On 2 Dec 2009, at 20:53, geni wrote: > 2009/12/2 Michael Peel <em...@mikepeel.net>: >> >> 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.
Ah; I see. I should have read the judgement closer. ;-) (I don't believe what I read in the papers if there's a primary source... ;-) ) Mike _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
