|
|
Gunnar Pettersson on "McKennitt v. Ash" 2006 postings (in reverse
order) -------------------------------------------- Söndag 24 december
2006 - : - Merry Winterval to you too McKennitt v Ash I: One of the fruits of thousands of years
of human progress and civilisation is the
saying 'It ain't over till it's over'. As some of us half-predicted, Niema's
representative David Price has decided to proceed with an application for the case to be
heard by the House of Lords. As I understand it, there will first be a written
submission, followed by an oral one, and the whole process looks likely to take at
least a year. I will report back when I know more detail. McKennitt v Ash II: Meanwhile, an interesting little brouha
erupted in the Toronto Globe & Mail last
week. First of all, Michael Posner wrote a straight report on the outcome of the appeal
court hearing, in which he said (among other things) that Loreena did not
question the veracity of the various injuncted sections of Niema's book, but objected
only to the breaches of her privacy that they represented. Not so, said Loreena in a
response. On the contrary, for Loreena the book read more or less like a work
of fiction. (Incidentally, I'm paraphrasing here because the articles are all
pay-per-read and I felt very mean all week... However, you can access them all by
typing "mckennitt" into the Globe & Mail's
search box). Niema then came back with
the (as yet unpublished, as far as I can see) not unreasonable response "Why
then did you not sue for libel, instead of breach of privacy?" This is Niema's letter in
full: The trial Loreena McKennitt refers to (in answer to
Michael Posner's article on December 15) was conducted on a breach of privacy basis,
not on a libel one. Had I been accused of libel I would have had access to
crucial documents which, I believe, would have changed the outcome of the
trial. I did not have access to them, however, because they were
"private". Also, Ms. McKennitt was able to afford a top team of barristers and solicitors,
whereas I ran out of money several days before the trial and had to defend myself
without time for preparation or legal knowledge. Talk about a David and Goliath
event. Ironically, some of the private matters McKennitt objected to were already in the
public domain, put there by herself, others were as inconsequential as saying
someone had taken an aspirin for a headache or vitamin C for a cold. Initially Ms.
McKennitt wanted the entire book banned, however, freedom of expression has not
been entirely eroded. Niema Ash Also, should you feel like spending more on pay-per-read
in the Globe & Mail, do spend it on a right-on piece by Doug Saunders headlined
"Privacy isn't a 'right'. It's an indulgence". Måndag 18 december
2006 - : - McK v. A - some final thoughts, for now Lawyer Dan Tench has
a rather useful summary of the judgement in today's Media Guardian. Also, it's
quite intriguing to read the judgement (accessible via Loreena's Current Updates page,
linked in the Friday 15 posting) and find that, according to the Lords Justices,
Niema's book is not about Niema's experiences "at all" but is
solely about Loreena, so
much so that they call the story Loreena's "property". You may reasonably think that
Loreena, by virtue of that ownership, has invaded her own privacy, but then you
would be very silly. No, what's intriguing about it is that it opens up a rather
surreal vista, where the subject of a written account becomes the legal owner of
the narrative in which they apppear, in a pretty ghost-like - and, it has to be said, a
thoroughly post-modern - fashion. It sounds very much like a novel the great Flann
O'Brien never got around to writing. More specifically, it is a first step towards
a complete redefinition of the memoir. You may think you are writing about your
experiences in the company of Mr X or Mrs Y, and how you were able to trace over a
number of years the changes in their personalities after they'd won the lottery, or
been awarded the Nobel Prize, or become million-selling folk singers, and that you
then described these changes in a kind of prose which only you were able to
produce, and from a perspective which was yours and yours alone - so much so that if
you hadn't been there, there wouldn't have been a book at all! But no. You are
mistaken. Your name on the cover? It means nothing. The title is all. Söndag 17 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, part 439. With all the brouha
following Thursday's judgement in the Court of Appeal, it's worth bearing in mind that
this is in all probability not the last word. Peter Preston in today's Observer points out that the lower courts have a habit of coming
down on the side of privacy, whereas the
House of Lords - the "supreme court" for England and Wales - tends to redress the balance
towards freedom of speech. And with less important cases going to the Lords in
the past, it seems most unlikely that McKennitt v. Ash won't end up there too. That's
not to say that a House of Lords judgement is foregone conclusion, only that the
questions at the heart of the case will almost certainly be subject to legal scrutiny again.
