News Bill of Rights pissed on by Judge!

[rynnor]

A judge has granted an injunction against the Guardian from reporting UK Parliamentary Proceedings - something that was established centuries ago under the Bill of Rights and is fundamental to our democracy.

Guardian gagged from reporting parliament | Media | The Guardian

Luckily its leaking out anyway -

Guardian Gagged from Reporting Parliament - Guy Fawkes' blog

There has been a spate of pre-emptive injunctions recently on Newspapers that prevent them from even stating what they are being injuncted against.

Most are from the Evil Carter Fuck solicitors - interesting to note one was on behalf of Andrew Marr - who would have thought that little weasel of a man did anything interesting enough to merit an injunction

This is bloody serious stuff - our press hasnt been this restricted from reporting serious issues for hundreds of years - time to wake up before we end up in 1984 land...

 

[Ch3tan]

Aren't we already in 1984 land giving the amount of restrictions, snooping, and laws to enable snooping we live under at the moment? Glad the net gives the oppurtunity for bloggers to report what the papers seemingly can't now.

 

[rynnor]

The whole stupid injunction which jeopardises our democracy was to supress this report - http://www.wikileaks.com/leak/waterson-toxicwaste-ivorycoast-é2009.pdf

Where it shows Trafigura dumped toxic waste on the Ivory Coast and for which it recently paid millions in an out of court settlement.

 

[rynnor]

Aren't we already in 1984 land giving the amount of restrictions, snooping, and laws to enable snooping we live under at the moment?

This is far worse though - do you really want an un-reportable Parliament in the UK - imagine what would go on if that caught on.

 

[Furr]

It's pretty shocking, and another reason that we desperately new Bill of Rights that is presented to the public in a referendum.

 

[rynnor]

CarterFuck gave up before the appeal at 2PM - thank god for the Internet!!

Gag on Guardian reporting MP's Trafigura question lifted | Media | guardian.co.uk

 

[Bahumat]

So does this mean we get onion rings for dinner or not? Cause fuck me I'll kick up a storm if we don't.

 

[Zenith.UK]

Posted minutes ago on BBC...

BBC NEWS | Politics | Guardian claims victory on 'gag'

 

[Tom]

I get the feeling that some people are presenting this in a completely out-of-proportion manner.

MPs are given parliamentary privilege to ask questions on matters that the reporting of could present problems. This could be related to an alleged sex offence where the victim is too young to be named, or a matter of national security. In this case, it was related to the leak of documents which, although it could be argued was in the national interest, had been deemed illegal, and hence reporting of it was banned.

Reporting on the question being raised in Parliament would have been a neat way of getting around this reporting ban, and so the injunction was extended to cover this question.

I don't see anything sinister about it really.

 

[rynnor]

Reporting on the question being raised in Parliament would have been a neat way of getting around this reporting ban, and so the injunction was extended to cover this question.

I don't see anything sinister about it really.

The past few hundred years have seen the development of qualified privilege when the press cover Parliamentery proceedings - thats whats at stake here.

It doesnt matter what the current circumstance is - if we allow this precedent to be set its opening the door to all sorts of interest groups blocking the report of Parliamentary proceedings in the Press - it would be incredibly un-democratic and a step into the dark ages.

 

[Tom]

A precedent hasn't been set though. Elements of the press are claiming that this somehow undermines the democratic right of MPs to enjoy parliamentary privilege, but what they're actually moaning about is the fact that a judge was to prevent the media from reporting on what an MP had said.

There was nothing stopping the MP from asking the question. Presumably also there was nothing stopping spectators in the viewing gallery from hearing the question.

Its a storm in a teacup. There's nothing undemocratic about preventing a newspaper from circuitously reporting on a matter they've previously been forced to remain quiet about. For instance, if a child had been sexually abused, and that child's MP raised the matter in parliament, would you then expect a newspaper to be allowed to report that child's name, citing freedom under parliamentary privilege?

MPs enjoy parliamentary privilege. Newspapers do not. If anything, this shows contempt for press freedom, and not contempt for parliamentary democracy.

 

[Ctuchik]

I get the feeling that some people are presenting this in a completely out-of-proportion manner.

Think the newspapers are probably the biggest culprit when it comes to blowing shit out of proportions

they seem totally unable to just report about an issue and leave it at that.

they just HAVE to start the doomsday machine.

 

[rynnor]

Its a storm in a teacup. There's nothing undemocratic about preventing a newspaper from circuitously reporting on a matter they've previously been forced to remain quiet about. For instance, if a child had been sexually abused, and that child's MP raised the matter in parliament, would you then expect a newspaper to be allowed to report that child's name, citing freedom under parliamentary privilege?

MPs enjoy parliamentary privilege. Newspapers do not. If anything, this shows contempt for press freedom, and not contempt for parliamentary democracy.

Since you just rehashed your original post hes a rehash of my original reply

The past few hundred years have seen the development of qualified privilege when the press cover Parliamentery proceedings - thats whats at stake here.

It doesnt matter what the current circumstance is - if we allow this precedent to be set its opening the door to all sorts of interest groups blocking the report of Parliamentary proceedings in the Press - it would be incredibly un-democratic and a step into the dark ages.

If it doesnt make you concerned then fair enough - dont complain when large organisations and interest groups decide what you can read in the press about discussions in your Parliament...

 

[Tom]

Since you just rehashed your original post hes a rehash of my original reply



If it doesnt make you concerned then fair enough - dont complain when large organisations and interest groups decide what you can read in the press about discussions in your Parliament...

Organisations decide nothing. Judges do, and as far as I'm aware they're now completely separate from parliament, and from the police. You really shouldn't make inferences where none exist.

 

[Scouse]

I don't see anything sinister about it really.

