Guardian barred from reporting Parliament
Discussion
Guardian said:
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.
order-order.co.uk will link you through to the document that has been banned, but is a bit of a worrying trend - from what I can see this document is not a matter of state security and is really a private matter. How can HMG get involved in the reporting of it?
From what I read this is more to do with the subject of the parliamentary question being related to an ongoing legal matter (basically an injunction obtained by a legal firm against The Guardian reporting on leaked documents).
That the question is being raised in parliament is a matter of parliamentary privilege.
It doesn't seem that extraordinary to me, other than the original leaked documents of course, which are a quite mucky affair.
The documents are all in full, on Wikileaks. Just search for 'Barclays' and they're all there.
That the question is being raised in parliament is a matter of parliamentary privilege.
It doesn't seem that extraordinary to me, other than the original leaked documents of course, which are a quite mucky affair.
The documents are all in full, on Wikileaks. Just search for 'Barclays' and they're all there.
I'm not sure this is the Government preventing reporting, rather an injunction related to the two cases mentioned. There has been a remarkable change in application of the law in the last year or so.
One example has been the case of Andrew Marr (that Andrew Marr). He got wind that a newspaper had a story on him - probably because they followed practice and requested comment. Marr sought and obtained an emergency injunction preventing publication. Further, and remarkably, he also obtained an injunction preventing even the reporting that an injunction had been obtained. The latter was overturned on appeal by Private Eye, but we still have no idea what the original report into Marr actually suggests. He might have just been playing away from home, but what if it was political corruption, or dodgy images on his PC, or he is funding Al-Qaida?
(Note: I'm not suggesting that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA, but if he was, would it not be very much in the public interest to know that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA?
The tactics used by the usual suspect lawyers (Schillings, Carter-Ruck) are themselves suspect, and completely override the long standing rules of free speech and particulalry the long standing acceptance of "public interest". Some of the cases eventually exposed are of great public importance - the auditting of Equitable Life, that the senior member of a major law body was deeply criticised for failing to uphold the law being two such cases.
The two cases suggested by the link seem to fit this bill - I'm not aware of any reporting of either. I suspect the MP raising the question is trying to circumvent such injunctions by use of parliamentary privilege, and at least seek to highlight that a key element of press freedom (and indeed democracy itself) is being attacked by nefarious means. And good on the MP for doing that, whatever party he belongs to and however dodgy his expenses.
One example has been the case of Andrew Marr (that Andrew Marr). He got wind that a newspaper had a story on him - probably because they followed practice and requested comment. Marr sought and obtained an emergency injunction preventing publication. Further, and remarkably, he also obtained an injunction preventing even the reporting that an injunction had been obtained. The latter was overturned on appeal by Private Eye, but we still have no idea what the original report into Marr actually suggests. He might have just been playing away from home, but what if it was political corruption, or dodgy images on his PC, or he is funding Al-Qaida?
(Note: I'm not suggesting that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA, but if he was, would it not be very much in the public interest to know that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA?
The tactics used by the usual suspect lawyers (Schillings, Carter-Ruck) are themselves suspect, and completely override the long standing rules of free speech and particulalry the long standing acceptance of "public interest". Some of the cases eventually exposed are of great public importance - the auditting of Equitable Life, that the senior member of a major law body was deeply criticised for failing to uphold the law being two such cases.
The two cases suggested by the link seem to fit this bill - I'm not aware of any reporting of either. I suspect the MP raising the question is trying to circumvent such injunctions by use of parliamentary privilege, and at least seek to highlight that a key element of press freedom (and indeed democracy itself) is being attacked by nefarious means. And good on the MP for doing that, whatever party he belongs to and however dodgy his expenses.
HiRich said:
One example has been the case of Andrew Marr (that Andrew Marr). He got wind that a newspaper had a story on him - probably because they followed practice and requested comment. Marr sought and obtained an emergency injunction preventing publication. Further, and remarkably, he also obtained an injunction preventing even the reporting that an injunction had been obtained. The latter was overturned on appeal by Private Eye, but we still have no idea what the original report into Marr actually suggests. He might have just been playing away from home, but what if it was political corruption, or dodgy images on his PC, or he is funding Al-Qaida?
(Note: I'm not suggesting that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA, but if he was, would it not be very much in the public interest to know that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA?
I'd read somewhere that it's in relation to a child he has, not with his wife. Apparently. Or it could be someone else entirely.(Note: I'm not suggesting that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA, but if he was, would it not be very much in the public interest to know that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA?
Strange when you google his name you get :
google said:
Andrew Marr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn May and June 2007, the BBC broadcast Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain. .... Marr also has another child from an affair with Alice Miles, ...
But when you click the link you don't see any mention of 'affair' or 'Alice Miles'.But Wiki 'Alice Miles' and you get :
wiki said:
It was revealed in The Independent on 27 June 2008 by Richard Ingrams, that Andrew Marr has gained a high court injunction preventing disclosure in the press of "private information". Unusually, permission had also been granted for the existence of the injunction not to be mentioned, and it was indeed not mentioned until Private Eye commented on it. The "private information" is that he fathered a child during an affair with Alice Miles.