(Also, today's Sunday Times has a piece on the case, with quotes from both Niema and
Loreena). Loreena says in the
conclusion to her statement (there's a link in yesterday's posting): "This is a
victory as well for writers who view their work with integrity, and for those
who understand that
that the duty of the press to question government and corporations should not be
interfered with nor taken lightly. We also realize that the essence of a free society is the
personal autonomy of the individual to think, feel and interact socially without unwarranted
intrusion." If you ever wanted to
know what the word "disingenuous" means, read no further. Whatever it is
writers do when they "view their work with integrity" - and I
cannot imagine what that
would be - this presents the hair-raising prospect of a new freedom to "interfere
with" or "take lightly" the work of any writer who job is not
specifically to "question
governments and corporations" - and that's most of them, of course. It
is as though it's
perfectly OK for journalists to go after organisations of whatever kind, especially large
ones, but that individuals are somehow off-limits. Not only that. The last sentence
encapsulates for me the having-your-cake-and-eating-it nature of the judgement, because it
has now become largely the right of the subject individual - be they Robert Maxwell
as portrayed by Tom Bower, or Loreena McKennitt as portrayed by Niema Ash - to
decide what is and what is not "unwarranted" as far as intrusion is
concerned. As the
Sunday Times piece indicates, this calls forth the image of Robert Maxwell being able to
object in court to Bower's biography on the grounds that he is not
"comfortable" with it. If that is "the essence of a free
society", things have come, as they say, to a
pretty pass. Fredag 15 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, cont'd Press reports are
beginning to come in about the judgement, but I'm damned if I'm going to try and link
them all. I'm just going to highlight the ones that have something more substantial to
say (IMHO), and today's choice is Clare Dyer in the Guardian. There will be plenty
more at the weekend, and Monday's media sections in the Guardian and Independent are
sure to comment on it as well. Also, of course, Loreena has put out a statement on her Current Updates page, where you can also
access the judgement itself in pdf format.
Make sure you do. I will return to Loreena's statement in the near future, particularly
the last bit. Torsdag 14 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash (12:20 GMT) BREAKING NEWS: The judgement was handed down
a couple of hours ago - and Niema lost the appeal on all seven counts!
That is, none of the seven passages from the book injuncted by Mr Justice Eady last
year were deemed by the Court of Appeal to fall within Niema's right to freedom
of speech. So they remain injuncted, protected by Loreena's right to privacy under
Article 8 of the ECHR. I have yet to get hold of a copy of the 40+ page
judgement, but even so: this is truly awful news. We had hoped that the injunction would be
lifted on at least one of the counts, but no, not even that. It bears repeating that
if this judgement stands it will profoundly change English law relating to writing and
publishing, ceding much more - some would say excessive - legal weight to a person's
(celebrity or not) right to privacy, at the direct expense of the right to free
expression. It will effectively mean, if not the end, then radically curtailed forms of
kiss-and-tell stories and unauthorised biographies, as well as related genres. The judgement is extraordinary in many ways. The appeal
court upholds Eady's view that Niema's book is not about her own experiences, but
simply about Loreena, implying a sort of parasitic relationship on Niema's part. Anyone
who has read the book, with at least one eye open, knows that this is emphatically
not so. They also upheld Eady's pretty radical re-interpretation of the concept of the
"public domain", saying in effect that simply because something is in the public domain
already does not mean it can be publicly repeated with impunity! Apparently, it now depends
on the reason why it was placed in the public domain in the first place. Go
figure. What happens now is as yet unclear. There is a
theoretical possibility that Niema could take the case to the House of Lords, but I have no idea
what, if anything, will be decided on that score. As well as Niema and Loreena, there was a
sizeable contingent of Her Majesty's Press present in court this morning, and there
is bound to be plenty of comment in the media over the next few days. I'll try and keep
up with it as best I can. But, for now, let's pour ourselves a stiff drink. Oi vey. Måndag 11 december 2006 - : - Eller "bebopvänster" kanske? McKennitt v Ash: There's been plenty more comment on
Eady's "adultery judgement" in the press over the
weekend and today. One of the more lucid contributions is by lawyer Sarah Webb in
today's MediaGuardian. I still don't know when a judgement in McKennitt v Ash
itself can be expected, but I will of course post something as soon as I know. Söndag 10 december 2006 - : - Es un escándalo! (+) But first McKennitt
v. Ash: Peter Preston, ex-editor of The Guardian, is a bit sarky about Mr Justice Eady
in today's Observer Media. This relates to the "adultery judgement" I
mentioned last Thursday. Torsdag 7 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v Ash Another judgement by
Mr Justice Eady in a privacy case has caused a bit of a stir in the last few days,
not least of course because it relates to McKennitt v Ash. Some background in
the Telegraph here. Some comments from the Times here. And Melanie 'Mad Mel'
Phillips in the Mail has her own take on it all... The Sun's headline on the story
(not online) ran "Love Rat Star Gags a Hubby". Unbeatable, I'd say. Måndag 4 december
2006 - : - To be added to as we go along McKennitt v. Ash: Media lawyer Catrin Evans writes in today's Guardian about the appeal (the decision
is yet to come, date unknown). Måndag 27 november 2006 - : - Skål! McKennitt v Ash: One of the first proper reviews I've seen of Loreena's new album 'An Ancient Muse' is
by Jon Pareles in the New York Times yesterday (scroll down). The album, he says,
"is still New Age music: slow, pretty and raptly
self-satisfied as it tries to bridge cultures in well-meaning
consonance". Söndag 26 november 2006 - : - Jätteofta på en söndag (+) McKennitt v Ash: Washington Post had a piece on both the Douglas/Hello case and McKennitt v Ash, this
is from Thursday last week. Torsdag 23 november
2006 - : - McKennitt v Ash, cont'd This morning's one
hour session in court gave Niema's barrister David Price a chance to counter the
Respondent's arguments from yesterday. As I've just learned, David Price devoted a good
part of the session to an argument that has been crucial during these two days, and
that concerns the so-called "A v. B" case from a few years ago. This involved a
Blackburn Rovers footballer, Gary Flitcroft, who had canoodled with a couple of
lapdancers, who subsequently sold the story to the press. In that case, the court decided
that a "celebrity" (and it was rather stretching it to include
Flitcroft in that category...)
has to accept that his/her right to privacy is to some degree diminished by their celebrity
status. Desmond Browne QC argued yesterday that times have changed, and that
other, subsequent rulings - particularly the Caroline one - serve to give the right to
privacy much more legal weight. For all sorts of technical and semantic reasons - to do with the terms
"celebrity", "role model" etc - David Price, on his part,
argued that times
have not yet changed sufficiently for that, and that "A v.
B" must, for the time being,
remain binding on English courts. All very complicado,
you'll agree. And I know how pompous this can sound, but it is very striking how
this appeal hearing appears almost as a microcosm of the much larger conflict
playing out between efforts to close down the world, and efforts to keep it at least as open
as it has been, if not more. God knows there are more important freedom of speech
issues at stake right now than a book about being (and not being) friends with Loreena
McKennitt. And as for the final outcome of the hearing, it's of course impossible to
predict. But, either way, it will have enormous impact on the media and publishing
industry, far beyond the wistful - nay, haunting! - sonorities emanating from
ancient muses. Onsdag 22 november
2006 - : - McKennitt v Ash: the appeal After some toing and
froing, the main part of the appeal hearing took place yesterday Tuesday and today
Wednesday; there will be a further hour tomorrow morning (Thursday), but your
correspondent won't be able to attend. The social scene? Well, the protagonists were
of course present: Loreena McKennitt, accompanied by a small entourage, and Niema
Ash, accompanied by small friends (apart from John, who's quite tall). Plus, of
course, various hacks, law reporters, and Benji
the Binman. The first day was
devoted to the claimant's case. Very briefly, Niema's representative David Price put the
detailed legal case to the three Lord Justices presiding, i.e. why in their view Mr
Justice Eady got it wrong in his judgement from last year. Price said that Eady had
delivered a "triple whammy" to freedom of speech. The first was in lowering the bar for
breaches of Article 8 privacy issues, so that only the most anodyne information about
someone's private life could be published. The second, related whammy was in upping the bar
for Article 10 freedom of speech issues, so that it would only be in the public
interest to publish if the individual in question had been guilty of a
"very high degree of
misbehaviour". This creates a Catch 22 situation where an article, or a book, could only get
over the Article 8 hurdle if, by definition, the information was unlikely to show a very high
degree of misbehaviour. The third whammy, according to David Price, was that Eady's
