Also whatever happens BBC News has suffered a reputational blow - and the anti BBC press might turn on the BBC for causing any changes which effect their reporting.
Similar not reporting on reports of a super injunction.
Isn't the point of a Super-Injunction that you can't report on it. A report on a report on it would still count as that... You can't report on the existence of a Super-injunction at all legally.
Last edited by noggin on 16 April 2018 5:11pm
BM
BM11
Overseas reports and general speculation of if there is a super injunction have been in the press over the year's.
Being careful what I say here but does seem from the reports on todays evidence the police are quite willing to put the blame at the BBC's door for the BBC being given the information by the police which led to this situation in the first place.
Going a bit off-topic (and not commenting on this specific case) ultimately what really needs to happen is for the government to come up with a proper new privacy law. As I understand it at present privacy law is based quite a bit on based on multiple court cases over the years and decisions made by judges. This might help clarify various privacy related issues properly for the media when deciding whether & how to report/cover similar stories in future.
Does anyone know if the court will hear evidence from James Harding? Worth noting that it was announced back in October 2017 that he was leaving in the 'beginning of 2018' to "set up his own news media venture" (ref BBC News article), so I dare say he might not be asked to appear.