Last week, in the England and Wales High Court, Mr Justice Eady ruled that a police officer who previously wrote about his working life on his NightJack blog, did not have the right to remain anonymous.

The claimant - now known to be Detective Constable Richard Horton - had unsuccessfully attempted to get an injunction against The Times newspaper (UK) to stop it naming him. Following the court's ruling Horton has now been issued with a written warning by his police force, the Lancashire Constabulary.

A victory for freedom of expression (The Times')… or a severe restriction for freedom of expression (anonymous bloggers)? Popular opinion is divided, though a blog search would indicate that blogger opinion veers towards the latter.

NightJack, the judge said, did not “qualify as information in respect of which the Claimant has a reasonable expectation of privacy – essentially because blogging is a public activity”. Eady, who is well-known in the UK for his privacy-protecting rulings, stated:

“Furthermore, even if I were wrong about this, I consider that any such right of privacy on the Claimant's part would be likely to be outweighed at trial by a countervailing public interest in revealing that a particular police officer has been making these communications.”

And the implication for bloggers? “Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship, but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it.”

It's hard to find anyone in the UK (or international) blogosphere overwhelmingly in support of The Times' ruling; and The Times' own stories about their battle received severe criticism from commenters, even if, as Malcolm Coles suggests, some of the negative comments are a little tricky to find…

Three things to bear in mind for background:

• NightJack had had undergone the scrutiny of a judging panel in order to win the prestigious Orwell Prize for blogging. The prize's director, Jean Seaton, argues why she believes Eady's ruling to be wrong, here, on the Guardian Organ Grinder blog.
• Horton, who ended his postings after being shortlisted for the award, donated his prize to the Police Dependants' Trust.
• One of The Times' main arguments for outing him was its claims that ‘he was also using the blog to disclose detailed information about cases he had investigated, which could be traced back to real-life prosecutions.'

The bloggers and commenters have reacted with force, many personally attacking Patrick Foster, the journalist at the centre of what Eady called the ‘deduction and detective' process. I've previously rounded up a good mix of links on the Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog and my own blog which tell the story, but here are a selection of the best blog posts, which draw out interesting nuances. Opinions include:

• Those with experience of being ‘outed'. Eg. The Girl with a One Track Mind - once Abby Lee, now known by her real name, Zoe Margolis.

• Those who defend their right to anonymity as a blogging police officer. Eg. PC Bloggs.

• Others who work in the public sector and write about their life and work. Eg. Tom Reynolds, an ambulance driver with a book deal.

• Those who think NightJack was a little naive in his attempt to remain anonymous: Eg. Letter from a Tory

• Those who think The Times, in some respects, had a fair point on the right to name. Eg. Martin Cloake and FleetStreetBlues.

• Those who make comparisons between anonymous bloggers and anonymous journalistic sources. Eg. Sara McConnell and Justin McKeating.
  

• Those with other criticisms against The Times' approach to the case. Eg. Hopi Sen, once an anonymous blogger.

This is just a summary of a complicated debate. Perhaps the court's decision has surprised onlookers so much because it happened in the UK. We're not living in a repressive autocracy with threatening media laws. While we have stringent libel laws, our freedom of expression extends far more widely than it does for many societies. Perhaps more than it does for most nations in the world - not least because the English language is understood by so many. Yet an award-winning blogger, whose voice, it could be argued, aided the democratic process (see Seaton's article), was not able to stay nameless.

To what extent it affects UK bloggers' future privacy and right to anonymity remains to be seen. I shall report back. In the meantime, all those who are blogging anonymously might do well to take a look at Global Voices Advocacy's guidelines … then they might stand a chance of keeping it that way. Perhaps taking up jiu-jitsu in a Lancashire town, and then writing about it, was a reckless decision on Horton's part.

Please do add any other good links below.

Vexed Bermoothes was following the parliamentary proceedings closely:

They have started debating the motion of no confidence in Dr. Brown.

The Speaker tried to change the motion to: “That this house has no confidence in the Government and deplores the actions of the Premier in relation to the Uighurs matter” or something like that.

It finally ended up as “That this honourable house has no confidence in the Government led by the Premier” after the UBP resisted.

Dr. Brown has corrected his earlier statements regarding the Uighur risk assessment, saying that he erred rather than knowingly mislead in his statement to the House and subsequent radio broadcasts. Sayeth he “To err is human, to forgive divine.”

Please give me some novocaine!

As he awaited the results of the debate, the blogger noted:

If Dr. Brown survives this upheaval and there is no change to the political status quo, let me promise you that it will not be business as usual on Monday. It will have been proven that there is no consequence to violating the Bermuda Constitution. From a political risk perspective, that makes us an unstable country.

It is important for countries to have a reliable Rule of Law. But there are weaknesses in laws even, because laws are made by politicians. And that’s why the Constitution is so important. It must be passed by public referendum. All politicians and laws must toe to the Constitution.

Ergo, a politician who flaunts the Constitution is effectively saying ‘I am beholden to no law'.

As news broke that the motion had been defeated following a 14-hour debate, Breezeblog commented:

I’m disappointed and depressed but not surprised at the spinelessness of those who blindly follow Dr. Brown. Maybe there’ll be a leadershp challenge at the PLP conference in the Fall but I doubt it. I suspect Dr. Brown will emerge stronger than ever from this.

The UBP, though, are finished as a credible Opposition.

Vexed Bermoothes, meanwhile, called the result “a catastrophe for Bermuda”:

The motion in the House of Assembly failed by 22-11 (two UBP MPs failing to vote).

I have lost all faith in our political system. I think we are governed by crooks and fools for their own benefit.

We have retained a leader who during the debates yesterday free admitted that he violated the law and the Constitution, and kept his own Government in the dark as to his actions and motives. Half the debate was about race and independence, rather than the simple task of reprimanding a leader who apparently will not comply with the law, nor represent the people.

I am ashamed for Bermuda. The consequences for this will be terrible for our community.

21 Square has not been able to get over the Premier's defense of his actions by calling them “an act of God”:

An act of God? This is the same kind of thing terrorists say before blowing up buildings full of innocent people.

…while Breezeblog seemed more interested in Dr. Brown's next move:

So what will an emboldened and empowered Dr. Brown do next?

Independence is the big fear for many people but maybe there’s another option up his sleeve. I’m not normally in the business of publishing rumours but I have now heard this one from credible non-UBP sources so I’ll put it up here and see who salutes. I’m genuinely interested to hear what people think, not stir up anything.

I understand that the PLP has been exploring the option of Bermuda becoming a US territory like Puerto Rico as an alternative to independence from Britain.

But if – and I stress ‘if' – it is true, it might explain many of the unashamedly pro-American Dr. Brown’s recent actions…

According to Breezeblog, the U.K. is still very much a part of this political debacle:

A petition has been posted on the UK Prime Minister’s web site calling for the resignation of Dr. Ewart Brown.

UPDATE: Organisers of the recent local protests are urging people not to sign this petition. In an e-mail circulated June 20, they state:

RE: Advise that you do NOT sign the UK petition calling for Ewart Brown’s resignation

Advise that you do NOT sign the UK petition calling for Ewart Brown’s resignation

Avoid ‘knee jerk' reactions. We should not throw a petition out to the public in haste. As we know, wording is critical. We have to get it right and take the time to get it right.

Finally, Catch a fire weighed in after “a long night”:

After reading over the transcripts of the debate and looking at the end vote, I think one thing is definitely clear. Dr. Brown won the battle, but he has lost the war.

While on the surface it may appear that Dr. Brown’s hand has been strengthened, from my reading any such strength now is more illussionary that real. The Party, at least in the form of its MPs, have clearly expressed that business as usual a la Dr. Brown cannot continue. He must now either build bridges or accept it is time to go gracefully as per internal Party procedures.

The demonstrators will feel disillussioned after these events. That is unfortunate, and I advise them to carry on their energy of political and community activism in other areas. There are a lot of issues of concern in our society, and if people can mobilise as they did last week, there is no reason why this momentum cannot be carried forward for the betterment of our people on other issues.

While those in power may cry that control is being lost, in fact it is our democracy and political consciousness that is being strengthened.

As Bermudians continue to react - unfavourably for the most part - to their government's acceptance of former Guantanamo Bay detainees as full citizens of the tiny island, bloggers comment on yesterday's protest and what the public outcry could mean for the nation's Premier.

The Devil Island, known for being a cartoon blog, says:

Didn’t have anything written, but I wanted to doodle SO bad. There’s tonnes of blogs talking about it. I’ve spent the afternoon and evening bitching about it and talking about it and reading about it. I’m going to wait for the next step.

I HOPE that he [the Premier] doesn’t wriggle out of this, but I’m not holding my breath. I can’t find it in myself to put anything past him. One of his “supporters” actually compared this to Dr. King. Sickening.

I WOULD however like to welcome these Uighur gentlemen to my home. If the vetting turns out copacetic and you guys are cool, we’re cool.

Breezeblog actually posts a video of the protest, which features “the moment Janice Battersbee told Premier Dr. Ewart Brown what many Bermudians think of him.” While the racial divide in the island's politics was evident, the blogger writes:

It took great courage as a PLP supporter to stand in front of her country’s leader and deliver that – and credit to Brown, he stood there and took it with dignity, even if he must have been seething and humiliated inside.

There’s been a lot of internet and radio chatter about how the crowd was overwhelmingly and depressingly white – no surprise there – and sadly Hott 107 almost seemed to dismiss the protest because of the racial imbalance. But the pro-Brown support was noticeable by its absence.

It was encouraging to see Bermudians willing to stand up and be counted and as such it was a good day for democracy. The people told their elected Premier in no uncertain terms what they thought of him without fear of arrest or police brutality. If nothing else, it will have impressed the four Uighurs who can only dream of such freedoms back home.

Photo courtesy Max Kehrli.

Catch a fire takes notice of “a counter-demonstration” that was carded for the same time of the original protest action:

This demonstration is being billed as supporting the decision to bring the Uighurs here.

This blog takes the position that it encourages active and critical participation in Bermuda’s politics, and to that degree I hope that there is a good turn-out for today’s demonstrations, as such activity is to the credit of our democracy.

This blog is, without hesitation, in the support of those who are critical of how this decision was made. I feel that the decision was made not on humanitarian grounds and that describing it as such is a red herring and emotionally manipulative deflection. I believe that the way this was done was contrary to the Constitution, and unnecessarily so.

Now that the Uighurs are here they should stay, but the way the decision was done needs protested. Either way, everyone have fun, be careful, confront ignorance and generally exercise your democratic rights, either for or against the decision.

Meanwhile, the Premier's reaction to the protest does not sit well with Vexed Bermoothes:

Don’t expect much from Dr. Brown. His comment on the protest: ‘As some of you might know, I grew up in the protest era. This is nothing new to me. I have seen them larger and longer.' Be careful what you ask for Dr. Brown.

Know we know why the Sally Bassett statue was placed in front of the Cabinet building: so the Premier can stand in front of it whenever he is in hot water to try and shift the dialogue to one of racial martyrdom. Nice try.

“Between the Signs”, photo by Max Kehrli.

Vexed Bermoothes is also focused on the irony of the entire deal…

On the day that the PLP seeks to wrap itself in laurels of humanitarianism, their Government admits that there are still no funds to replace the decrepit and wholly inadequate homeless shelter in Bermuda.

I encourage all those international groups who are puffing up Dr. Brown for solving their problem, to feel free to encourage and assist the Bermuda Government in finally fulfilling its obligations to its own people.

…not to mention the safety issue:

Premier Ewart Brown stated in the House of Assembly on Friday that Police Commissioner Jackson had done a thorough security check on the Uighurs.

Well, maybe not. As it turns out – like everyone else in Bermuda, the Police only learned about the uighurs on the radio news on Thursday morning.

Is it not a crime to ‘bend the truth' in a statement to the House of Assembly?

The crowds at Parliament at lunch today – which spilled onto the surrounding streets – were noisy and fed up particularly compared to the meagre team of Brown supporters that gathered in his stage-managed appearance. It will be untenable for the PLP to retain support for the Premier in the face of such public displeasure. The constant circus surrounding him has become a debilitating distraction for Bermuda.

This leads the blogger to turn his attention to the opposition party's call for a vote of “No Confidence” in Premier Brown:

Typically a motion such as this would be voted upon two weeks after being tabled. Understandably, the Premier’s team are pursuing all options to keep that from happening.

It is clear that there is considerable public discontent regarding the leadership of Dr. Ewart Brown. The Speaker (although currently drawn from the PLP ranks) has a strong responsibility to be impartial in conducting the affairs of the House. He must facilitate the debate of this motion as soon as possible, so that Bermuda can clear the air and get our Government back to work.

Photo by Max Kehrli.

Finally, he has a few words of wisdom for “international groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch [that] are freely tossing around humanitarian plaudits driven by their deep concerns about Guantanamo Bay and everything that it represents”:

They are incorrect if they assume that the backlash towards Dr. Brown is based on the Uighurs alone. It is not. The backlash is based on the accumulation of ‘unethical but not necessarily illegal' acts under his tenure. If there is no respect amongst our top leadership for the Constitution, then there is no Rule of Law. And if there is no consistent rule of law, then there are degrading and unreliable human rights for Bermudians.

In short, it is fundamentally wrong to undermine the Bermudian Constitution so that the American Constitution can retain its lustre.

Breezeblog reports that “Bermudians are being urged to take to the streets on Tuesday in an unprecedented ‘people’s protest' against Premier Dr Ewart Brown”:

The call, circulated by e-mail and social networking sites throughout the Island, states that a march on Parliament will take place on June 16 at 12.30pm. The organisers – who seem to be a mixed grassroots bunch led by an insurance clerk, Janice Battersbee – are calling for the Premier to resign and for the “Gitmo Four” to be returned immediately.

Realistically, they are unlikely to succeed on either count but the fact that this protest is taking place at all is an indication of the widespread anger and disgust people here have for Brown right now.

With the UBP having tabled a motion of no confidence in Brown – and no doubt he will try and stifle that debate next Friday if he lasts that long – its going to be an interesting week in Bermudian politics. A watershed even.

Bermudians are not the only ones unhappy with the Premier. Mainstream media sources are reporting that the U.K. is reviewing “the legal basis of its relations with Bermuda” following the debacle, questioning Brown's right to even negotiate the deal without Britain's input. According to the Guardian story, “under a 1968 understanding known as the general entrustment, Bermuda has the right to conduct external relations ‘on behalf of' Britain, on condition that London is consulted before agreements with other states are entered.”

Meanwhile, The New York Times piece that shows some of the former detainees cavorting in the Bermudian ocean has done little to foster goodwill. Vexed Bermoothes, referring to a BBC report, actually wonders if the Premier “got played”:

You can read this in several ways – one view is that Dr. Brown was looking for an angle to push the independence agenda with the UK. Another view is that Dr. Brown got played way out of his league:

* The US knew they had an anti-UK zealot with a huge ego and hunger for attention and exploited it. They offload a few Uighurs, create plausible deniability for their real ally (the UK), and leave Ewart to deal with the mess he’s created.
* Or they really don’t give a rats ass and are just shoving Uighurs in any tin pot country that will take ‘em, screw the consequences.

Dr. Brown doesn’t come out looking very good. Even if you don’t believe that Dr. Brown was used, it is undeniable that his little games with the Constitution have badly undermined the Rule of Law in Bermuda.

The blogger also stresses that:

This fuss is not really about the uighurs. It’s about the consistently murky and inappropriate behaviour of our political leadership.

Dr. Brown's reaction to the public outcry has not helped. Vexed Bermoothes comments:

That sums up his philosophy. So far, he’s been able to count on Bermudians forgiving or forgetting every one of his transgressions without any consequence. By creating diversions, or going on the offensive, he’s been able to avoid accountability on so many issues.

So … are Bermudians going to ‘let things pass' yet again with Dr. Brown? Each time he gets bolder, and the damage greater.

Catch a fire adds:

The issue is solely on how this fiasco came about, and what it implies. This decision has been made contrary to our Constitution, which makes it all the more ironic that not only a few weeks ago the Party Leadership was desperately clutching to the Party Constitution rules to fend off a Leadership challenge. What is more, there is growing evidence that could see the decision as being seen as an act of treason and an attempt by the USA to undermine the constitutional sovereignity of our island and, by extension, the UK.

The greatest irony of this is that out of this fiasco Dr. Brown may have actually finally given birth to a greater level of national consciousness and unity as a result. ‘This too shall pass' says Dr. Brown. No doubt, in time, it will. There will be seething public anger over the immediate week or two, and then this anger will calm down, at least superficially. The Uighurs will face some unfortunate public backlash, but in time the vast majority of the people will accept that they are pawns and victims of this affair. But just as this fury shall pass, so shall Dr. Brown’s leadership and those opportunists that cling-on to his coat-tails.

Interestingly, after giving the situation some thought, Catch a fire decides that the “no confidence” vote in the Premier being put forward by the UBP is not worth supporting for two critical reasons:

If the No Confidence Vote is successful it would see, in short order, a move to send the Uighur detainees back to Guantanamo Bay, or, worse, the People’s Republic of China. While there may be some populist reactionary support for either of these actions, to do so would in my opinion be unethical and inhumane.

The main issue why I have changed my opinion on the No Confidence Vote however is because the more I think about this fiasco the more I become convinced that the US and UK have acted together in such a way as to benefit themselves at the expense of Dr. Brown. In short, I believe that part of this fiasco is a plot to see Dr. Brown scapegoated and his Premiership ended.

