Media ban on revealing Scap’s whereabouts….

Not sure what’s behind this, but the High Court has slapped a ban on anyone publishing material that could lead to the whereabouts of Freddie Scappaticci, the man accused of being Stakeknife, a British informer at the heart of IRA operations. In the past the British government has refused to confirm or deny whether Scappaticci was an agent for them. Though Scappaticci has strenuously denied it, with the tacit support of Sinn Fein, despite some damaging revelations on his part.

, ,

  • Miss Fitz

    Mick,

    I know you say you dont know what’s behind it, but would there be the slightest, remotest chance it had something to do with Denis Donaldson being ‘outed’ and shot within weeks?

    Just hazarding a guess here, and could be way off base….

  • Is Scap at the World Cup? If so, who is he cheering for?

  • Rory

    It doesn’t indicate who applied for the ban. Any ideas?

  • seabhac siulach

    “Is Scap at the World Cup? If so, who is he cheering for?”

    For whoever pays him the most money, I’d say…

  • matt jones

    I know scaps whereabouts he’s in our kitchen drawer! Perhaps we should ask mistic meg paisley as he’s getting messages from the dead also.

  • mickhall

    Anyone know on whose behalf the application was made to the court, did the British government make it or Scap himself, are their any more details available on this, for example was it a temporary injunction until there is a full hearing?

  • Brenda

    I suspect this is because scap is living in N Ireland again, due to the press revelations he was seen in portrush.

  • Ingram

    Hi,

    Quote” Michael Lavery Among the information banned from publication by the order was:
    any proposed new name for Scappaticci;

    This order is designed to protect the new package( New ID) given to him by the HMG. It will not work because his family still remain in NI and are a very weak link. The Newspapers know this. Thank God for the Internet.LOL

    Freddy could of course sue the papers and me the author of Stake Knife the book. he will not because he knows what I have and what he has admitted in legal papers. It would be Christmas comes early. Today the BIRW had to write once more to the Police who are continuing to protect this killer.Some practices are very hard for the police to change it seems.

    Today Martin and the two Gerrys are very quiet on this subject, Peter Hain is also very quiet, the making of another Tag team maybe .LOL

    Martin.

    The Sinn Fein tag team seem to be quiet.LOL sorry Mick.

  • mickhall

    thanks ‘martin’ very interesting, I am willing to concede that you are entitled on this to, as you say LOL 😉

  • Ingram

    Thanks Mick.

    Martin

  • I saw the UTV report on this last night, and unless I’m mistaken, the film they used of Scappaticci was from the press conference he gave AFTER he was outed. The injunction on the media not using images of Scap applies from the date of his outing, which would appear to place it in breach of the injunction. Right? What pics did the BBC use? Or am I missing something?

  • Ingram

    Gonzo.

    quote”breach of the injunction

    Whatever could you mean. LOL

  • GrassyNoel

    Well after what happened to Donaldson, it would nearly be crueler to leave him sweating it out for the rest of his life, constantly looking over his shoulder and unable to sleep at night, until he finally drops dead of a heart attack from the stress of it all…speaking of which, I missed the first 40 minutes of The Sopranos last night. Who bumped off Vito in the end?

  • nmc

    Phil Loeotardo. He shoved a pool cue up his ass. Very rough.

  • TAFKABO

    Thanks for spoiling the Sopranos for me, you fuckers.
    I have been trying to avoid the series until I could grab it on DVD.

  • mickhall

    grassy
    vito, is that the gay gangster who legged it up state, if so his wife’s uncle did the deed and tony is not to happy. In truth I feel this series has run its coarse, i have watched the latest series that has just ended in the US and they seem to be re-inventing old story lines with different faces.

    when one of tonys bunch turned out to be gay i thought great, a bit of realism, something new which has real possibility, but no. it seems in the minds of the writers of this show working class italians who happen to be gay are an aberration. Plus any self respecting cut throat gangster would be shocked and horrified that one of their number might turn out to be gay. [who does that remind me of.]

