Beware the power of the super injunction

[reggie]

Some of you will be aware of the recent attempt by Carter Ruck the libel lawyers to prevent the mention of its clients Ivory Coast toxic exploits in the media and even in Parliament.

Well Carter Ruck have managed to convince Parliament that in future super injunctions do have the power to restrict the reporting of injuncted issues.

Which means some dodgy geezer can stop you hearing about something he's done even if its important enough to be mentioned in Parliament and all for the price of paying your lawyer. Nice work if you can get it

The Suburban Pirate Blog read it here

[Sue]

Carter Ruck also represent the child neglecting couple the McCanns, and have been very busy trying to shut down all discussion of the case on the internet and elsewhere :-S

[mockney piers]

Old news to all us Private Eye readers. You know what they call them don't you!

[Narnia]

Sue, if they are child neglecting then who takes them to task for it? Am curious as to how/why discussions are attempted to be closed down.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Carter Ruck also represent the child neglecting

> couple the McCanns, and have been very busy trying

> to shut down all discussion of the case on the

> internet and elsewhere :-S

[reggie]

No this is new news.

Cause after the Guardian gagging story it was considered unlawful to gag parliament.

I quote from a very recent blog.

"At the time of the disagreement, Bridget Prentice, the justice minister, said Carter-Ruck was wrong to claim super-injunctions applied to the reporting of parliamentary proceedings.

However, in a submission to the culture committee published last week, Andrew Stephenson, a senior partner at the firm, said the minister was under a ?misapprehension?.

He said that while MPs were guaranteed the right to free speech under the 1688 Bill of Rights within the House of Commons, the reporting of parliament remained subject to court orders.

The Speaker?s counsel declined to comment, but is understood to agree with Stephenson?s assessment.

So this is new and its baddddd.

[ianr]

Reggie, have you actually read the Stephenson submission http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/memo/press/ucm14302.htm that's referred to?

[PeckhamRose]

Sue - "child neglecting couple the McGanns"? You know better than to write shit nonsense like that. That couple have gone through hell and they may just be innocent. Until proven guilty (and no-one's charged them) let's allow them that courtesy, yes?

But thanks for the link, reggie, very interesting.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I think the neglect Sue's referring to the undisputed fact that they went out for dinner and left their children unattended.

[daizie]

Yes, great child-care arrangement from a doctor, weird .

[daizie]

And their friends must have thought it was a good move too .. More weirdo's .

[ratty]

Re The McAnns - OK, so if they were neglecting their child, what should their punishment be? Oh...........

[reggie]

Re Mcanns and Trafigura, lets get this in perspective. One is a couple who lost their child and nearly got done for murder and the other is a company who dumped enough waste to have to pay off an entire government and 30,000 desperate people and is still suing anyone who mentions toxic waste and deaths. And has managed to get even the mention of these acts in Hansard gagged.

[reggie]

ianr Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Reggie, have you actually read the Stephenson

> submission

> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/

> cmselect/cmcumeds/memo/press/ucm14302.htm that's

> referred to?

Thanks for this Ian. From what I can gather an injunction does prohibit the reporting of Hansard if the reporting is deemed malicious or harmful to a forthcoming court case.

Newsnight are still being sued for reporting the whole sordid tale. Which is more malicious?... suing the press over the fair reporting of a massive poisoning scandal or the attempts to report the scandal? Hmmmm

[SeanMacGabhann]

what reggie said

[????]

What reggie said but might be wise to add an 'alledgedly'

[SimonM]

At least now the Speaker and the Commons have had the legal position clarified they can, if they wish, tweak the super injunction legislation to thwart the likes of Carter F-uck & co...And the sooner they do, the better IMHO

[Sue]

PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue - "child neglecting couple the McGanns"? You

> know better than to write shit nonsense like that.

> That couple have gone through hell and they may

> just be innocent. Until proven guilty (and

> no-one's charged them) let's allow them that

> courtesy, yes?

>

>

xxxxxxxx

They have admitted leaving three little children under four on their own every night of their holiday, in an unlit and unfamiliar apartment. These are doctors, who of all people should know that children can choke, be sick, fall, wander, whatever - let alone be frightened.

If that isn't a "child neglecting couple" I don't know what is. I am not an unkind person, but whatever happened to their daughter, there is no doubt that it was their fault, directly or indirectly, so they bloody deserve to go through hell.

Most of the police files from the original investigation are in the public domain, but the McCanns have gone - and are still going to - great lengths to get forums discussing them closed down and books based on them banned.

Just a few points which have been barely given newspaper space in this country (why?):

Of 48 questions Kate McCann was asked by the police, the only one she would answer was the final one, which was "Do you realise that by not answering these questions you are hindering the search for your daughter?" or words to that effect, to which she replied "yes if the investigation thinks so", or words to that effect.

Two of the top dogs in the world independently found indications of blood and cadaver scent in the McCanns' apartment and on various items associated with the McCanns.

Did the McCanns express horror and concern when told of the dogs' findings? No, they tried to discredit the dogs.

Did they ask for the case to be re-opened when they could have done? No, they preferred to spend donated money on "private investigators", one lot of whom didn't even have any expertise in cases of "missing" children.

Did they and their friends return for a police reconstruction of the night of the disappearance? No, they refused to go, preferring to star in a TV "reconstruction" putting forward solely their version of events.

If you study the case, which I have, you will find that there is no evidence of an abduction, and a great many indications of something else, which taken together show a completely different possible scenario. However unless further evidence comes to light nobody is ever likely to be charged.

True, the McCanns "may just be innocent", but if they are, they have acted in a very strange way. The above is just a tiny selection of disquieting facts.

I don't think this couple deserve my courtesy frankly. They didn't show any to their daughter and her little siblings when they left them alone night after night, did they?

[reggie]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What reggie said but might be wise to add an

> 'alledgedly'

thanks quids.

In fact I can say that thousands (30,0000 have been affected cause they got a settlement out of court giving each $1000.

But what I cant say is that it was toxic waste and that people died.

[vinceayre]

My wife and I went to our Doctor some years ago to ask about any jabs needed to take our kids to Mauritius when they were young (5 and 2). We didn't but he did mention that it is quite common to give the kids antihistamine to keep them docile on the long plane journey he even mentioned sometimes people give it to kids just to quiet them down. I asked about overdosing but he said it was very difficult to do so unless used over a long period. We didn't because we were worried about accidents happening, but i guess if you know what your doing with dosages it would be ok.

[reggie]

I am very curious about the post above. A bit like Prof. Calculus wandering in. Have I missed something?

Either way I am liking it.

[Sue]

reggie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am very curious about the post above. A bit like

> Prof. Calculus wandering in. Have I missed

> something?

> Either way I am liking it.

xxxxxxx

Because ..... ??

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Maybe that's the power of the super injection.