hers what the guardian said about the mail... Daily Mail convinces judge to lift reporting gag on Muslim solicitors | Media | theguardian.com …….7th paragraph.. heres what the telegraph said about it…. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...d-anonymity-for-cultural-reasons.html….second paragraph and even the costa news…. Costa News - Naming and shaming paragraph.. they all say the daily mail who we are advised not to believe and don't trust as its dismissed as rubbish….contributed to turning over the judges decision…. hey ho...
Along with the Times and the Guardian - obviously a conspiracy to mislead the general public by printing bollocks
The Guardian has simply linked to the Mail piece, and Costa has copied off the Mail piece. However the Telegraph piece is slightly more informative, and gives some clues as to what actually happened. After temporary reporting restrictions have been imposed in a case, and the judge sits a few days later to hear submissions about whether to confirm them or lift them (this is not, of course, an "appeal" - calling it an appeal is just a mistake), the media are always given an opportunity to be represented if they wish - but they rarely bother. In my experience, in important cases, it is The Times legal department which usually represents the rest of the media. In this case each of the two judges first imposed and then lifted restrictions in perfectly proper ways, following well-established practices and precedents. Going by the circumstances of the cases, whatever submissions the Mail representative may have made would have made little or no difference one way or the other. One cannot blame Paul Dacre for trying to puff up the Mail's supposed role in the matter, or even for grossly inaccurate reporting of the events, but one can blame him being gratuitously nasty about a named judge.
I'm sure i can hear the judge saying in the style of Arthur Lowe…. i was waiting for somebody to spot that…..
