Re: "Guardian gagged from reporting parliament"

Adrian <toomany2cvs@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7johd9F3256d5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Doug <jagmad@riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> saying:
>
> > On 15 Oct, 09:48, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <33e6d5cc-0a5f-4dcd-94ca-b116a69fe...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Doug <jag...@riseup.net> writes
> >>
> >> >Yes its rather foolish of MPs to be seen trying to censor a mainstream
> >> >newspaper, that's what editors and owners are for.
> >>
> >> It's not the MPs who were behind this!
> >>
> > "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."
>
> Correct, albeit outdated, since the injunction was lifted yesterday.
>
> But that still doesn't mean that the publication was ever forbidden by
> MPs. It was applied for by a private law firm and granted by judges. It
> wasn't lifted by MPs - or even judges - either. It was lifted by the law
> firm who originally applied for it - before the Guardian's appeal could
> be heard.
>
> God knows why the lawyers even bothered trying, it wasn't as if the
> Trafigura story was exactly new...


Perhaps its a case of all news is good news, keeping
the company name in the media.
Like BBC news yesterday carried adverts for some
product consisting of rotten milk with added bugs
that, was not allowed to be advertised on commercial
television, brilliant commercialism.

ps
What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.nutteing.boom.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]