Guardian prevented from reporting Parliamentary Question

[newbie]

which point? the shooting the messenger one or something else?

 

[Prefade]

Never mind all that, where is the Parliamentary Privilege question about Andrew Marr's sexual pecadilloes (also the subject of a super-injunction for no good reason)?

 

[Maurice Picarda]

which point? the shooting the messenger one or something else?

The one about an Observer hack - who still writes regularly for the Guardian, as an MP - using Parliamentary privilege to pursue his employer's interests.

It's a minor point, but it makes a difference. The issues at stake would be more clear cut if a disinterested MP had asked the question.

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

Back in September, The Guardian collaborated with BBC's Newsnight in uncovering the truth about Trafigura (the world's third largest oil company) dumping toxic waste and covering it up. The company coincidentally seemed to employ similar tactics to what's happening right now:

"Most concerned had received legal threats from Trafigura, which had reduced mainstream media coverage elsewhere to little more than a whisper."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/21/journalists-collaborate-trafigura-scoop

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/paulfarrelly

I'm not sure that getting your hacks elected to Parliament to ask questions on your behalf is fair game. It smacks of Ian Greer and Neil Hamilton.

The one about an Observer hack - who still writes regularly for the Guardian, as an MP - using Parliamentary privilege to pursue his employer's interests.

It's a minor point, but it makes a difference. The issues at stake would be more clear cut if a disinterested MP had asked the question.

I can't remember the ins and outs of the Ian Greer lobbyist furore, so forgive me for being sketchy on that point.

However, I really think you're wrong to be comparing Paul Farrelly, who seems to be pursuing a journalist agenda under cover of parliamentary privilege, with Neil Hamilton, who was taking 'cash for questions' in brown envelopes from Al Fayed's assistants.

While the former might be seen to be a bit of an abuse of parliamentary privilege, there's surely an argument that it's for the greater good, that this 'wrong' is being done in order to publicise and bring to public attention a much, much greater wrong?

Whereas the latter was a case of a corrupt MP who charged money to ask questions in parliament, money which he then kept.

There's a massive difference between a corrupt MP behaving in a corrupt fashion for personal gain, and an MP who also happens to be a journalist who is (ab)using parliamentary privilege to force into the public domain important information about a story of corporate wrongdoing that has led, by all accounts, to deaths and illness caused by toxic waste in an impoverished population in West Africa.

Surely, you can see the difference?

This doesn't smack of Neil Hamilton at all. Not in the slightest bit. It's not in the same ballpark, not in the same league. At all.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

And now the story accounts for four of the top six trends on Twitter, Trafigura has been well and truly Carter-Fucked!

 

[Brainaddict]

Christ, if they see it as such an important point of principle, can't the guardian grow some balls, publish anyway, then fight it out in court afterwards when they get fined or whatever?

 

[perplexis]

Trafigura are getting a righteous battering out of this. Brilliant.

 

[likesfish]

http://order-order.com/

weathers nice in charleston

 

[Brainaddict]

The Minton report on wikileaks:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_re...Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations,_14_Sep_2006

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

http://order-order.com/

weathers nice in charleston

Thing is, I can imagine the lawyer's are chomping at the bit to fly over there, business class, like, have a bit of a jolly and then charge it to the client!

 

[Brainaddict]

And while we're at it, the leaked Barclays memos:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Barclays_...emos_detailing_offshore_tax_scam,_16_Mar_2009

 

[editor]

And now the story accounts for four of the top six trends on Twitter, Trafigura has been well and truly Carter-Fucked!

It's suffered the 'Barbara Streisand' effect!

 

[TitanSound]

After reading the wikileaks article it seems like Barclays should be nailed for what they have done.

It seems to me that even though there has been an injunction against reporting it, nothing will actually be done about it anyway. After all it was posted on the 17 of March ffs.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What a terrific bit of covering up this wasn't

 

[Maurice Picarda]

I can't remember the ins and outs of the Ian Greer lobbyist furore, so forgive me for being sketchy on that point.

However, I really think you're wrong to be comparing Paul Farrelly, who seems to be pursuing a journalist agenda under cover of parliamentary privilege, with Neil Hamilton, who was taking 'cash for questions' in brown envelopes from Al Fayad's assistants.

While the former might be seen to be a bit of an abuse of parliamentary privilege, there's surely an argument that it's for the greater good, that this 'wrong' is being done in order to publicise and bring to public attention a much, much greater wrong?

Whereas the latter was a case of a corrupt MP who charged money to ask questions in parliament, money which he then kept.

