It's said that an un-named MP intends to discuss "that which cannot be mentioned" in a debate about free speech in the House of Commons, in which he or she will be afforded parliamentary privilege and immunity from civil action.
But what about the various organs of the media who routinely report parliamentary proceedings - will they have to redact their coverage or risk court proceedings?
and in another thread that CAN be mentioned
people are seriously saying the tax deetails of our politicians should really stay secret ... ho hum it is a funny world.
A scottish rag has published the names of those involved in that which cant be mentioned, today...so looks like england is the only place you cant "officially" read it...at the moment
yes baz. i'm in glasgow today so can legally be apprised (and i was). the tone of the parliamentary debate (assuming it's allowed to take place) will be on the basis of the wisdom of permitting law created by the judiciary.
What about Hansard ? Hansard is supposed to report truthfully what all members say in the chambers. Do we expect a row of asterisks to appear in that esteemed and ancient publication ?
// Speaker John Bercow has banned the unnamed MP from lifting the celebrity injunction.//
I think that should be .... bercow has stopped the MP speaking to the subject.
The injunction would be lifted by a judge - either the one who granted it or the judges on appeal
The speaker seems to have taken the view that the House and the Courts are separate ( part of the 1688-9 settlement ) and one should not interfere with the function of the other
A signal exception was Jonathan Aitken and his action for libel
in which erm he was found to have perjured himself and went to prison
ooops there is a lesson there !