News Bill of Rights pissed on by Judge!

[Tom]

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

So if its in the public domain, why not present the judge's remarks and his reasoning behind the granting of the injunction?

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.




Lucky for me I think your an angry idiot

Once again, you're talking bollocks. Qualified Privilege is the right granted to a member of parliament to make statements that would otherwise be considered slanderous or libellous (but it doesn't extend as far as criminal law). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of people or organisations outside parliament to report on such statements.

The injunction would not have prevented the member of parliament from asking the question. I really don't know how I could make this any clearer to you.

 

[Bahumat]

The Daily Mash - CARTER RUCK TO SUE EVERYONE

haha

The injunctions will be posted later this week, although the firm have also threatened to sue every postman in Britain if strike action affects their delivery.

 

[rynnor]

So if its in the public domain, why not present the judge's remarks and his reasoning behind the granting of the injunction?

You said we didnt have access to the facts of the case - I said its in the public domain. If you had access to the expensive case law search databases you might find something.

Once again, you're talking bollocks. Qualified Privilege is the right granted to a member of parliament to make statements that would otherwise be considered slanderous or libellous (but it doesn't extend as far as criminal law). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ability of people or organisations outside parliament to report on such statements.

Seriously you must stop embarassing yourself by displaying your ignorance - I know kids who could tell you that Parliamentary Proceedings are covered by Absolute Privilege - really its getting sad now

 

[Krazeh]

Seriously you must stop embarassing yourself by displaying your ignorance - I know kids who could tell you that Parliamentary Proceedings are covered by Absolute Privilege - really its getting sad now

While that may be the case I fail to see how it changes the fact that, as i understand it, qualified privilege doesn't give a newspaper the right to freely report on anything it chooses and instead merely protects them from slander/libel action in certain situations.

 

[Tom]

You said we didnt have access to the facts of the case - I said its in the public domain. If you had access to the expensive case law search databases you might find something.

So presumably you have access? Why not then just post it here. Or is your opinion on the injunction just that - an opinion? Worse still, an opinion based upon ignorance?

Seriously you must stop embarassing yourself by displaying your ignorance - I know kids who could tell you that Parliamentary Proceedings are covered by Absolute Privilege - really its getting sad now

Why don't you tell us how any of the privileges you mention relate to the publication by people who are not members of parliament, of those comments made? Come on, you have all the answers. Start typing them. Or are you simply trolling now?

 

[rynnor]

While that may be the case I fail to see how it changes the fact that, as i understand it, qualified privilege doesn't give a newspaper the right to freely report on anything it chooses and instead merely protects them from slander/libel action in certain situations.

Yes - Publishers of Parliamentary Proceedings enjoy qualified privilege in that they have a defence to Libel actions if they Publish in the Public Interest (lots of alliteration there - that sentence is not suitable for denture wearers).

In this case they extended the original injunction which was to prevent the publication of the Minten Report - for some reason best known to himself the judge held that because the report must have been leaked as part of breaching a staff confidentiality agreement that this was a fit reason to serve the injunction.

He seems to have discarded the Public Interest angle which is frankly astounding - I would urge you to read (at least part) of the report which details how a mixture of toxic chemicals ended up dumped on a public waste dump in the Ivory Coast which is alleged to have caused many injuries/deaths - theres some vid of a horribly burnt woman on the Guardian site if you want more info.

The fact that it was a British firm behind all this I would have thought it would surely qualify as in the Public Interest to know about the companies activities.

 

[Raven]

Who cares, it all got out anyway.

The internets, sticking it to the man!

 

[rynnor]

Who cares, it all got out anyway.

The internets, sticking it to the man!

Yeah - thats the funny thing about gagging the press in the age of the internet - hopefully this episode will make others considering similar injunctions back off

 

[Krazeh]

Yes - Publishers of Parliamentary Proceedings enjoy qualified privilege in that they have a defence to Libel actions if they Publish in the Public Interest (lots of alliteration there - that sentence is not suitable for denture wearers).

In this case they extended the original injunction which was to prevent the publication of the Minten Report - for some reason best known to himself the judge held that because the report must have been leaked as part of breaching a staff confidentiality agreement that this was a fit reason to serve the injunction.

He seems to have discarded the Public Interest angle which is frankly astounding - I would urge you to read (at least part) of the report which details how a mixture of toxic chemicals ended up dumped on a public waste dump in the Ivory Coast which is alleged to have caused many injuries/deaths - theres some vid of a horribly burnt woman on the Guardian site if you want more info.

The fact that it was a British firm behind all this I would have thought it would surely qualify as in the Public Interest to know about the companies activities.

I get all that, but what has the injunction got to do with 'threatening' the concept of Qualified Privilege? Whether or not the injunction should have been given in the first place has sod all to do with defending against libel action.

 

[rynnor]

I get all that, but what has the injunction got to do with 'threatening' the concept of Qualified Privilege? Whether or not the injunction should have been given in the first place has sod all to do with defending against libel action.

They both come down to Public Interest - when considering the original injunction and again when the injunction was extended the judge had opportunities to stop on the grounds of Public Interest.

I'm interested to hear your opinion - do you think there was a Public Interest case here or not?

 

[Krazeh]

They both come down to Public Interest - when considering the original injunction and again when the injunction was extended the judge had opportunities to stop on the grounds of Public Interest.

It seems that your clutching at straws to link the two when in fact the injunction has got nothing to do with Qualified Privilege and has no impact whatsoever on it's use by the Press.

I'm interested to hear your opinion - do you think there was a Public Interest case here or not?

There may be a case for arguing the Public Interest is sufficiently high to allow publication but I don't have all the facts of the case so am not in a position to say one way or another. And unless you have access to all the information and materials used by the Judge during his deliberations, or indeed his knowledge and experience, then I doubt you are in any better of a position to make statements about the validity of the injuction.

 

[rynnor]

It seems that your clutching at straws to link the two when in fact the injunction has got nothing to do with Qualified Privilege and has no impact whatsoever on it's use by the Press.

It does really since what value does Qualified Privilege actually have if you can obtain an Injunction to prevent the publication of Parliamentary Proceedings?

If you cant Publish in the first place Qualified Privilege is useless and completely undermined.

As to the rest thats a very orthodox legal standpoint

I'm asking you to make a judgement based on the facts I linked earlier in the thread since obviously by your arguement the only person who could completely match the judge would be the judge himself which renders it a bit of a moot arguement.

 

[Krazeh]

It does really since what value does Qualified Privilege actually have if you can obtain an Injunction to prevent the publication of Parliamentary Proceedings?

If you cant Publish in the first place Qualified Privilege is useless and completely undermined.

I imagine it would have the value of continuing to protect the Press against libel/slander action for anything else they may print. Just because they are prevented from reporting on one particular issue doesn't undermine the concept of Qualified Privilege or amount to an attack on it.

The injuction and Qualified Privilege are two very separate issues which you have somehow decided must go hand in hand when in reality they don't. The fact that you cannot print something has nothing to do with you being able to claim a defence against libel/slander action if you were allowed to print the information in question.

I'm asking you to make a judgement based on the facts I linked earlier in the thread since obviously by your arguement the only person who could completely match the judge would be the judge himself which renders it a bit of a moot arguement.

No, by my argument the only person who could match the Judge would be someone else with the same sort of knowlege and experience, say for example another Judge, and who had access to all the materials the original Judge had when making his decision. As I understand it this would be what is known as an appeal, whereby an aggrieved party can ask for another Judge to review a previous Judge's decision. Given your various comments about legal issues I would have expected you to have known about this process.

 

[rynnor]

I imagine it would have the value of continuing to protect the Press against libel/slander action for anything else they may print. Just because they are prevented from reporting on one particular issue doesn't undermine the concept of Qualified Privilege or amount to an attack on it.

The injuction and Qualified Privilege are two very separate issues which you have somehow decided must go hand in hand when in reality they don't. The fact that you cannot print something has nothing to do with you being able to claim a defence against libel/slander action if you were allowed to print the information in question.

I think the answer to that is in your own statement - if the press cannot Publish due to an Injunction then Qualified Privilege has been undermined. I find it odd that you would say oh but its only in one situation when you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that this sets a precedant that others will follow.

When have we had an injunction before for something thats not National Security that restricts the Publication of Parliamentary proceedings.

No, by my argument the only person who could match the Judge would be someone else with the same sort of knowlege and experience, say for example another Judge, and who had access to all the materials the original Judge had when making his decision. As I understand it this would be what is known as an appeal, whereby an aggrieved party can ask for another Judge to review a previous Judge's decision. Given your various comments about legal issues I would have expected you to have known about this process.

I think you are confusing a discussion forum with a court of law (I know - its an easy mistake to make ).

