[1. A v. the United Kingdom [2003] 36 EHHR 51.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Injunctions (Philadelphia, Blackstone, 3rd ed. 1889)]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Aday, S., Farrell, H., Lynch, M., Sides J., and Freelon, D., “New Media and Conflict After the Arab Spring” (Washington DC. United States Institute of Peace, Peaceworks No. 80. Blogs and Bullets II, 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Abril, P. S., “A (My)Space of One’s Own: On Privacy and Online Social Networks” (2007) 6 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property 1, 73.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Ahmet Yildirim v Turkey (ECHR 548, No.3111/10, 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[6. AMM v HXW [2010] EWHC 2457 (QB).]Search in Google Scholar
[7. American Cyanimid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1957] AC 396.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Attorney General v Leveller Magazine [1979] A.C. 440.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Attorney-General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No.2) [1990] 1 A.C. 109.a. Attorney-General v Newspaper Publishing Plc [1988] Ch 333.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Attorney-General v Punch Ltd & Another [2003] 1 A.C. 1046.]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Axen v Germany (A/72) (1984) 6 E.H.R.R. 195.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. A-G v Leveller. [A-G v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] A.C. 440.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Beecham Group Ltd v Bristol Laboratories Pty Ltd (1968) 118 CLR 618.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Bender, P., Privacies of Life (New York, Harper’s Magazine, April 1974).]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Bender, P., Emerson, T., Haber, D., Dorsen, N., and Neuborne, B., Political and Civil Rights in the United States (Vol. 1, Fourth Edn. Little, Brown and Company; 1976).]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Bernstein v. Skyviews Ltd. [1978] Q.B. 479.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Beaney, W., “The Right to Privacy and American Law” (1966) 31 Law and Contemporary Problems 2, 253.10.2307/1190670]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Black’s Law Dictionary (ed.) Bryan Garner (Thomson West; 10th Edition, 2014).]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Black’s Law Dictionary (West Publishing Co., Rev. 5th ed. 1979).]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Bloustein, E., “Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: An Answer to Dean Prosser” (1964) 39 The New York University Law Review 962.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Bonnard v Perryman [1891] 2 Ch 269.a. Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Buchanan v Jennings (Attorney General of New Zealand intervening) [2005] 1 AC 115.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Busuttil, G., Free Speech v Privacy – The Big Debate, Preventing Publication of Private Information – When you can and when can cannot (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 2009).]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Campbell, C., “The Court of Equity-A Theory of its Jurisdiction” (1903) 15 Green Bag 108.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Cayne –v- Global Natural Resources Plc [1984] 1 All ER 225.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Chanel Ltd v F W Woolworth & Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 485.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000/C 364/01, 18.12.2000. 261 U.N.T.S. 140).]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Chroust, AH., The “Common Good” and the Problem of “Equity” (1942-143) 18 Notre Dame Law Review 2, 114.]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Citron, D.K., “Cyber Civil Rights” (2009) 89 Boston University Law Review 1, 61.a. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (As amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5. 213 UNTS 221).]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Lugano Convention) 28 ILM 620 (1989).10.1017/S0020782900021859]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Cooley, T.M., A Treatise on the Law of Torts, or the Wrongs which arise Independently of Contract (Chicago, Callaghan & Company, 2nd Edn., 1888).a. Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd v Argyll Stores (Holdings) Ltd [1998] AC 1 [1997] 3 All ER 297.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Cream Holdings and Imutran v Uncaged Campaigns Limited [2001] EMLR 563.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. CTB v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWHC 1326 (QB) and 1334 (QB).]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Dacre, P., Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers, in 2008 - Speech to the Society of Editors, 9 November 2008.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Daubney v Cooper (1829) 109 E.R. 438; 10 B & C 237.]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Diennet v France (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 554.]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000.a. European Commission Directive 2000/31.b. Emerson, T., “The Right of Privacy and Freedom of the Press” (1979) 14 Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 2, 329.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. European Union Accession to the ECHR: In The Opinion of the Advocate General in the CJEU Joined Cases C-203/15 and C-698/15 of the Tele2 AB.]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Ex parte Wason (1869) LR 4 QB 573.]Search in Google Scholar
[42. ETK v News Group Newspapers [2011] EWCA Civ 439.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. French Code of Civil Procedure (Nouveau Code de Procedure Civile, Le Code De Procedure Civile Francais Traduit En Anglais) in English, (Ed) 2016.]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1986] 3 All ER 772.]Search in Google Scholar
[45. G & G v Wikimedia [2010] EMLR 14.]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Gabbatt A., and Taylor, M., Scottish Newspaper Identifies Injunction Footballer (The Guardian, 22 May 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Gavison, R., “Privacy and the Limits of Law” (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 421.10.2307/795891]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Gerety, T., “Redefining Privacy” (1977) 12 Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review 2, 233.]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Glancy, D., “The Invention of the Right to Privacy” (1979) 21 Arizona Law Review 1, 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Glancy, D., “The Invention of the Right to Privacy” (1979) 21 Arizona Law Review 1, 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Gladstone, J.A., Determining Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: The “Zippo” Test or the “Effects” Test? (Informing Science InSITE - “Where Parallels Intersect”, June 2003).]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Godard v. Gray [1870] LR 6 QB. 139.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Goodwin v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EMLR 502.]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Gray v UVW [2010] EWHC 2637 (QB).]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Groleau, JP., “Interlocutory Injunctions: Revisiting the Three-Pronged Test” (2008) 53 McGill Law Journal 269.]Search in Google Scholar
[56. Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Ed. Reprint Vol. 8 issue 2.]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Handyside v. United Kingdom [1976] 1 EHRR 737.]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Harris v Harris [2001] 2 F.L.R. 895.]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Hessel Yntema, “The Comity Doctrine” (1966) 65 Michigan Law Review 1, 9.10.2307/1286930]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Hobbs v Tinling and Company Limited [1929] 2 K.B. 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Houlditch v. Marquis [1834] 8 Bligh N.S. 301; 2 CI & F. 470.]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Housing Group-South Ltd v Harris [2005] 4 ALL E.R. 1051 at 72.]Search in Google Scholar
[63. Huber, U., Praelectiones Juris Civilis (Lectures on the Civil Law) on the Institute (Francofurtum ad Moenum, Gleditsch, first published in 1687).]Search in Google Scholar
[64. Huber, U., De Jure Civitatis, Lib. III, Sect. IV, Cap. I., 14.a. Human Rights Act 1998. Chapter 42.]Search in Google Scholar
[65. Hansard, HC Deb, 23 May 2011.10.1162/NECO_a_00163]Search in Google Scholar
[66. Jack, M., Hutton, M., Johnson, C., Millar, D., Patrick, S., Sandall, A., (Eds) Parliamentary Practice (Erskine May: Butterworths Law, 23rd Revised Edn., 2004).]Search in Google Scholar
[67. James, F., and Hazard, G., Civil Procedure (Boston, MA., Little Brown Books, 3rd Edn., 1985).]Search in Google Scholar
