have been summarised above in order that ministers can consider these concerns.”The OFT found the merger was unlikely to have an adverse impact on competition in any relevant economic market and recommended that the takeover should be cleared on competition grounds.The Opposition stepped up its attacks on Mr Byers after the report was published. Nigel Waterson, a Tory spokesman on trade and industry, said: “Stephen Byers claimed on Sunday that he acted purely on the advice of officials However, this appears not to be the whole story.

The OFT clearly left the non-competition issues ‘ball’ firmly in Stephen Byers’ court, leaving the question of how Stephen Byers came to the decision to recommend this deal unanswered.”But allies of Mr Byers insisted his Sunday remarks were accurate because he also acted on the advice of officials in two Government departments, published last night. The Home Office could see “no reason for intervening based on the connection with adult magazines”, while the Department of Culture, Media and Sport said the takeover did not raise “plurality” or public interest issues.Mr Byers said: “Yesterday I publicly asked for this advice to be published. I am pleased that this has now happened, and that people can see the basis upon which I arrived at my decision.”. A former security forces agent who claimed Martin McGuinness fired the first shot on Bloody Sunday will not be called to give evidence at the Saville inquiry. Not calling Infliction rendered Mr McGuinness “deaf, dumb and blind in the face of very serious allegations,” Mr Cush said, and those allegations should now be ignored.The authorities are also pressing for restrictions when the inquiry hears evidence from former MI5 agent David Shayler and agents A and B, who were Infliction’s handlers.. More than 1,300 convicted murderers, including Winston Silcott, Satpal Ram and Harry Roberts, are set to be given the right to have their sentences reviewed following a legal challenge by a former life-sentence prisoner. The Home Office is already preparing for the Parole Board to deal with 440 oral hearings over the next 12 months.A defeat for the Government today would be a boost for prisoners who claim they are being kept in prison for political reasons.Silcott, 42, was cleared of the murder of PC Keith Blakelock during the 1985 Broadwater Farm riots but is serving life for the murder of boxer Anthony Smith in 1984.

He was told he would serve 14 years for the killing, which he says was carried out in self-defence.Ram has served 15 years for the murder of Clarke Pearce in a fight in a Birmingham restaurant, also alleged to have been in self-defence. The Parole Board ruled in 1999 that Ram should be released on licence, but Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, refused.Roberts, 65, who was jailed for the murder of three unarmed police officers in 1966, was given a tariff of 30 years.Stafford, 65, was convicted in 1967 of murdering gaming machine collector Angus Sibbett. He was freed on licence in 1979 but breached the conditions of his release by going to South Africa, where he became a businessman.When he returned to Britain in 1989, he was arrested and sent back to jail. He was released in 1991 but convicted three years later of a counterfeit traveller’s cheque scam and sentenced to six years.He expected to be released again after serving the minimum sentence of four years, but Mr Straw refused, claiming Stafford might commit further non-violent offences after a Parole Board ruling that he was not dangerous.Stafford, who served an extra three years, successfully challenged Mr Straw’s action in the courts, only for the finding to be overturned by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. Stafford then took the case to Strasbourg.Michael Purdon, Stafford’s lawyer, said: “This will clarify the test to be used to determine whether a mandatory lifer is to be released.