Edited by Bibbs on Tuesday 13th October 12:16
Bibbs said:
HiRich said:
One example has been the case of Andrew Marr (that Andrew Marr). He got wind that a newspaper had a story on him - probably because they followed practice and requested comment. Marr sought and obtained an emergency injunction preventing publication. Further, and remarkably, he also obtained an injunction preventing even the reporting that an injunction had been obtained. The latter was overturned on appeal by Private Eye, but we still have no idea what the original report into Marr actually suggests. He might have just been playing away from home, but what if it was political corruption, or dodgy images on his PC, or he is funding Al-Qaida?
(Note: I'm not suggesting that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA, but if he was, would it not be very much in the public interest to know that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA?
I'd read somewhere that it's in relation to a child he has, not with his wife. Apparently. Or it could be someone else entirely.(Note: I'm not suggesting that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA, but if he was, would it not be very much in the public interest to know that ANDREW MARR IS FUNDING AL-QAIDA?
Strange when you google his name you get :
google said:
Andrew Marr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIn May and June 2007, the BBC broadcast Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain. .... Marr also has another child from an affair with Alice Miles, ...
But when you click the link you don't see any mention of 'affair' or 'Alice Miles'.But Wiki 'Alice Miles' and you get :
wiki said:
It was revealed in The Independent on 27 June 2008 by Richard Ingrams, that Andrew Marr has gained a high court injunction preventing disclosure in the press of "private information". Unusually, permission had also been granted for the existence of the injunction not to be mentioned, and it was indeed not mentioned until Private Eye commented on it. The "private information" is that he fathered a child during an affair with Alice Miles.
Edited by Bibbs on Tuesday 13th October 12:16
plasticpig said:
Fittster said:
It would be interesting to know how effect injunctions are. It seems certain website not only ignore them but use them as a trigger to publicise the story fully.
Those websites are hosted outside of the UK. British law does not apply to them.So do something dodgy, employe Schilling or Carter-Ruck at great expense to get an injunctions. Injunctions triggers interest of offshore website, story breaks.
So the question remains, just how effective are injunctions at surpressing stories?
plasticpig said:
Fittster said:
It would be interesting to know how effect injunctions are. It seems certain website not only ignore them but use them as a trigger to publicise the story fully.
Those websites are hosted outside of the UK. British law does not apply to them.Fittster said:
plasticpig said:
Fittster said:
It would be interesting to know how effect injunctions are. It seems certain website not only ignore them but use them as a trigger to publicise the story fully.
Those websites are hosted outside of the UK. British law does not apply to them.So do something dodgy, employe Schilling or Carter-Ruck at great expense to get an injunctions. Injunctions triggers interest of offshore website, story breaks.
So the question remains, just how effective are injunctions at surpressing stories?
Fittster said:
So the question remains, just how effective are injunctions at surpressing stories?
The main issue is that the overwhelming proportion of the UK population get their info from traditional sources - TV, newspapers, bbc.co.uk, dailyhatemail.co.uk, etc. Even a foreign title (e.g. Forbes) would have to be careful with editions sent to the UK.Only a handful of people are 'enlightened' (I would like to think I am, but I didn't pick up this story). Many of the unenlightened are in positions of influence, and the chances of them finding out are limited - it's not in the FT, so they don't know.
Share price survives, careers are saved, the inevitable is delayed until a point when a face-saving strategy is in place. Many people still won't get it:
- Consider John Leslie (career ended) against the claimed rapist of Jordan
- If Greenpeace protested Trafigura, most people on here would still criticise Greenpeace, not Trafigura without knowing quite what Trafigura are involved in. What about questions of government (we currently own a share of Trafigura through CDC)?
- How many people have given up on Equitable Life compo because they aren't aware how heavily the auditors (Deloitte, IIRC) have been criticised, and therefore how much more likely compo is?
"Guardian Editor Alan Rusbridger announced the fantastic news that Carter Ruck had backed down over Twitter. How very appropriate. The Guardian can now print what the internet has spread over and over and over again."
http://www.torybear.com/2009/10/comprehensive-owni...
"Yes this is a victory for The Guardian, in a battle it should never have had to fight, however it would not have won without the weight of the new media behind it. Without blogs and twitter the Guardian would have been forced to bow down to the mighty Ruck-us with very little they could do. They won the battle, but they wounded themselves so heavily in doing so, it is unlikely they will last the war. If there was ever proof needed that the MSM was dying, let this be it. The Guardian have signed their own death warrent today, wouldn't celebrate too hard over this one.
Another nail in the old media coffin"
http://www.torybear.com/2009/10/comprehensive-owni...
"Yes this is a victory for The Guardian, in a battle it should never have had to fight, however it would not have won without the weight of the new media behind it. Without blogs and twitter the Guardian would have been forced to bow down to the mighty Ruck-us with very little they could do. They won the battle, but they wounded themselves so heavily in doing so, it is unlikely they will last the war. If there was ever proof needed that the MSM was dying, let this be it. The Guardian have signed their own death warrent today, wouldn't celebrate too hard over this one.
Another nail in the old media coffin"
k"?</private_eye>Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff