It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Guardian newspaper GAGGED from reporting on parliament! (possible huge cover up?)

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:27 PM

The guardian being a respectable left wing newspaper has for the first time in its history been prevented from reporting parliament. I hate to quote too much, but i think this might be something serious.

[quoteThe Guardian has been prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on legal grounds which appear to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1688 Bill of Rights.

The editor, Alan Rusbridger, said: "The media laws in this country increasingly place newspapers in a Kafkaesque world in which we cannot tell the public anything about information which is being suppressed, nor the proceedings which suppress it. It is doubly menacing when those restraints include the reporting of parliament itself."

The right to report parliament was the subject of many struggles in the 18th century, with the MP and journalist John Wilkes fighting every authority – up to the king – over the right to keep the public informed. After Wilkes's battle, wrote the historian Robert Hargreaves, "it gradually became accepted that the public had a constitutional right to know what their elected representatives were up to".

No more details are given as to why or how or even what the issue is, but from what i can decipher something big has been asked and now they are being told to shut up.

From this quote alone, we can start making assumptions.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

Some one big is behind it.

Thoughts, ideas and links most welcome.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mr-lizard]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mr-lizard]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mr-lizard]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link wonders "if it is this question:"

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura.

Possibly this story?

* David Leigh
*, Wednesday 16 September 2009 15.08 BST

The British oil trader Trafigura has offered to pay out in a historic damages claim from 31,000 Africans injured by the dumping of toxic waste in one of the worst pollution disasters in recent history, the Guardian can reveal.

If this is the case then this proves the Corporations are now higher than the media. This if nothing else is a big nail into the free press. Now you might think i'm somehow naive to believe that multi-billionares don't already control the media, but in this case the Guardian is being prevented from telling the public about an issue in Parliament.

Ladies and gentlemen. The New order is here.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 07:47 PM
The Free world is quickly becoming something else.
The level of corruption in the UK government is staggering.
How long will it be before it is brought to the shores of America?
The Ball is already rolling my friends.

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:22 PM

Hmm the Independant reported a similar thing, so will they too be gagged? If not then why not?


TOXIC waste is being illegaly dumped in inhabited areas of Africa.

The toxic waste is forcing people to resort to piracy. The pirates are then manipulated by certain forces to disrupt trade, and require the need of armed patrols (thus having an excuse to have military naval patrols).

Somehow i've got a hunch and this is pure speculation, that the guardian may have asked a question regarding how London lawyers are defending 'pirates' in legal battles?

How London may be profiting from Somali piracy and how huge corporations are effectively poisoning a huge chunk of earths land and sea , economically and socially rearranging it to some sort of massive profit?

Any thoughts????

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mr-lizard]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by mr-lizard]

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 08:30 PM
[edit on 13-10-2009 by Alethea]

new topics

top topics

log in