  • Ingram

    Mick,

    quote”Plus any self respecting cut throat gangster would be shocked and horrified that one of their number might turn out to be gay. [who does that remind me of.]

    Very brave of you mate, Slab does not like this gay talk. LOL

  • Ingram

    Hi,

    This is the court order.

    [4 pages.]

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
    CHANCERY DIVISION

    BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE WEIR

    on Thursday the 29th day of June 2006

    Between

    FREDDIE SCAPPATICCI

    Plaintiff

    and

    MGN LIMITED
    INDEPENDENT NEWS & MEDIA LIMITED

    Defendants

    ORDER FOR AN INJUNCTION

    IMPORTANT:-

    NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT

    (1) This Order [prohibits you from doing] [obliges you to do] the acts set out in this Order. [You should read it all carefully. You are advised to consult a Solicitor as soon as possible.] You have a right to ask the Court to vary or discharge this Order.

    (2) If you disobey this Order you may be found guilty of Contempt of Court and [any of your directors] may be sent to prison or fined [and you may be fined] and your assets may be seized.

    UPON hearing counsel for the Plaintiff,

    AND UPON reading the Plaintiff’s affidavit and exhibits,

    AND UPON the Plaintiff by his counsel accepting the undertakings set out at paragraph 5 of this Order,

    IT IS ORDERED that until further Order of the Court:

    1. An injunction is hereby granted restraining the Defendants and any person with notice of this Order (whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise however or in the case of a company whether by its directors or officers or servants or agents or otherwise howsoever) from:

    (i) publishing or causing to be published in any newspaper or broadcasting in any sound or television broadcast or by means of any cable or satellite programme service or public computer network:
    a) Any proposed new name of the Plaintiff
    b) the address or any details which could lead to information about the whereabouts, care or treatment of him until further Order

    c) any depiction or painting or drawing or photograph or film made or taken of the Plaintiff after 11th May 2003

    d) any depiction or painting or drawing or photograph or film whenever made or taken of any place or premises where the Plaintiff attends or is kept which links that place or premises with the presence of the Plaintiff

    e) any description or location of the accommodation or nature of the premises in which the Plaintiff resides;

    f) the nature of and location of the Plaintiff’s employment.

    (ii) Soliciting any information in paragraph 1 at any time from any person

    (iii) Soliciting any information or material in relation to the care or treatment of the Plaintiff from any person or directly approaching the Plaintiff.

    (iv) Publishing the name of any doctor who has treated or prepared a report concerning the Plaintiff or any material contained in any such report.

    PROVIDED THAT nothing in this Order shall of itself prevent any person

    (i) Publishing any particulars of information relating to any part of the proceedings before any court other than a court sitting in private
    (ii) Publishing any information lawfully in the public domain

    (iii) Soliciting information in the course of or for the purpose of the exercise by the person soliciting such information of any duty or function authorised by statute or by any court of competent jurisdiction

    PARAGRAPH (1) ABOVE SHALL APPLY SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING PROVISO in relation to any internet service provider (“ISP”), its employees and agents:

    (a) An ISP shall not be in breach of this injunction unless it, or any of its employees or agents:
    (i) knew that the material had been placed on its servers or could be accessed via its service; or
    (ii) knew that the material was to be placed on its servers, or was likely to be placed on its servers or was likely to be accessed by its service; and in either case

    (iii) failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication;

    (b) An employee or agent of an ISP shall not be in breach of the injunction unless he or it;

    (i) knew that the material had been placed on its servers or could be accessed via its service; or
    (ii) knew that material was to be placed on its servers, or was likely to be placed on its servers or was likely to be accessed via its service; and in either case

    (iii) failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the publication and to induce the ISP to prevent the publication;

    ( c) An ISP, employee or agent shall be considered to know anything which he or it would have known if he or it had taken reasonable steps to find out;

    (d) “Taking all reasonable steps to prevent the publication” includes the taking of all reasonable steps to remove the material from the ISP’s servers or to block access to the material.

