[Closed] Anyone else following the trafigura parliamentary reporting gag scandal?

Hell yes. Everyone should be keeping an eye on Parliamentary Questions, since some company has spent a hideous amount of money trying to stop a newspaper from reporting it.

It seems pretty shocking that a judge has granted this.

Its becoming increasingly common apparently. Not that you'd know. As obviously it seems to work

Thanks, Stoner.
Good digging.

This has been mentioned (not this case, gagging orders ingeneral) in Private Eye. They are often granted by 'new' judges, who get the late night watch. Hence less experiances and less likely to stand up to aggresive representivies from the damaged party.

Haven't the Guardian and the Observer already published all these accusations against Trafigura.

From memory (as its no doubt been removed from the site) it revolved around internal company emails which basically said "**** it! Dump all the toxic shit anywhere, just make sure you don't get caught"

I'm sure there are very good reasons for us not to know. It's best not to question things I find - I trust people in positions of responsibility to do the right thing.

Carter-****. One of many good reasons for subscribing to the [i]Eye[/i].

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question ]Events now unfolding[/url]

Private Eye brought these injunctions on talking about injunctions to light with the case of the [url= http://www.thelawyer.com/irwin-mitchell-boss-steps-down-from-lsb-after-private-eye-complaint/1000862.article ]Michael Napier [/url]

Fortunately such injunctions are looking less and less desireable since they can easily be worked around on the internet. Wikileaks is a superb institution.

I think carter-****nuts has gone too far this time and he's going to find it harder and harder to get his way in front of any judge after the embarrassment this case will cause the presiding judge.

it seems they saw which way the wind was blowing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question

I think carter-****nuts has gone too far this time

It'd be like trying to repair a broken dam with a sieve. Hooray for free-flowing information.

Trafigura and Carter-**** are currently being owned by the tinternet... 😀 😈

Trafigura was the number one trending topic on twitter this morning, until it got removed. The story was all over it.

One of carter's bilemongers appears to have a dead cat on his head.
[img] [/img]
[url] http://www.carter-ruck.com/Lawyers/ [/url]

"When I grow up, I want to be a lawyer. The kind who helps an oil company hide illegal activities that visited atrocities on the poor!"

- Dave Gorman on That Twitter

I think carter-****nuts has gone too far this time

Definitely. He died in 2003, the slippery bastard.

Carter-Ruck has a rep because as a company, it's startlingly effective. I worked for a news outfit that retained Carter-Ruck. It did so for two reasons:

1) So whoever was trying to sue us couldn't hire Carter-Ruck.

2) Because it scared the bejeesus out of people thinking of suing us.

Of course, this in no way condones what they've managed to pull off with this failed injunction (incidentally, [url= http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dumping_along_the_Ivory_Coast_broke_EU_regulations%2C_14_Sep_2006 ]here's the report that Trafigura's original law firm commissioned into the dumping scandal. It's rather incriminating)[/url]. Law firms act for the people or entities that hire them. Quite a few of these clients are wrong. That doesn't mean they should be denied representation.

And [i]finally[/i] I see the point in Twitter

Quite a few of these clients are wrong. That doesn't mean they should be denied representation.

I'm pretty rubbish when it comes to law, but is representation the same as an injunction ? And should whether a client is "right or wrong", affect reporting parliamentary proceedings ?

Ernie, the idea is that anyone can hire a lawyer. So anyone can hire Carter Ruck. They can be the Sugar Plum Fairy or Genghis Khan - the reputation or actions of the client do not reflect on the law firm itself.

What I'm saying in a roundabout way is that the company does its best to get the result for its client within the law. It's not always terribly nice, and in this case, it infringes on all of our rights, as created in 1688 thanks to a nice chap called John Wilkes. To put the rights of a company above Parliamentary Privelege and a newspaper's right to free speech is not right, hence the hoo-ha today (Some of which I was involved in as part of the baying mob).

I think that means we agree. 😀

I was involved in as part of the baying mob

I wish I'd known .......... then I could have pointed out that "the company does its best to get the result for its client within the law" 😉

No, but I know what you mean. It's just that I think saying, [i]"carter-****nuts has gone too far this time"[/i] is a fair comment if your trying to make the point that the injunction was unjustified.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/guardian-gagged-parliamentary-question ]gag now lifted[/url]

curiouser and curiouser

the idea is that anyone can hire a lawyer. So anyone can hire Carter Ruck. They can be the Sugar Plum Fairy or Genghis Khan - [b][u]the reputation or actions of the client do not reflect on the law firm itself[/u][/b].

bloody do in my book - ain't like defence counsel, where somebody has to do it. If a law firm didn't like the actions of a company it could turn down the contract. Alternatively it could shut down its conscience & open its piggy bank