Here is the question asked in the parlimentary records: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=...

And here is the report in question on wikileaks: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Minton_report:_Trafigura_Toxic_dum...

What's interesting is some Guardian staffers are tweeting links to the wikileaks on their personal accounts. Are they covered by the gag order on The Guardian itself?

The Guardian and I rarely see eye to eye on anything and, honestly, its been a while since I would have assumed that factual representations made on its pages should be treated to a presumption of accuracy.

That said, for once, I appreciate the righteous indignation about the sacred mission of the press (usually invoked in the service of their own power and privilege, not in the interest of the public per se) and the writing is a masterpiece of British wit. ("Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret." is beautiful.)

The Guardian successfully challenged the ban: http://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/4833101511

Carter-Ruck, "London's best-known and most feared libel lawyers", obviously still have a thing or two to learn about PR in the internet age. If Trafigura are trying to shy away from their their bad guy image, this isn't helping.

I thought links to sources were preferred over blogs regurgitating them? It would have been just as easy to simply link to the Guardian article [1]. Supposedly this is related to their reporting on the oil company Trafigura's alleged cover-up of intentional pollution in west Africa.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-...

[2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/trafigura-oil-iv...

It would be a "shame" if the information the Guardian has was leaked to a US-based newspaper. UK laws do not apply over here :)

Boring politics belong on Reddit IMHO. Not at the top of HN.

undefined