Injunction against BBC

The Attorney General has been granted an injunction against the BBC over a report on the Cash for Honours claims (UPDATE The police asked the AG to act). Some more detail here.

  • Pete Baker

    FD

    Ian Dale had posted on this earlier today.. arguably pressing the BBC to report on it.

    And he makes an important additional point here

    So this now leads the BBC Ten O’Clock News but Nick Robinson can’t say what the injunction is all about. Let me help. I understand it is to do with an email that incriminates someone in a fairly drastic way. I do not know what the terms of the injunction are, but isn’t this an injunction which the Labour Party should have asked for rather than Her Majesty’s Government?

  • Pete Baker

    Seemingly, according to a statement read out on Newsnight, the injunction was issued at the request of the Attorney-General with the agreement of the Metropolitan Police.

  • When?

    When does it get investigated?

    Lord Ballyedmond!

  • When?

    Given the above has no track record in UUP politics the receipt to peerage record shold be easily backtracked.

  • slug

    Benedict White, in his blog

    A Conservative’s Blog

    writes the following…

    “News reaches me, from a source who does not wish to be named that the BBC has unearthed an email, connected to the cash for peerages inquiry. This email has allegedly got Lord Levy’s hands all over it. In short it smells, is what I have heard.”

  • willis

    This will be the BBC which always favours the Labour Govt then!

  • heck

    Doesn’t this prove the need for a US style first amendment to guarantee press freedom?

    The attorney general is part of the government and is not unbiased in matters involving the government. Witness his actions in the BAE bribery scandal were he acted more in the role of Honest Tony’s consigliore.

    Britain has a plethora of press constraints including some of the most restrictive libel laws in the world, D notices, the official secrets act, ownership of the BBC, and as in this case the ability of “prior restraint” against the media.

    I have posted many times on this site about the need in Nor Iron (and Britain) for a system of “the rule of law” to constrain the state. There is also a need for a free and vigorous media to hound the government and to expose their wrong doings. Neither exists in the UK.

    The depressing thing is that some unionist once posted on this site that he was proud to be British “because it had a free press”. Denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

  • http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

    Before there is any sympathy shown for the BBC have a look at the revelations about 9/11, building 7.

    As I have said before the cash for honours, and cover up will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

    Blair is clinging on waiting for the shit to hit the fan.
    Bet the investigation is complete just after Blair leaves office.

    I heard that some of the revelations are about previous criminal convictions of Lord Levy, Ruth Turner etc and the exposure of this could be detremental to a prosecution, that is why the MET police want to gag the BBC.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bbc_wtc7_videos.html

  • Comrade Stalin

    Britain has a plethora of press constraints including some of the most restrictive libel laws in the world, D notices, the official secrets act, ownership of the BBC, and as in this case the ability of “prior restraint” against the media.

    Your desperation to engage in a stupid rant about the nasty Brits has caused you to overlook several facts. For example, the BBC has famously annoyed the government by reporting things they didn’t like about the Iraq war business.

    It is quite correct that the publication of a story can be stopped in case it prejudices a court case. The injunction will expire when the court case has completed. I’m pretty sure similar measures exist in other countries. Perhaps you would prefer that the government got away with it, but I’m hoping they get done bang to rights.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Art hostage, why do you keep putting out this stupid conspiracy theory bullshit about WTC7 every time you get a chance ? The idea that the BBC were brief about the destruction of the building in advance but told to keep it quiet is f**king incredulous. Who would trust the BBC to keep their mouth shut ?

    Unless you can provide any direct evidence that WTC7 was destroyed rather than collapsed of it’s own accord, please sod off.

  • http://infowars.net/articles/march2007/010307BBC_WTC7.htm

    CS this may enlighten you?

    Never in history has a steel structure building collapsed by fire until 9/11 when three did so.

    Building 7 collapsed into it’s own footprint without being hit by a plane.

  • O’h I seem to remember when accusations of collusion were regarded as conspiracy theories.

