The Chair of PM's Privacy Commission, Sir Michael Lyons, talks to Eddie about his approach and what he hopes the Commission might accomplish.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µþµþ°äÌý°Â±ð²ú·É¾±²õ±ð for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Comment number 1.
At 15th Jun 2011, gagged1980 wrote:Comment number 2.
At 17:43 14th Jun 2011, gagged1980 wrote:
Can radio 4 discover how many gagging injunctions have been issued since 1980?
i.e. before and after H.R.A. under Freedom of Information ?
How long do they last? Must the recipient wait for the death of the ex parte?
It was vaguely refered to as 300 p.a. by one legal presenter
The simple gagging injunction does not seek to gag the press it forbids the recipient to communicate and inform. This means excemption from enquiry by Authorities.
c.f. The F.S.A. cannot say who paid for a certain injunction even if it was funded by the tax payer. Naturally anyone who uses funds to protect themselves should be open to Inland Revenue and F.S.A. My experience is that even Registrars in R.C.J. will not continue if a previous gagging order is produced.
Please could the injunctions be classified into those to protect a professional practice(legal),to protect a celebrity reputation, to protect commercial standing,pension etc. I have wondered if when a storm is brewing e.g. like the off shore tax troubles that were beginning to flame at the election, died down when it was realised that it would not look good if the government was renting buildings for which the tax payer would not receive even the tax and VaT from the offshore landlords Did they take out injunctions?
The terms gagging and super while descriptive do not have a legal definition
I could not find this entry which I maDE YESTERDAY luckily I had copied it so I am able to reproduce it Sorry if my ineptitude results in reproduction
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Jun 2011, gagged1980 wrote:Was I mislead into believing that the commission would uncover the suggested 300-400 citizens who have been forbidden to communicate by injunction of the High Court?
How many injunctions are to protect the establishment?
How many Ministries of the Crown pay rent to off-shore landlords who do not pay UK tax.
How many Family Proceedings heard in camera result in a gagging injunction not to protect children but to protect a practice of one of the parties cited.
Do the commission understand they are asking for information from individuals who have no time limit on the order,and fear committal for contempt
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)