judgement blurred the distinction between defamation and privacy, which is particularly
serious for the book publishing industry, as it "circumvents the rule
against prior restraint in
defamation claims", i.e. not having to pulp books before the defamation claim has been tried
in court. Loreena's
representative, Desmond Browne QC, laid out the case for the Respondent on the second day,
Wednesday. His main point seemed, in my layman's ears, to be that whereas in the past
more weight has been placed on the right to freedom of speech in cases like this, the
balance has begun to shift towards more emphasis on the right to privacy, and that
this is something reflected in recent European jurisprudence, most emblematically in the
Caroline of Monaco ruling (a.k.a. "Von Hannover"). In other words, Mr Justice Eady was
right in placing such emphasis on Loreena's Article 8 rights, as opposed to Niema's
Article 10 rights. Among other things, Browne argued that a celebrity is as entitled to
privacy (however you define "privacy") as anyone else, and that you
can no longer argue that
celebs are in a way "asking for it" when they actively crave the
publicity most of them so
patently crave. It's a depressing
prospect. IMHO, if Browne is right, a ruling along those lines would be the recipe for the cake
that celebrities and politicians and the "high muckety-mucks" (in
Milton Acorn's phrase) can
have and eat at the same time. Lucky them. The cult of secrecy, the curse of English
polity, and society as a whole, will be even further entrenched in law. It would be a black day
for books and newspapers, and for those who produce them. I've been told the
judgement can be expected in three to four weeks. As soon as I know what it is, you will
know too. Tisdag 21 november
2006 - : - Out of office The next couple of
days will find me in the Court of Appeal, following the McKennitt v. Ash hearing. I
will report back on proceedings as soon as I can. Please water the plants while I'm
away. Thanks. Söndag 19 november
2006 - : - Curiouser and curiouser... McKennit v. Ash: Do you remember my posting on 9 november
about Morley Walker's piece in the Winnipeg
Free Press and how a rather irate letter in response from a Colonel Rankin found its way
onto Loreena's website's News &
Views section, in a posting dated 19 October? Well, the
whole posting's now gone. Putz weg. Vamoosed. No longer present and correct. N'existe
pas. Adios, amigo. Odd, eh? [PS: On a more technical note. If you google "colonel
william j rankin" you get two results: one is my own posting from the
9th, the other the pdf
file as posted on Loreena's site, but the link of course no longer works. However, if you click
on the same file but "View as HTML" you can still read the letter. Should you wish to do
so.] Lördag 18 november
2006 - : - As I was saying... McKennitt v. Ash: Clare Dyer, the Guardian's legal
correspondent, has a piece in today's paper on the
upcoming appeal, and she connects it with two other privacy- related cases to be
heard in the next couple of weeks. Incidentally, the hearing will now start on Tuesday,
not Monday as previously announced (probably due to a traffic jam in that
particular court). Anyway, the tension mounts... Torsdag 9 november
2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, again I also noticed
something rather strange on Loreena's website yesterday. On 14 September, the
journalist Morley Walker of the Winnipeg Free Press published a piece on the case
which was mildly sympathetic to Niema. However, a week or so later, a certain
Colonel William J Rankin wrote a letter to the editor protesting against Walker's
piece and strongly taking Loreena's side in the matter. For whatever reason, WFP
chose not to publish it. However, the Colonel's letter found its way to the News & Views section on Loreena's website, where it
was published as a pdf
file on 19 October (scroll down to 'UK Privacy Case' posting of 19/10/06, where
Walker's original piece can also be accessed, although it requires subscription). The
letter is worth having a look at, particularly the second paragraph, which seems - in my
layman's eyes - to contain some statements about Niema that are bordering on
defamatory: "...falsely constructing a case...", "...causing
witnesses to perjure
themselves...", "...tantamount to extortion...". I say, steady
on, Colonel...! I may be wrong, but I
don't recall any of that contained in Eady's judgement. And this is posted on a
website where Loreena has frequently said that she cannot comment on the case
because of her respect for the legal process...! Very curious. Onsdag 8 november
2006 - : - Tapas variadas McKennitt v. Ash: How time flies. The appeal hearing is
due to take place quite soon now, over a
period of three days starting Monday 20 November and, as I understand it, the
sessions will be open to the public. Your correspondent will of course be there, and
I will report back as and when possible, hopefully at the end of each day.