    2. Proviso (ii) to paragraph 1 of this Order shall not apply so as to permit the publication of material failing within paragraphs 1 (1) (a) to (f) of this Order merely on the ground that such material has at any time been published on the internet and/or outside the United Kingdom.

    3. Copies of this Order endorsed with a penal notice be served by the Plaintiff’s solicitors on:

    to be continued.

  • Ingram

    (a) Such newspapers and sound or television broadcasting or cable or satellite programme services and public computer networks as they may think fit, in the case of a public computer network, by email and in other case by facsimile transmission to the Editor in the case of a newspaper or Senior News Editor in the case of a broadcasting or cable or satellite programme service, or person responsible for any public computer network in the case of that network; and
    (b) On such other persons as the Plaintiff’s solicitors may think fit in each case by personal service.

    4. Any person affected by the injunction set out at paragraph 1 above is at liberty to apply on seven days notice in writing to all parties.

    5. The Plaintiff gives an undertaking to damages in respect of loss and damage sustained by the Defendants as a result of this Order.

    6. There shall be no Order as to costs of these proceedings, save that the Plaintiff’s costs of this application shall be taxed as those of an assisted person.

    Proper Officer

    Time Occupied: 29 June 2006 1 hour 10 mins

    All communications to the Court about this Order should be sent to Room 1-19A, Royal Courts of Justice, Chichester Street, Belfast, BT1 3JF quoting the case number. The Office is open between 10.00 am and 4.30 pm Monday to Friday. The telephone number is 028 90724665.

    Filed Date 30 June 2006

    To all those who doubted me back then 2003 LOL told ya so.

    Marty

  • heck

    was’nt there some idiot on this site who said he was proud to be British because it had a free press!!!!

    I am hope the lap dog media in the free state realize that this order does not apply to them. I know it cann’t apply to newspapers, broadcasters and WEBSITES in the US.

  • Ingram

    Heck,

    This injunction was actually the one served on a US site. If they have dealings or business in the UK the authorities can and will move against them. All to defend a mass killer.

    Martin

  • heck

    I hear what you are saying MI and it is frightening that Honest Tony’s government can curtail press freedom outside Britain.

    In 1971 in “New York Times v. the United States” (the pentagon papers case) the us Supreme Court said that the US government could not exercise prior restraint on the press. If a foreign government can do it then shame on the US media.

    When Sammy Grivano(sp?) went into the witness protection program in the US the local Arizona press published his location and his identity without fear when it found out he was living in their area.

    However I also remember CNN being blacked out all over Europe when Larry King interviewed Gerry Adams and Mrs. Thatcher had banned him from the media.

    If you know scaps new identity send it to a US only web site and publish a link on yours and strike a blow for press freedom.

    And as I said shame on the idiot who said he was proud to be British because it had a free press.

  • friendlyCreggan

    Ingram

    I have just spent the last hour or so reading the various links

    You really are ‘up the creek without a paddle’ aren’t you?

    Happy Days

    Now that you can no longer be recognised as a ‘Journalist’ (note the capital J you always use) what’s your next move? 🙂

    Strawgrasper?

    FC

  • cleanhands

    Every once in a while we should remind ourselves that ‘Ingram’ was personally involved in murder and covering up the murders of others.

    ‘Ingram’ personally was paid to run people involved in killing us and probably worse.

    How about a story on that ‘Marty’?

    You despicable man.

    How many deaths did you have a hand in?

    I have no blood on my hands. How many did you let die or participate in killing?

    and you feckin’ lecture us. Scumbag.

  • GrassyNoel

    Frank Vincent (actor who plays Phil Leotardo) does the ‘switch to free banking’ TV & radio ads for Permanent TSB down here. Their latest ad claims that since they launched the campaign 120,000 customers have switched to Permanent TSB – go figure!!!

    They should set the next ad in a pool hall.

  • carlosblancos

    Anyone know the legalities of this? Couldn’t a paper like the Sunday World just do the story in their Southern editions?

    The Court has no jurisdiction over actions outside the jurisdiction, and, as far as I know, in civil cases anyway, can’t act becase of how a defendant acts in another country, as long as they haven’t broken the injunction in this country.