before you break out the bubbly at the notion that the Filth has been stopped from spreading its racist poison, think on. Peter Carter-Ruck and partners appear to have secured an order preventing the reporting of at least one parliamentary question, which appears to be this one:
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): 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.
Prevention of the reporting of parliament? Now I know that it is said that if you want to keep a secret you should tell it to the House of Commons on a slow Tuesday at about 7 pm, thus ensuring that no media of any kind will pick it up and that none of your colleagues, family or acquaintances will hear it. But can m'learned friends really stop Parliament being reported? And should they?
Hat-tip Guido Fawkes for apparently being the first to break the injunction and publish the question, I am happy to follow him in this, and also to Iain Dale and others for highlighting it. It's important.
Country going to the bloody bow-wows, that's what I say.
In the name of God, go.
1 comment:
S Bell on good form re expenses!
Poor man - as the female whistle blower who is ALWAYS on said 'No offence, but I am always appearing with Stuart Bell. Why can't I ever come on a programme with anyone else?' Answer is obvious.
Post a Comment