You don't see anything sinister about a gag order about illegal chemical waste dumping?

 

[Tom]

No, I don't see anything sinister about such a gag being extended to coverage of parliamentary debates. And if you read the details of the original gag order, it isn't quite as simple as is being made out.

I'm far from a supporter of such tactics, but this is being blown out of all proportion by TEH INTERNETZ

 

[Scouse]

Really? What's the viewing gallery for? And if there's a viewing gallery, where's the problem with letting the press cover it?

Either way Tom, there was a gag on the coverage of parliamentary debate when the parliamentary debate was about such "national security" issues as Barclays being a bunch of robbing corporate bastards and chemicals being dumped illegally.

Yep. There's definately something sinister there. Perhaps not what the press are moaning about - but definately something sinister...

 

[Tom]

No, there was a ban on the reporting of a particular question that related to a matter on which the newspaper concerned had already been subjugated.

I simply don't see what is 'sinister' about this. Its just a newspaper whinging because it isn't allowed to circumvent the law as easily as it would like. If you really have a problem with this, then protest against the original ban (or gag), but not against this.

As for the viewing gallery, well courtrooms have similar galleries. Try taking a photograph, or drawing the proceedings with a pencil, or recording the sound. You'll be in jail pretty quickly.

 

[Chilly]

Never heard of a D-notice? the MOD can compel any reporting of anything it damn well pleases ne censored, assuming it can justify itself to parliament at the end of the day.

 

[rynnor]

Never heard of a D-notice? the MOD can compel any reporting of anything it damn well pleases ne censored, assuming it can justify itself to parliament at the end of the day.

Sure - thats a different arguement though - theres absolutely 0 to do with National Security in this matter.

We are talking about Lawyers going to a duty Judge (whos unlikely to be very senior or he wouldnt be on nights) late at night and persuading him to issue a stupid injunction which is against the public interest (the original injunction).

Later a question regarding the same client comes up in Parliament so they again approach a duty judge in the middle of the night who makes an even more stupid injunction against publishing details of Parliamentary proceedings.

Seems pretty worrying to me?

 

[Tom]

Why was the injunction stupid, and why were both judge's decisions stupid?

 

[Tilda]

Chilly, its not that draconian, its a voluntary code that editors adhere to, they're called DA-notices now, and if an editor chooses to breach the standing DA-notices, theres nothing the MOD can do.
Although obviously if the gov feels strongly enough about it, it can always go to court and try and get an injunction.

 

[Tilda]

Sure - thats a different arguement though - theres absolutely 0 to do with National Security in this matter.

We are talking about Lawyers going to a duty Judge (whos unlikely to be very senior or he wouldnt be on nights) late at night and persuading him to issue a stupid injunction which is against the public interest (the original injunction).

Later a question regarding the same client comes up in Parliament so they again approach a duty judge in the middle of the night who makes an even more stupid injunction against publishing details of Parliamentary proceedings.

Seems pretty worrying to me?

rynnor, both injunctions are likely to be short term, any injunct issued at night are meant to be a "placeholder" type injuct granted until a full hearing can be held. Given theres this background of a previous injuction existing (I havent read either) I'm not sure its as simple as "Evil hitler judge prohibits parlimenary reporting, zomg!!1"

 

[Scouse]

Why was the injunction stupid, and why were both judge's decisions stupid?

Because if they can talk about it in Parliament then we can fucking well hear it.

BTW, I'd better state that "national security" doesn't wash with me

 

[Tom]

Quite correct, and if you want to hear it, you know where the Palace of Westminster is.

 

[Ch3tan]

The Daily Mash - CARTER RUCK TO SUE EVERYONE

 

[rynnor]

Why was the injunction stupid, and why were both judge's decisions stupid?

The original injunction was to hush up the Minton report - this was a wrong decision because it was in the public interest to know that a british company had been dumping toxic slops on the Ivory Coast. I dont know how any competant judge could have sided with the polluter in this case.

The second injunction was stupid because it A: Ignored the Bill of Rights and Qualified Privilege in something that clearly had a Public Interest element and B: was founded on the original flawed injunction.

 

[Tom]

Indeed you don't know how 'any competent judge could have sided with the polluter in this case', because you don't have full access to the facts, which presumably the judge did.

Your second point is just gibberish. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone the right to report on anything they choose, and qualified privilege was not even slightly affected by this injunction in any sense whatsoever. You then go on to say the original injunction was flawed, when you have not the slightest idea of the legal arguments that surrounded it.

In short, you're talking bollocks. Again.

 

[rynnor]

Indeed you don't know how 'any competent judge could have sided with the polluter in this case', because you don't have full access to the facts, which presumably the judge did.

Most of its in the public domain if you care to look for it - the injunction was to supress that report - its clear from reading the report that Public Interest should have been a good defense in these circumstances but I forgot your a top barrister who's opinion is obviously more weighty than mine

Your second point is just gibberish. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant anyone the right to report on anything they choose, and qualified privilege was not even slightly affected by this injunction in any sense whatsoever. You then go on to say the original injunction was flawed, when you have not the slightest idea of the legal arguments that surrounded it.

The Bill of Rights established 'Freedom of Speech' in Parliament - from this grew the qualified privilege of newspapers to report Parliamentary Proceedings when its in the Public Interest.

If you can take out an injunction that prevents the publishing of Parliamentary proceedings that are in the Public Interest then Qualified Privilege itself is under threat.

I'm sorry I cant dumb it down any lower than that for you.

In short, you're talking bollocks. Again.

Lucky for me I think your an angry idiot

 

[MYstIC G]

Never heard of a D-notice? the MOD can compel any reporting of anything it damn well pleases ne censored, assuming it can justify itself to parliament at the end of the day.

What the thing that's now a DA-Notice and isn't binding?