Friday, 18 October 2013

one of this country’s most precious liberties

That's what the Telegraph calls the freedom of the press,
when it's trying to fry Ed Milliband. Ed doesn't have the
power to censor anyone.

I wonder what the Telegraph think of government censorship,
then. Well, the UK government is going quite far to
hide a story about impending charges regarding the Libor
scandal, to protect British bankers, and has gone to the trouble
to threaten the WALL STREET JOURNAL(!) for an article
that it has already published. They, in their Orwellian splendour,
want history expunged.

And if that doesn't work, they've also stitched up the Libel
laws to ensnare anybody who's unable to pay the millions
to fight the case in the courts. One such potential victim is
Ian Hislop (owner of the only real UK news-paper, Private Eye)
who is explaining the UK libel law below:

Here's something that may help the Private Eye get in libel
trouble; the truth about the Daily Mail owner Lord Rothermere's
shady tax deals: [private eye 1351 p29]
"under the absurd rules governning non-dom status, when
Rothermere fils was born in 1967 he immediately acquired
France as his domicile of birth"
"so in 2008 HM Revenue & Customs were poised to investigate
whether- based on such evidence as building a sprawling neo-
Palladian family home, Ferne House, in 240 acres of grounds
in Wiltshire and his position as a freeman of the City of London
-Rothermere had surrendered his non-dom status. Following the
intervention of the then HMRC tax boss Dave Hartnett, however,
the investigation was pulled"
"in this way a non-dom brings non-taxable returns of capital rather
than income back into the UK, although offshore secrecy..."
"for a non dom, even land deep in the English countryside ultimately
escapes inheritance tax if held through offshore trusts"

Read 'em:  Techdirt

UK Continues To Censor The Press: Orders Wall Street Journal To Pull Details From Already Published Story
from the no-freedom-of-the-press dept
The UK's issue broad injunctions that try to silence the press from naming names of people accused of crimes. Given that, a court apparently ordered the Wall Street Journal to remove the names of bankers the WSJ had noted were expected to be named as being involved in the criminal manipulation of the LIBOR rate:

    A British judge ordered the Journal and David Enrich, the newspaper's European banking editor, to comply with a request by the U.K.'s Serious Fraud Office prohibiting the newspaper from publishing names of individuals not yet made public in the government's ongoing investigation into alleged manipulation of the London interbank offered rate, or Libor.

    The order, which applies to publication in England and Wales, also demanded that the Journal remove "any existing Internet publication" divulging the details. It threatened Mr. Enrich and "any third party" with penalties including a fine, imprisonment and asset seizure.

Except, as the Journal notes, it had already published the story out on the wire, and while it took down its own web story, and is protesting the injunction, it's not at all difficult to find other stories that published the names:

    In Friday’s U.S. edition of the newspaper, 11 names were printed, including former UBS AG (NYSE:UBS) and Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C) trader Tom Hayes; his former boss at UBS, Michael Pieri; and two former brokers at R.P. Martin Holdings Ltd., Terry Farr and James Gilmour.

And, of course, anyone who got the print version, which had already gone to press, could see the names as well:
And, in the end, all this has really done is draw that much more attention to the names.