This is a real report:
The Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.
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.
This is staggering. It demonstrates to what degree one judge — Mr Justice Eady is, as the Time puts it:
Almost single-handedly … creating new privacy law
The man is out of control. legal firms like Carter Ruck are running amok as a result. And consequentially a question on Parliament’s order paper cannot be reported in the Guardian. The question can be found here.
The time has come for a basic human right — that of freedom of speech — to be reasserted. If Labour has a last gasp left to it then I say use it to reform libel law. The Tories never will.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] for the writs to fly: I wonder if the Tories are talking to Carter Ruck right now and I’m sure that firm will be only […]
Quite right, Richard.
> The man is out of control.
Hear, hear!
This is an outrage!
Do I understand this to mean that you will no longer delete comments with which you disagree?
Alex
Of course not
The freedom to report is not the same as saying an editor has no discretion about what is produced
That’s my right – and you’re usually subject to it – including your holocaust revisionist apology of this morning
To suggest that freedom of speech is the same as the right for you to say whatever you want here suggests you are in possession of a remarkably small intellectual analytical capacity
Freedom of speech means you can say what you like on your own blog
Richard
its a straight fight between parliament and this judge – hmmm, who is going to win that one? The guardian is but one reporter – there are lots more, as your links show.
Alex
There is another issue of course – the fact that you post under a false name
Why do I have to give rights to someone who cannot admit to who they are?
Richard
Except of course that my post this morning, which you deleted, was not a denial of the Holocaust, but simply a link to the posting by the editor of the Jewish Chronicle who wrote “David Miliband’s insult to Michal Kaminski is contemptible” (http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/david-milibands-insult-michal-kaminski-contemptible) and nothing else.
I may post anonymously, but I do so consistently, like many internet posters, and for good reason – there are many people on the internet who will twist your words and try to smear your good name. Some of us take precautions.
Alex
You do indeed do exactly what you accuse others of
You have in this comment
So please don’t bother again – you’ll be wasting your time. The opinion of someone who can’t even own up tot heir identity is not worth having
Richard