[68. Jones v Pacaya Rubber & Produce Co Ltd [1911] 1 K.B. 455.]Search in Google Scholar
[69. Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege (House of Lords and the House of Commons, HL 43-I / HC 214-I, Session 1998-1999).]Search in Google Scholar
[70. JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 42]Search in Google Scholar
[71. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).]Search in Google Scholar
[72. Kaye v Robertson and Sports Newspapers Ltd [1991] FSR 62.a. Kennedy, K., Equitable Remedies and Principled Discretion: The Michigan Experience (1997) 74 University of Detroit Mercy Law Review 4, 609.]Search in Google Scholar
[73. Kittle, W., “Courts of Law and Equity-Why They Exist and Why They Differ” (1919-1920) 26 West Virginia Law Quarterly 21.]Search in Google Scholar
[74. Koopman, S., (Ed.) Newspapers in International Librarianship: Papers Presented by the Newspapers at International Federation of Library Association General Conferences, (The Hague, Walter de Gruyter & Co. 2003).]Search in Google Scholar
[75. Lester, A., Five Ideas to Fight for: How Our Freedom is Under Threat and Why it Matters (London-Bloomsbury, Oneworld Publications, 2016).]Search in Google Scholar
[76. Lorenzen, E., “Huber’s De Conflictu Legum” (1919) 13 Illinois Law Review 375.]Search in Google Scholar
[77. Lonrho v Fayed [1993] 1 WLR 1489.]Search in Google Scholar
[78. Main, T., “Traditional Equity and Contemporary Procedure” (2003) 78 Washington Law Review 429.10.2139/ssrn.421320]Search in Google Scholar
[79. Markesinis, B., The German Law of Torts: A Comparative Treatise (Oxford; Portland, Oregon, Hart Publishing, 2nd Edn., 1990).]Search in Google Scholar
[80. McGhee J., (Ed.) Snell’s Equity (Thomson Sweet & Maxwell, 2005).]Search in Google Scholar
[81. McGarrigle, P., “The Role of Foreign Judgments in Patent Litigation: A Perspective and Strategic Overview” (1998) 39 IDEA 1, 107.]Search in Google Scholar
[82. McKennitt v Ash [2006] EWCA Civ 1714.]Search in Google Scholar
[83. McKennitt v Ash [2008] QB 73.]Search in Google Scholar
[84. Mcleod, R., “Injunction Junction: Remembering the Proper Function and Form of Equitable Relief in Trademark Law” (2006) 5 Duke Law & Technology Review 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[85. Merwin, E., The Principles of Equity and Equity Pleading (Indianapolis, Bowen-Merril, 1895).10.2307/782251]Search in Google Scholar
[86. Mill, J.S., On Liberty (London, Longman, Roberts, & Green Co. 1859).]Search in Google Scholar
[87. Morgan v Mich. [1737] 1 ATK. 408.]Search in Google Scholar
[88. Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 687 (QB).]Search in Google Scholar
[89. Murray v MGN [2008] EWCA Civ 446, [2009] Ch 481.]Search in Google Scholar
[90. Neill, E., Rites of Privacy and the Privacy Trade: On the Limits of Protection for the Self (Montreal McGill Queen’s University Press, 2001).a. New Patriotic Party v. Ghana Broadcasting Corp., (30 November 1993, Writ No. 1/93).]Search in Google Scholar
[91. Ntuli v Donald [2010] EWCA Civ 1276.]Search in Google Scholar
[92. Offences under the Juries Act 1974.]Search in Google Scholar
[93. Offences under the Contempt of Court Act 1981.]Search in Google Scholar
[94. Paul, J., “The Transformation of International Comity” (2008) 71 Law and Contemporary Problems 3, 19.]Search in Google Scholar
[95. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593.]Search in Google Scholar
[96. PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] UKSC 26.]Search in Google Scholar
[97. PJS v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 100.]Search in Google Scholar
[98. Piggott F., The Law and Practice of the Courts of the United Kingdom Relating to Foreign Judgments and Parties Out of the Jurisdiction (London, W. Clowes and Sons, 2nd Ed., 1884).]Search in Google Scholar
[99. Polaroid Corporation v Eastman Kodak Co [1977] RPC 379.]Search in Google Scholar
[100. Plucknett, T., A Concise History of the Common Law (Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 5th ed. 1956).]Search in Google Scholar
[101. Plunkett, J., Imogen Thomas “Vindicated’ after Footballer Drops Blackmail Claim” (The Guardian 15 December 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[102. Prosser, W., “Privacy” (1960) 48 California Law Review 3, 383.10.2307/3478805]Search in Google Scholar
[103. Prince Albert v Strange (1849) 41 ER 1171, 1 Mac & G 25 at 47.]Search in Google Scholar
[104. Practice Guidance: Interim Non-Disclosure Orders (London, Master of the Rolls with effect from 1 August 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[105. Privacy and Injunctions (London, House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions, HL Paper 273, HC 1443, 12 March 2012).]Search in Google Scholar
[106. Practice Guidance: Committal for Contempt [2013] 1 WLR 1326, dated 3 May 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[107. Practice Guidance (Committal Proceedings: Open Court) (No. 2) [2013] 1 WLR 1753, dated 4 June 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[108. President’s Circular: Committals Family Court Practice 2024 at 2976, dated 2 August 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[109. R v Chaytor & Others [2010] 3 WLR 1707.]Search in Google Scholar
[110. R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233).]Search in Google Scholar
[111. R (Binyam Mohamed) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2010] EWCA Civ 65.]Search in Google Scholar
[112. R v Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, ex parte New Cross Building Society [1984] Q.B. 227.]Search in Google Scholar
[113. R v Legal Aid Board ex parte Kaim Todner [1999] 1 QB 966.]Search in Google Scholar
[114. Raack, D., “A History of Injunctions in England Before 1700” (1986) 61 Indiana Law Journal 4, 539.]Search in Google Scholar
[115. Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] 7 BHRC 375.]Search in Google Scholar
[116. Regina v. Connor and another (Appellants) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)). Regina v. Mirza (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)) (Conjoined Appeals) [2004] UKHL 2.]Search in Google Scholar
[117. Re Guardian News and Media Ltd [2010] UKSC 1, [2010] 2 WLR 325.]Search in Google Scholar
[118. Re JR 38 [2015] UKSC 42, [2015] 3 WLR 155.]Search in Google Scholar
[119. Re S (A Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication) [2004] UKHL 47; [2005] 1 AC 593.]Search in Google Scholar
[120. Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593.]Search in Google Scholar
[121. Rembar, C., The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System (New York, Simon & Schuster, 1980).10.2307/1340694]Search in Google Scholar
[122. Report of the Committee on Super-Injunctions: Super-Injunctions, Anonymised Injunctions and Open Justice (London, Master of the Rolls, 20 May 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[123. Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [2001] 1 AC 12.]Search in Google Scholar
[124. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, Reporter’s Note to Comment g (1971).]Search in Google Scholar
[125. Richards N., and Solove, D., “Prosser’s Privacy Law: A Mixed Legacy” (2010) 98 California Law Review 6, 1187.]Search in Google Scholar
[126. RJW & SJW v The Guardian News and Media Ltd ([2009] EWHC 2540 (QB).]Search in Google Scholar
[127. Rozenberg, J., Privacy and the Press (New York, Oxford University Press, 2004).10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199288472.001.0001]Search in Google Scholar
[128. Sabbagh D., and Halliday, J., Injunction Remains Despite MP’s Revelation (The Guardian, 23 May 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[129. Scott v Scott [1913] A.C. 417.]Search in Google Scholar
[130. Sedley, S., Lions under the Throne: Essays on the History of English Public Law (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[131. Sevems, R., “Nineteenth Century Equity: A Study in Law Reform” (1934) 12 Chicago-Kent Law Review 2, 81.]Search in Google Scholar
[132. Sipple v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 201 Cal. Rptr. 665 (1984).]Search in Google Scholar
[133. Social Media and Criminal Offences (London, House of Lords, HL 37, Communications Committee, First Report of Session 2014-2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[134. Solove, D., “Conceptualizing Privacy” (2002) 90 California Law Review 4, 1087.10.2307/3481326]Search in Google Scholar
[135. Smith v Peters [1875] L.R. Eq. 511.]Search in Google Scholar
[136. Spry, I., The Principles of Equitable Remedies (London, Sweet & Maxwell, 8th Edn., 2010).]Search in Google Scholar
[137. Stephens, B., Chomsky J.B., Green, J., Hoffman, P., and Ratner M., (Eds.) International Human Rights Litigation in U.S. Courts (Martinus, Nijhoff, 2d Rev. Edition, 2008).10.1163/ej.9781571053534.i-620]Search in Google Scholar
[138. Stockdale v Hansard (1839) 9 Ad & E 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[139. Stuart Sime, A Practical Approach to Civil Procedure (New York, Oxford University Press, 11 Edition, 2014).]Search in Google Scholar