Meanwhile, Loreena's new album, 'An Ancient Muse', is due to be released any time
now: some sample tracks can be downloaded on her website here. Tisdag 5
september 2006 - : - A site for sore eyes McKennitt
v. Ash: Still no
news on the outcome, if any, of yesterday's deliberations in court.
However, as part of Pressylta's legendary service ethos, I have now provided a
complete McKennitt v. Ash archive, i.e. all my postings on the subject to
date. The link is
in the left column. Måndag 4 september 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, etc In MediaGuardian today,
lawyer Caroline Kean writes (you have to subscribe, but it's
free) about the media industry's application to intervene in the case ("probably
one of the most significant court of appeal cases for the British press ever,"
according to the standfirst). The application is supposed to be heard today, but I'm
unsure whether there will simply be a written submission for the judges to
consider, or an oral submission. As I understand it, and this probably won't come as a
surprise to you, Loreena's lawyers oppose the application. And it's by no
means certain that it will be granted, because it would be a unique and precedent-setting
decision. Previously, only non-profit organisations such as racial
equality bodies have been allowed to intervene in cases whose outcome would
affect the law in their respective areas, but commercial organisations, never.
Whatever the outcome, I'll post it here as soon as I know. Söndag 27 augusti 2006-09-04 The
Sunday Times runs a piece (the print version is longer) by Maurice Chittenden
today, on the case in general and the media industry's "application
to intervene" in particular. Which of course you could read here
first, bloody weeks ago... Typical. Torsdag 10 augusti 2006 - :
- Knark på tapeten But first, a postscript to yesterday's McKennitt v. Ash
posting: as I'm sure most of you are aware, in the middle of all this,
Loreena is putting out a new album in the autumn, called 'An Ancient Muse'. Among
other things, it brings Scandinavian influences (our old friend
nyckelharpan) into that heady Celtic brew. Much to look forward to there, I
think. Onsdag 9 augusti 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash -
new developments In a highly unusual - if not unique - development, the
Premier League of the British media industry have come together to seek
permission from the Court of Appeal to "intervene" in the
McKennitt v. Ash appeal hearing, due to take place later this year. If given leave by the court, the group, comprising Times Newspapers Ltd, Telegraph Group Ltd, Associated
Newspapers Ltd, The Press Association, British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, and the
BBC, will be represented by Anthony White QC of Matrix Chambers. Their intention is
to try to ensure that the court is fully aware of the hugely important
legal issues at stake, as far as both privacy and freedom of expression are
concerned. Obviously, they would not get involved in the particular facts of
the case, only the points of law raised by those facts. This "application to intervene", by such major
players, is as good an indication as any that the law in this area is seen to be in too
much flux, with no one knowing exactly where they stand, since the European
Convention on Human Rights became part of English law. The media
organsiations are in a way saying that the time has come for the courts to
establish, in as definitive a way as possible, what goes and what does not, as far as
invasion of privacy is concerned, and where the balance is to be struck between
the right to privacy (ECHR Article 8) and freedom of expression (ECHR
Article 10). I think their
intervention can also be interpreted as saying that Mr Justice Eady's judgement from December 2005 leaned far too heavily
towards the former. However, it will certainly be an interesting - and
important - couple of days in court. Fredag 2 juni 2006 - : - TFI Friday, eh... +
McKennitt v. Ash: Due to perennial technical probs I haven't been able to log Onsdag 31 maj 2006 - : -
Bye-bye maj +
McKennitt v. Ash: The Toronto Globe & Mail has noted the
permission-to-appeal Torsdag 25 maj 2006 - : - Privacy v. Freedom of
Speech: Seconds Out, Round 2! Earlier
this afternoon the Appeal Court in London granted Niema Ash permission The
two Lord Justices gave permission to appeal on a total of five out of seven most is of
course the issue of whether Eady struck a fair balance between Loreena McKennitt's Article
8 rights to privacy and Niema's Article 10 rights to freedom of speech. It's
also worth noting that one of the judges at today's hearing, Lord Justice Richards, went out
of his way to say that he had approached this case with a mind to
refuse permission to appeal, but that David Price's
skilful advocacy on Niema's behalf
had persuaded him that there are substantive issues at stake
in an area of the
law that is very new and still evolving. More on
this will probably follow in the next
few days. --------- PRESS RELEASE FROM DAVID PRICE SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES - Niema
Ash For
immediate release McKennitt privacy decision to go to appeal The
author Niema Ash has obtained permission to appeal a recent ruling of the At
today's hearing for permission to appeal Lord Justices Ward and Richards
accepted The
Court of Appeal has granted permission for Ms Ash to appeal against the High Notes Niema
Ash is an award-winning travel writer and W.B. Yeats scholar. Ms Ash's book For Further Details Please Contact David Price Solicitors
& Advocates Onsdag 24 maj 2006 - : -
McKennitt v. Ash - update On
the off-chance that anyone had actually planned to attend the hearing at Måndag 22 maj 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash (now
with added correction...) Peter
Wilby writes
on press regulation in the magazine he used to edit, New (Please
note that the NS only allows one free article per day) Onsdag 10 maj 2006 - : - McKennitt
v. Ash It's
official: Niema's appeal against the verdict will now be heard on Thursday [Correction,
later: the hearing is actually to decide whether Niema will be given [Complicated
business, the law. A lot of hard work involved. I do hope our learned friends
are being remunerated accordingly...] [This
is probably the most fucked-up posting of mine so far. Never mind, it's gonna get a
lot worse.] Måndag 3 april 2006 - : - Yes, it's the McKennitt v. Ash show
again... (+) Judy
Stoffman of the Toronto Star has written a piece about the case, and it's Måndag 27 mars 2006 - : - McKennitt
v. Ash Korieh
Duodu, the lawyer who is handling Niema's appeal against the verdict, Lördag 4 March 2006 - : - Truth and consequences The
McKennitt v. Ash verdict is beginning to have some serious consequences in [Later:]
We certainly do, bubba... It isn't Cole who's represented by David Price, Fredag 17 februari 2006 - : -
Loreena + Borgnäs = inte det minsta sant Two
more pieces on the Loreena business. I couldn't for the life of me find a McKennitt:
My private life is mine: Singer praises 'brave' British judge who However,
there definitely is a link to the Daily Telegraph legal editor Joshua Tisdag 14 februari 2006 - : - More
on McKennitt v. Ash (+) Sorry,
I'm sort of one day behind with everything at the moment... Yesterday's Update Wednesday 15: An email exchange with The
Guardian today shows that Fredag 10 februari 2006 - : -
Blimey... Posting
a press release from David Price solicitors is certainly one way of becoming Just kidding. Torsdag 9 feb 2006-09-04 PRESS RELEASE FROM DAVID PRICE SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES For
immediate release 9
February, 2006 Niema Ash to appeal
against High Court privacy decision The
award winning author Niema Ash has today announced that she intends to appeal against
a recent ruling that she breached the privacy of Canadian singer Loreena McKennitt by
publishing her most recent book, Travels with Loreena McKennitt. The decision will be appealed
on the grounds (amongst others) that in ruling
that sections of the book were in breach of privacy the court did not strike a
proper balance between Miss McKennitt's right
to privacy and the author's own rights
to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The
court is currently considering Ms Ash's appeal application. Notes ·
Niema Ash is an award-winning travel writer and W.B. Yeats scholar. ·
The book entitled Travels with Loreena McKennitt: My Life as a Friendwas
published by For
Further Details Please Contact Tim
Senior (tsenior@lawyers-media.com) Torsdag 19 januari 2006 - : - The saga
continues... (+) Onsdag 11 januari 2006 - : - Anatomy of a
statement the sensitivity of the
ongoing period of time during which this matter is being dealt
with before the courts;... refrain from openly
conversing with the media on this subject. to light, but the issues
of human rights and freedoms and the nature of the principles
involved in this case are so important that those who pre-empt or
selectively opine without full information are distorting
true justice. to "pre-empt". Again, "selectively
opining" is perhaps not an advisable thing to do, but there is no reason why a commentator should be "without
full information" - again, the judgement is a public document, and has been so since it was
handed down on 21 December. up with an acceptable take on this judgement, in order
to explain, in Kate Taylor's apt phrase, why flies are best killed with sledgehammers. In some
limited and technical sense Loreena may have "won" the case, but in the longer and
wider term? I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure Quinlan Road is either. Tisdag 10 januari 2006 - : - A chance to see for
yourself what it was that Söndag 8 jan 2006-09-04 The mainstream press now seems to be beginning to catch
up with the outcome of the |
|