Ssshhh . . . say nothing!

stockhausen

stockhausen

stockhausen

Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
30 Jul 2006
Posts
12,130
The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament
Click to expand...
The only bit of this story which it appears CAN be reported is that it concerns Carter-*uck.
 
Looks like Guardian hype over a non-matter really. We don't know the circumstances regarding the question, if it's regarding security there may be a dozen reasons as to why it's reporting should be delayed.
 
platypus said:
Looks like Guardian hype over a non-matter really. We don't know the circumstances regarding the question, if it's regarding security there may be a dozen reasons as to why it's reporting should be delayed.
Click to expand...
Since you know nothing about it, why would you suggest that it is "Guardian hype over a non-matter" :confused:

Carter-*uck and security? Possible I suppose although I don't think that security is their normal area of activity.


edited: In fact, it appears that the question that cannot be reported concerns oil traders Trafigura and alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, this appears to be a growing trend, as highlighted in last weeks PI. I'm unimpressd with the number of these that a being handed out at the moment. M

Andrew Marr has just such an order in place preventing the press from reposting something to do with him.
 
stockhausen said:
Since you know nothing about it, why would you suggest that it is "Guardian hype over a non-matter" :confused:

Carter-*uck and security? Possible I suppose although I don't think that security is their normal area of activity.Trafigura and alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast.
Click to expand...
Probably because the Guardian overhype lots of things, and until we know what the matter is, we shouldn't leap to conclusions about a four hundred year old statute being revoked.
 
platypus, the right to report on parliament is something that should be protected at all costs particularly as parliament is the only place where you can ask anything you want without the risk of beine sued.

If MPs are able to get away with this then they can block reporting about their expenses and such like.

emailiscrap said:
The gag order has been lifted already.
Click to expand...

Good.
 
platypus said:
Probably because the Guardian overhype lots of things, and until we know what the matter is, we shouldn't leap to conclusions about a four hundred year old statute being revoked.
Click to expand...
Ah, OK I see now; because your belief is that "the Guardian overhype lots of things", you are happy to have the courts gag the reporting of questions tabled in Parliament.
 
I like the Guardian - got a lovely Oyster card wallet holder from them outside Angel on Friday with an elephant on the front. (The wallet has an elephant, not the Angel) :)
 
So basically an MP uses his parliamentary privilege to ask a question about seedy oil traders Trafigura and even seedier law firm Carter-Ruck manages to get a press gagging order so we can't even hear what the question was? Absolutely :mad: about this.
 
From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question

The question "they" didn't want you to hear was:

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.
Click to expand...
 
What judge would actually sign off on an injunction like this?
The judge should be removed tbh :/
 
i actually have the report they were trying to supress as well, it concerns the "disposal" of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. and the poster above is correct, the gag was lifted around lunchtime the next day.

some links:
Sauce: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament

here's some more info:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmass...ned-from-reporting-parliament-seriously.thtml

http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/edito...ssing-certain-legal-buttons-says-david-leigh/

http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Minto...Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom