2009/12/2 Michael Peel <[email protected]>: > > On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:23, geni wrote: > >> I see no problem with the court's or WMF's actions. Slightly worried >> about the attempt by the plaintiff to prevent the WMF's name from >> being released but the court didn't grant that I can understand why >> that might have been attempted. > > Um... that's not how I read it. I read it as the court considering > requiring no press coverage of the order at all - but deciding > against that. Nothing about preventing the WMF's name from being > released... > > Mike >
Section 10 # As the title to this judgment shows, I made orders giving anonymity to the Applicants. One provision which was sought, but which I did not grant, was an order giving anonymity to the Respondent. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3148.html The respondent is the WMF. I can understand the provision might be sought but I'm glad it wasn't granted. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