But 21 Square is not convinced by the conspiracy theories. Instead, he claims that “the blatantly obvious has been far too readily discounted”:

Premier Brown may be said to be many things but he is not an idiot when there is something to be gained. He has proven far too cunning to be caught up in a move of simple ignorance to the potential fallout of a so called ‘humanitarian’ act gone wrong. Is it really likely that Brown was so corrupt in his self belief in this being a good idea that he would not only disregard the biggest complaint that has ever been lodged against his leadership but also do so in such a grandiose fashion that turned this into an international incident? This to take such a massive gamble for something to which he negotiated no upside aside from ‘doing the right thing’? This simply doesn’t fit.

The controversy has even reached the attention of other regional bloggers. From Trinidad and Tobago, Mauvais Langue says:

The islanders of Bermuda are angry and outraged, and who could blame them.

I wonder how much it took for the Premier to sell his soul?

I only hope that this does not spread to other islands in the Caribbean, especially Trinidad. The last thing Trinidad & Tobago needs is this.

Breezeblog, on the other hand, is quite happy to post a video entitled “Time To Go - An Ode to Ewart Brown” as he tries to take a humourous look at the situation. And the comedy continues, courtesy the “fake” blog The Secret Blog of Patrick “Patos” Manning, which claims to be from the mind of Trinidad and Tobago's Prime Minister. The blogger inisists that he received a letter from U.S. President Barack Obama asking for cooperation in taking a few Guantanamo Bay detainees:

I originally consulted the Minister of National Security on the matter, but his most innovative idea had to do with sending the detainees to live in Sobo Village and hoping they die of smelter-related illnesses within a few years. So I’m opening this one to you, my dear friends. Participatory government is alive and well in Trinidad and Tobago! Help me choose a Gitmo detainee! Or four!

Should we grab some Chinese separatists, like Bermuda? Or would that get us into trouble with our Chinese friends and bring the local construction industry to its knees? And if any of you know any women we can fix these fellas up with, please leave a note in the comments section.

To Bermudians, of course, the entire affair is no laughing matter:

Bermudian reactions to this range from the bewildered to the outraged.

Caribbean bloggers do not seem surprised. Repeating Islands notes that articles by the Telegraph detail the part Padel played in what Walcott himself called a “low attempt at character assassination”:

In emails sent to a number of reporters, Padel pointed out his advanced age (Walcott is 79), claimed that he had suffered poor health, and stressed that he lived in the Caribbean. She then went on to allege that what he ‘actually' did for students could be found in six pages in a book called The Lecherous Professor. Padel then went on to inform journalists that the claims could be found on the internet and were widely known in the United States. The emails were sent just days before John Walsh, a close friend of Padel’s, highlighted the allegations against Walcott in a column on the Independent. Padel does not deny alerting journalists to the accusations.

In another post, Repeating Islands republishes Padel's statements:

In announcing her resignation, Padel said that ‘as a result of student concern, I naively – and with hindsight unwisely – passed on to two journalists, whom I believed to be covering the whole election responsibly, information that was already in the public domain. I acted in complete good faith, and would have been happy to lose to Derek, but I can see that people might interpret my actions otherwise.'

Mainstream media are referring to Padel's stepping down as “poetic justice”, a concept which Living in Barbados is happy to comment on:

When I first read last week about Nobel Laureate, Derek Walcott, withdrawing his nomination from an Oxford University professorship, I smelled a rat. Now, Prof. Ruth Padel, who won the professorship, against the weakened field, has confessed and resigned from the chair, stating ‘I acted in complete good faith and would have been happy to lose to Derek.' Yea, right. But when she won she had said her victory was ‘poisoned by cowardly acts which I condemn and which I have nothing to do with…Those acts have done immense damage to people and to poetry.' She certainly has a way with words, but truth doth elude her. We may have to see if that is not a lift from a literary work. In the end, she admits that she acted ‘naively' and ‘unwisely'. But, she is still kicking the stone that I did nothing wrong and am gravely misunderstood.

Just reading a few of the reports about this episode would lead me to think that this might be some crazy, mixed up lady. Then I find that she is a great-great-grand-daughter of naturalist Charles Darwin; had a father who was a psychoanalyst; and did a doctoral thesis on Greek tragedy. She was once a journalist, too. Funny, how she did not put two and two together when she sent the e-mails. Or did she?

Repeating Islands also weighs in, noting that:

…she did admit sending two emails to journalists she was in contact with detailing information ‘that was already in the public domain' regarding Mr. Walcott, acknowledging that sending the emails was ‘naive and silly', but stopping short of saying that they were wrong.

Ms Padel, although slightly repentant, stopped short of any statement that would endorse Walcott’s candidacy in a new election.

She needn't worry. Walcott has already stated that “he would not stand for election again as he did not want to revisit ‘that awful business'.”