If you are seriously suggesting that no-one outside of a court should comment on a case that could have wide ranging implications then thats a little sad.

Additionally if such is your feeling I'm confused as to why you are here in this thread?

 

[Sparx]

i'd be happy if they just done away with all newspapers. They are poison

 

[Tom]

You'd think so, but they're remarkably cleaner and more accountable now than they ever were.

 

[Krazeh]

I think the answer to that is in your own statement - if the press cannot Publish due to an Injunction then Qualified Privilege has been undermined. I find it odd that you would say oh but its only in one situation when you seem to be completely ignoring the fact that this sets a precedant that others will follow.

When have we had an injunction before for something thats not National Security that restricts the Publication of Parliamentary proceedings.

So let me get this right, your argument is that the press should be able to publish what it likes on the grounds that it has a potential defence of Qualified Privilege if someone decides to take libel/slander action? If the injuction was given solely because the information in question was libellous/slanderous then you might have had a point but if it was for any other reason then the matter of Qualified Privilege doesn't even come up as an issue.

I think you are confusing a discussion forum with a court of law (I know - its an easy mistake to make ).

If you are seriously suggesting that no-one outside of a court should comment on a case that could have wide ranging implications then thats a little sad.

Additionally if such is your feeling I'm confused as to why you are here in this thread?

And I think you are confusing your opinion with facts. I'm all for discussing issues but you have put forward a number of claims as fact when they are simply your own opinion and are no more factual than anyone else's views on these matters.

 

[rynnor]

So let me get this right, your argument is that the press should be able to publish what it likes on the grounds that it has a potential defence of Qualified Privilege if someone decides to take libel/slander action? If the injuction was given solely because the information in question was libellous/slanderous then you might have had a point but if it was for any other reason then the matter of Qualified Privilege doesn't even come up as an issue.

Theres a Libel action at the heart of this I believe - I would like to submit that renowned legal gazette - 'Private Eye' in my defence your honour

And I think you are confusing your opinion with facts. I'm all for discussing issues but you have put forward a number of claims as fact when they are simply your own opinion and are no more factual than anyone else's views on these matters.

Please ellucidate on these claims? The only facts I have put forward have been those widely reported - the rest is my own opinion - I dont have anyone elses to put forward

 

[Scouse]

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

That's not a practical solution Tom.

And if it's not practical, it's not a solution. Therefore it's a load of shit

 

[Embattle]

Quick lads put on the tin foil hats.

 

[rynnor]

Quick lads put on the tin foil hats.

Why is a NSA Spysat passing overhead?

 

[Scouse]

Quick lads put on the tin foil hats.

That's probably what the Germans said when the Jews were complaining that they didn't want to hand over their gold teeth.

(In fact, the Germans were right behind their government...)

 

[rynnor]

Luckily some people realised its significance:

BBC NEWS | Politics | PM asked to act on gagging orders

 

[Sparx]

You'd think so, but they're remarkably cleaner and more accountable now than they ever were.

i can imagine it was alot worse in ye olde times
i feel rags like mail and the sun etc cause more harm than good

 

[Scouse]

Luckily some people realised its significance:

BBC NEWS | Politics | PM asked to act on gagging orders

What you'll find on the BBC is that no mention is made of the specific details and, more importantly, NO mention is made of Barclays...


...Barclays are obviously the people to bank with, as they're immune from bad press.

 

[Tom]

Luckily some people realised its significance:

BBC NEWS | Politics | PM asked to act on gagging orders

Ah, this would be a question to the same government that proposed laws holding people without charge for 48 days. Detention where the suspect isn't even told what he's suspected of. A government that wants to abolish double jeopardy. A government that makes policy announcements to the press, before the house of commons.

Ok. I can feel the respect from here.

 

[rynnor]

Ah, this would be a question to the same government that proposed laws holding people without charge for 48 days. Detention where the suspect isn't even told what he's suspected of. A government that wants to abolish double jeopardy. A government that makes policy announcements to the press, before the house of commons.

Ok. I can feel the respect from here.

I meant the Conservatives and to be fair even the Lib Dem leader voiced concerns over the case - Brown is just reacting - pretty much the story of his Premiership

 

[Embattle]

That's probably what the Germans said when the Jews were complaining that they didn't want to hand over their gold teeth.

(In fact, the Germans were right behind their government...)

Nice try at using the worst comparison you could think of but rather than bolstering your view it kind of weakens it just from being rather stupid...C'est la vie.