You're right though, reading about corporate murder doesn't interest me :/ Just like reading about serial killers doesn't interest me all that much.
You seem to be implying somehow that I think corporate murder is ok or not a serious issue :/ An odd leap you're making there.
To be fair, this does involve the use of twitter, and other social news sites, and technology in general, to challenge existing legal/PR practices i.e. trying to gag news sites. Furthermore, it may be possible that the twitter-storm made Carter Ruck decide that by sticking to their guns the storm would increase, thereby working against their aim of minimising Trafigura's publicity.
It's a good example of how the internet changes society, providing the internet did play a role in Carter Ruck's decision to cave in, which I would guess is likely.
The longer Carter Ruck decided to persue this course of action, the more Twitter would link to the report. Therefore, it was wise for Carter Ruck to remove Twitter's fuel. It was wise to stop attempting to gag the Guardian. (Attempting to sue all those on Twitter would be unfeasible, and suing Twitter itself would add even more fuel to the fire)
I have no proof this is what Carter Ruck thought. But it's certainly a logical and sensible course of action for Carter Ruck, which makes it likely.
That was 1987, and the main difference was the lack of easy access to foreign controlled media from within the UK made it possible to prevent people reading anything about the allegations in the book. This latest attempt shows that's no longer possible.
Come on, now.