A broadcast license cannot be transferred from one owner to another – Cabinet

3
Old Logo for Observer Publications still being used (FILE PHOTO)

Talks have reportedly commenced between the representatives of a new media and the government to rectify an alleged breacj of the Broadcasting Act.

A new entity emerged following the closure of the Observer group of companies on November 30. The old Observer bosses called it simply a change of management. However, a entirely new entity has been registered.

The new company continues to look and sound like the defunct Observer but is now run by Algernon “Serpent” Watts, who is well-known for his strong opposition to a number of government policies.

Information Minister Melford Nicholas pointed out this week that the law does not permit ownership of the radio broadcast equipment unless one possesses a broadcast license.

He said further, a broadcast license cannot be transferred from one owner to another, under the law.

The Minister revealed in Cabinet on Wednesday that discussion has taken place between the lawyer for the new entity and the Solicitor General, by letters as well as by oral communication.

CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATSAPP GROUP

3 COMMENTS

  1. Antigua news room i think u guys should go and work for the new observer…what u think the four of u

  2. Ok Antigua. Let’s say that the Minister is right. There will be three current radio stations on island which should have to apply for a broadcast licence because the one they obtain will be illegal. The truth is I read the law and NEWSCO used a loophole on a section which vague. The law needs strengthening and I recommend the Minister to acknowledge this and correct for the future

  3. Here we go again. Free Speech is only free if it suits the Observer’s editor.Otherwise your comments are removed. So what is it we are preaching when we say Observer is here to give people the right to free speech. I know the rules. Its says “antiguaobserver.com is really happy to provide this forum in which all are encouraged to freely state their opinions without ridiculing anyone or being ridiculed. We’ve found that happens really easily if each comment is limited to the topic at hand. We will approve any comment that speaks solely to the story to which it is attached and is free from name calling and defamatory statements.” Therefore I make sure I abide by these rules and do not ridicule anyone.
    However it seems that if your comments are against the company it is perceived to be ridiculing the company.
    Which tells me one cannot take criticism. Which makes it a website/media house that is not practicing what they preach. Anyway other websites have no problem to publish the exact same comments. Could it be because they do not feel the criticism is directed against them? I wonder.

Comments are closed.