The Guardian gagged
Tuesday, Oct 13, 2009
This, from today’s Guardian newspaper, is worth quoting quite extensively.
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.
The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.
Those of you who have followed Pressylta postings on McKennitt v Ash (for the past few millennia, it seems…) will be intrigued to find out what fresh doo-dah has been cooked up by our learned friends this time. So will I.
Three minutes later: The utter nonsense inherent in these gagging orders becomes only too obvious once you’ve entered the relevant keywords into Google… I now know everything about something I would have known nothing about, had Carter-Ruck not acted the way they did. That’ll learn’em. Or maybe not.
Later p.m.: And so the gag has been lifted: for further info follow the links Fredrik provides in the comments. There is in law, as we know, a particularly thin line between the outrageous and the ludicrous. Outfits like Carter-Ruck have made an art form out of strutting that line, while looking murderously serious at the same time. If you ever wondered what a “PR disaster” looks like, look no further.
October 13th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Later:
“Gag on Guardian reporting MP’s Trafigura question lifted”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question
October 13th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
And this is just lovely (published before the ban was lifted):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/6315133/Trafigura-tops-list-of-Twitter-trending-topics.html
“A frenzy of tweeting pushed the hashtag #trafigura to the top of the list of trending topics, before it suddenly disappeared. A spokesman for Trafigura’s PR firm said it was not aware of any legal action being taken to have the word removed by Twitter.”
October 13th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Så, alltså – du som följer dårskaperna på plats: vad trodde egentligen Trafigura skulle hända när dom släppte loss Carter-Ruck? Ska man tro vissa medieuppgifter så är det inte första gången Carter-Ruck kör “vi skiter väl i hur det går för klienten, bara vi får fakturera”-stilen. Är det CR som skenar vilt, eller hade dom och/eller Trafigura någon slags plan?
October 13th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Det är just det som är kruxet. Jag kan inte för ett ögonblick tänka mig att Trafigura instruerade CR att agera på det här viset. Här är då det viktiga ordet “instruerade”, därför att solicitors (ung. “sexköpare” på svenska) som CR agerar enbart “under instruction” från sina klienter. Rent juridiskt har alltså Trafigura instruerat CR att göra det dom gjorde, men hur “ill-advised” (av CR, alltså) Trafigura sedan var är en helt annan sak. Jag tror många fakturor just nu genomgår många versioner, för att uttrycka det försiktigt.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Carter-Ruck/Trafigura ger sig inte:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/15/carter-ruck-trafigura-parliament-injunction
“This sort of assault on democratic privileges is what you would expect to see in a banana republic.”
October 16th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Och tänk då: i det här fallet har dom ändå gett sig på en institution som kan ta för sig (hoppas man…). Det är trots allt en lite jämnare fight än när dom ger sig på privata personer, som jag fick bevittna under de sista kapitlen av rättssagan jag skrivit så mycket om. Fullkomligt hänsynslöst, inga hämningar, det pågick dag och natt, i månader. Tack och lov hade de att göra med nån som till sist var psykiskt stark nog att ta det. Men det var på håret ibland. Dom är svin.