    “What, the British Army colluding with Loyalist Paramilataries, never, never, never”

    Being aware of both sides of the argument allows us to reach conclusions.

  • Comrade Stalin

    CS this may enlighten you?

    No. You didn’t even try to address my point. Why would someone conspiring to destroy WTC7 deliberately, brief the BBC about it beforehand and then tell them not to report it ? Why would they bother telling the BBC at all ?

    Please provide evidence showing that the WTC buildings were destroyed by means unrelated to the plane attacks. The BBC making a coincidental mistake in their reporting proves nothing. The probability of a coincidence in any situation is never zero.

    O’h I seem to remember when accusations of collusion were regarded as conspiracy theories.

    Drawing parallels does not constitute an argument. I’ve got the scientifically-derived consensus of an the entire civil and mechanical engineering profession to go on, who uniformly believe that the WTC. You’ve got a couple of whacky websites, whose theories are thoroughly debunked in Wikipedia and elsewhere, who draw wild conclusions from tiny and barely conspicuous facts. You lose.

  • I am sure Alex Jones, Paul and Steve Watson can articulate the reasons you request much better than I.

    Hopefully they will be along soon to elaborate.

    Until then sir, I suggest you keep an open mind as to the truth about 9/11.

  • Comrade Stalin

    I am sure Alex Jones, Paul and Steve Watson can articulate the reasons you request much better than I.

    So you admit that you don’t even understand the science behind the claims you’re peddling, and you rely on other people to do it for you. Sad.

    Hopefully they will be along soon to elaborate.

    What’s the point ? I am not a civil engineer, neither are you; all I’m going to get are copy and pasted articles from conspiracy theory websites, which make no effort to address the gaping holes in their own credibility.

    Until then sir, I suggest you keep an open mind as to the truth about 9/11.

    The “truth” will never be fully known. The exact reason for the structural failures can never be established. What you need to be doing is asking yourself how such a massive conspiracy could be pulled off without anyone getting wise. My favourite one is the one where a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon (no efforts are made to explain what happened to the plane that left the airport).

  • CONSIDER THESE FACTS
    Prior to 9/11:

    1. No steel structure had ever collapsed from fire.

    2. Building Seven was not hit by an aircraft.

    3. Fires in Building Seven were relatively minor compared to nearby buildings that did not collapse.

    4. Their were no historical or technical reasons to anticipate a collapse.

    5. Professionals in the building demolition industry have said that Building Seven could not have been destroyed by fire.

    6. Scores of firefighters, rescue workers, and civilians reported hearing and seeing sequential explosions near the base of Building Seven the instant prior to collapse.

    7. Building Seven collapsed all together into a small footprint, exactly as happens with controlled demolitions, rather than unevenly with the most damaged areas falling first.

    8. Rescue workers have said that they were told ahead of time to get away from Building Seven because it was going to be demolished.

    CONCLUSION
    Considering these facts, for anyone to issue a report to the press that Building Seven was expected to collapse, is powerful evidence that some people actually did have prior knowledge – not necessarily of the 9/11 attacks, but prior knowledge that Building Seven was going to be brought down by controlled demolition. Since it takes many weeks of prior planning to bring down a building like that by controlled demolition, preparations would have started long before 9/11. That fact, alone, is all we need to unravel the whole shoddy fabric of lies.

  • Your desperation to engage in a stupid rant about the nasty Brits has caused you to overlook several facts. For example, the BBC has famously annoyed the government by reporting things they didn’t like about the Iraq war business

    Didn’t they lose their chairman and their chief executive in the process?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Wake Up World

    CONSIDER THESE FACTS

    Not disputed, but none of them constitute evidence of a conspiracy. 9/11 itself was an unprecedented attack, and as such it is reasonable to expect unprecedented outcomes. Hmm, except for this one :

    8. Rescue workers have said that they were told ahead of time to get away from Building Seven because it was going to be demolished.

    What evidence is there that rescue workers were informed that the building would be demolished ?

