Skip to main content

CTB and Identification

Here is a question. What is the public interest in identifying CTB?

The answer is very clear. Anyone who believes they have a legal right of access to Kelvin Mackenzie's emails should not be anonymous.

Similarly if they are going to hunt down and attempt to imprison people who tweet on twitter they should not do this anonymously.

Personally I believe that trying to get journalists emails is an anti-democratic action.

Comments

Unknown said…
Well done!! what a farce - I am grateful that finally someone has had the sense to put an end to this. What a mockery this how fuss has madde of our judicial system and our country a laughing stock!! Now if we could just get rid of this stupid judge that has allowed this to continue I would be a lot happier - what an earth was he thinking, obviously Ryan Giggs senseless lawyers have been paid lots but what about the judge - can see no other reason for him being so bloody minded. Once again well done for finally putting this sorry story to bed (so to speak) now maybe we can have the important issues discussed.
Fergus said…
"Anyone who believes they have a legal right of access to Kelvin Mackenzie's emails should not be anonymous"

But presumably you think it's perfectly alright for tabloid newspapers to tap into celebrity mobile phones because it's in the 'public interest?"

Why not be honest and admit that you are an attention-seeking nonentity who is trying to garner publicity for yourself and a political party which the nation now knows is a pathetic excuse for one.
Jerry said…
So the basis of the elusive initials C.B.T actually stood for "Caution, Be careful, Twitter" the initials should now be changed on all future Hyper/Super injunctions to "CJH", As in "Caution, John Hemming", he is listening you know!!!!

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England. The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity. The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back. This is an issue that needs further work. In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.