To be honest, I struggle to find fault with the judges decision. Bear in mind that it was Nightjack who went to court to try and get an injunction preventing the Times from publishing, so it was him who had to prove a case here. I don't think under current laws there is anything which would or even should give bloggers legal protection from publication. I don't like the outcome, but I think the correct legal decision was made. What really bothers me is why the Time thought it was in the public interest to do this in the first place. Nightjack was most certainly not hurting anyone. I know its been argued that if you dig enough you could put two and two together, but most people wouldn't. Besides, the Times has since published the links back to the original story, giving vastly more exposure to these cases than would ever have been the case with the original Nightjack posts. At the very least that smacks of rotten hypocrisy (You can't publish this stuff! Here, we'll just publish what we dont think you should publish to show you what we mean!). Even putting asside all the whistleblower angles, nightjack (and all the other emergency services blogs I read, including this one) just provide an interesting insight into how these organisations work. It's facinating and gives me a new respect for what they do. Far more respect than I now have for the Times. Which is a shame as I've been a regular reader of the Times for 20 years, but I'm not sure I want to continue reading a paper that behaves this way.