    Considering these facts, for anyone to issue a report to the press that Building Seven was expected to collapse, is powerful evidence that some people actually did have prior knowledge – not necessarily of the 9/11 attacks, but prior knowledge that Building Seven was going to be brought down by controlled demolition.

    What evidence do you have that the press were informed ? What motivation is there to notify the press that something highly suspicious and illegal was about to take place ?

    Since it takes many weeks of prior planning to bring down a building like that by controlled demolition, preparations would have started long before 9/11.

    What evidence do you have of a controlled demolition ?

  • Mick Fealty

    What is a line about the WYC doing on this thread. It’s not against the rules, but guys, make some effort to speak to the actual matters raised above [shakes head].

  • heck

    comrade stalin

    Ok I’ll admit I am an Irish nationalist and I view issues through that prism just as you view issues based on your prejudices. However ignoring NI for a second I’m sure you would agree than an aggressive, inquisitive media is necessary for a healthy democracy and for keeping governments honest. I’m also sure that in abstract terms you would agree that any government would use any powers it has to restrict press freedom when it is in its interest to do so.

    Now back to Nor Iron. I am old enough to remember Bloody Sunday. In its aftermath the British government announced the Widgery inquiry. That simple act fell into your “It is quite correct that the publication of a story can be stopped in case it prejudices a court case” exception. Once the widgery inquiry was announced the press was inhibited from reporting on the incident and there was not the sort of journalistic frenzy in which stories build on each other and hopefully the truth emerges. Instead the story faded and was eventually whitewashed in an obscene judicial finding. However because this only applied locally the British spin masters used the opportunity to spread the lie in other countries, particularly North America, that the British army had taken on the IRA in battle. I am also old enough to remember that after the introduction of internment a D notice prevented the British press from reporting on the interrogation techniques used. Compare that with the mainstream American media’s reaction to Abu Ghrab. (exclude Murdock’s Fox news). Even more recently we can all remember when SF councilors and MP’s could not be interviewed on TV. Could anyone imagine CBS being prevented from interviewing Bernie sanders, the only socialist in the US senate?

    Comrade Stalin—Just admit it, Britain does not have a free press. Just because the Murdock tabloids can publish tits and bums does not make it so. If it makes you happy I will readily admit that Ireland is no better.

    While Mick is shaking his head—I am a structural engineer and I have read the report on the WTC collapse. The conclusions seems reasonable to me. I like conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but some are just too fantastic for my taste

  • Sunday Herald

    seems the Sunday Herald is reporting the injunction is to be lifted this week.

    Reasons given are very interesting.

  • Thanks for reducing my herald link, could you please spell check my posts as well, LOL

  • Comrade Stalin

    Ok I’ll admit I am an Irish nationalist and I view issues through that prism just as you view issues based on your prejudices.

    heck, you better be careful here as you may be making assumptions about me that aren’t true. What prejudices do I have ? I am not a unionist or a nationalist. The only prejudice I think I have is the one in favour of firmly defined facts, as opposed to partisan hearsay or exaggeration.

    I’m sure you would agree than an aggressive, inquisitive media is necessary for a healthy democracy and for keeping governments honest.

    I completely agree.

    Comrade Stalin—Just admit it, Britain does not have a free press. Just because the Murdock tabloids can publish tits and bums does not make it so. If it makes you happy I will readily admit that Ireland is no better.

    Who does have a completely free press ?

  • heck

    Good reply comrade Stalin.

    However read what I said. I didn’t say what your prejudices were, just that you had some. Or are you claiming to be the only unbiased commentator in the world? That is a standard no one has attained. We all have prejudices; I am just upfront with mine.

    At least we agree in principles although your comment “Who does have a completely free press?” suggests to me that you are content with the status quo. My initial reaction to fair deal’s initial posting was that the government’s/courts/police ability to shut down press reporting of government malfeasance should be unacceptable.

    I would suggest that if this assembly thing gets up and running one civil rights initiative they could take would be to adopt a US style first amendment and have NI opt out of British censorship laws.