There's a massive difference between a corrupt MP behaving in a corrupt fashion for personal gain, and an MP who also happens to be a journalist who is (ab)using parliamentary privilege to force into the public domain important information about a story of corporate wrongdoing that has led, by all accounts, to deaths and illness caused by toxic waste in an impoverished population in West Africa.

Surely, you can see the difference?

This doesn't smack of Neil Hamilton at all. Not in the slightest bit. It's not in the same ballpark, not in the same league. At all.

Perhaps the comparison was excessive. The blurring of interests makes the question of privileged reporting a little murkier, that's all.

 

[newbie]

The one about an Observer hack - who still writes regularly for the Guardian, as an MP - using Parliamentary privilege to pursue his employer's interests.

It's a minor point, but it makes a difference. The issues at stake would be more clear cut if a disinterested MP had asked the question.

good point, well made. He worked for the Observer for a couiple of years before becoming an MP over a decade ago. he writes for money.

You did notice the reference in the Guardian article that kicked this off to John Wilkes didn't you? The symbiosis between constitutional parliamentary privelege and journalism is pretty fundamental, all things considered.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Christ, if they see it as such an important point of principle, can't the guardian grow some balls, publish anyway, then fight it out in court afterwards when they get fined or whatever?

They might feel that this is the best way to play it to cause the maximum fuss. I reckon it probably is at that. Look at the title of this thread, it's about an attempted cover up and because of that everyone's been doing loads of digging to figure out what's been going on. If the actual issue as it is had just been reported normally, nobody would have given a fuck. You know, like they never do. Even stuff like Shell having people killed* barely merits an 'and finally...' on the news these days

*Allegedly. I'm sure those millions in compensation were in fact paid as a gesture of goodwill rather than any fear of being found guilty

 

[Brainaddict]

They might feel that this is the best way to play it to cause the maximum fuss.

Yeah, maybe. And maybe they're just chickenshits

They could have got just as much publicity by deliberately ignoring a gagging order I reckon - and made themselves look like a paper worth buying in the process.

 

[big eejit]

Guardian seeks court appearance this afternoon to challenge gag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-court-parliament-reporting-gag

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Guardian seeks court appearance this afternoon to challenge gag:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-court-parliament-reporting-gag

And I suppose it won't do their case any harm the fact that the information is out in the public domain now, in fact it might even help their case.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

It's suffered the 'Barbara Streisand' effect!

Yeah, in some of the re-tweets the tags were #Trafigura #CarterRuck #BarbraStreisand

 

[big eejit]

It's quite an interesting ass-kicking for the libel lawyers. Who do you sue when there are 1000s of twittering individuals rather than a few 'responsible' publishers?

Carter-Ruck have choked on their own gagging order. I'd be having words if I was their client.

 

[big eejit]

Guardian now confirming Paul Farrelly etc story...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

 

[Limejuice]

Internet 1 - 0 Anti-constitutional, self-serving, legal tossers, etc.

 

[laptop]

They might feel that this is the best way to play it to cause the maximum fuss.

And it's all going quite nicely, as a developing story


E2A: you'd almost think that Carter-Fuck were in the game of getting their client maximum publicity. Trying to overturn the 1688 Bill of Rights through a mid-evening injunction... no, no-one will notice that. Neither journalists nor MPs will get worked up. Honest.

 

[laptop]

private eye carried a story very similar in the latest edition about shackling the press under very dubious circumstances.

The timing shows that that's a different injunction: the Eye couldn't have known about the Guardian gag when it went to press.

Wonder what it was?

E2A: Ah, it seems to have been the injunction Farrelly was asking about, granted on 11 September.

 

[laptop]

Farelly is digging in for a campaign:

62 Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years.
(293012)

63 Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what mechanisms HM Court Service uses to draw up rosters of duty judges for the purpose of considering time of the essence applications for the issuing of injunctions by the High Court.

 

[editor]

The gagging order has been lifted.

The existence of a previously secret injunction against the media by oil traders Trafigura can now be revealed.

Within the past hour Trafigura's legal firm, Carter-Ruck, has withdrawn its opposition to the Guardian reporting proceedings in parliament that revealed its existence.

Labour MP Paul Farrelly put down a question yesterday to the justice secretary, Jack Straw. It asked about the injunction obtained by "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".

The Guardian was due to appear at the High Court at 2pm to challenge Carter-Ruck's behaviour, but the firm has dropped its claim that to report parliament would be in contempt of court....

(full text follows)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question

Win!

 

[Fuchs66]

As a sideline, I know a couple of people who were involved in the initial analytical work (ie before the French turned up with their field labs) in the Ivory Coast.

Abstract below:

http://www.r-haas.de/psabj.html