[140. Subrin, S., “How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective (1987) 135 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 909.10.2307/3312053]Search in Google Scholar
[141. Terry v Persons Unknown [2010] 1 FCR 659.]Search in Google Scholar
[142. The Case of Barbulescu v Romania [2016] Referral to the Grand Chamber (Application No. 61496/08).]Search in Google Scholar
[143. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI1998/3132).]Search in Google Scholar
[144. The County Courts Act 1984.]Search in Google Scholar
[145. The Data Protection Act 1998, c. 29.]Search in Google Scholar
[146. The Defamation Act 2013, c. 26.]Search in Google Scholar
[147. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321.a. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression David Kaye (Geneva, Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/29/32, 22 May 2015).]Search in Google Scholar
[148. The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression (Frank La Rue, Geneva, United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Doc– A/HRC/23/40, 17 April 2013).]Search in Google Scholar
[149. The Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, Chapter 93 and 4 Vict.]Search in Google Scholar
[150. The Senior Courts Act 1971.]Search in Google Scholar
[151. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, c. 23.]Search in Google Scholar
[152. The White Book (Vol. 1, Sweet & Maxwell, 2011).]Search in Google Scholar
[153. Thierer A., and Crews Jr., C., Who Rules the Net? Internet Governance and Jurisdiction (Washington, DC. Cato Institute 2003).]Search in Google Scholar
[154. Thevarajah v Riordan [2016] 1 WLR 76.]Search in Google Scholar
[155. Times Newspapers Ltd (Nos 1 and 2) v The United Kingdom [2009] EMLR 14 (Reference Application Nos. 3002/03 and 23676/03).a. Von Hannover v Germany (No. 1) [2004] EMLR 379; (2005) 40 EHRR 1.]Search in Google Scholar
[156. Wainwright & Anor v. Home Office [2003] UKHL 53.]Search in Google Scholar
[157. Warren, S., and Brandeis L., “The Right to Privacy” (1980) 4 Harvard Law Review 5, 193.10.2307/1321160a. Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1176.]Search in Google Scholar
[158. White, RW., “Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Equity” (1982) 9 Sydney Law Review 3 630.]Search in Google Scholar
[159. Wrexham County Borough Council v Berry [2003] UKHL 26; [2003] 2 AC 558.]Search in Google Scholar
[160. Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre LeRacisme et L’Antisemitisme, declaratory judgment of 7th November 2001, CRI 2002, 13 with remarks by Wittow, 169 F.Supp.2d 1181 (N. D. Cal., 2001).]Search in Google Scholar
[161. Zuckerman, A., “Super Injunctions – Curiosity-Suppressant Orders Undermine the Rule of Law” (2010) 29 Civil Justice Quarterly 2, 131.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. The Code for Crown Prosecutors, 2013. Available at: <https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code_2013_accessible_english.pdf> [Accessed 1 October 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Final Guidelines for Prosecutions Involving Social Media Communications (DPP, 20/06/2013). Available at: <http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/> [Accessed 1 October 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[3. The Huffington Post. Available at: <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/social-media-arab-spring/> [Accessed 1 October 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[4. The Huffington Post. Available at: <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/injunction-celebrity-world-famous-marriage-who-had-an-affair_uk_570a5831e4b0fa55639d3842> [Accessed 12 September 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[5. “Privacy Injunctions Unsustainable, says Cameron”. BBC website, 23 May 2011. Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13498504>[Accessed 1 July 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Social Media Prosecution Guidelines set out by Crown Office. BBC website, 14 December 2014. Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-30309411> [Accessed 1 October 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Sunday Herald (Scottish Newspaper, 22 May 2011 Edition). Available at: <http://www.webdoodles.org/webimages/sundayherald22may2011.jpg> [Accessed 1 July 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Sunday Herald Names Footballer Accused on Twitter. BBC website, 22 May 2011. Available at: <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13491086> [Accessed 1 July 2016].]Search in Google Scholar
