Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Media Gagged In "Official Secrets" Trial

Posted by timothy on from the hello-london dept.

An anonymous reader writes "According to an an article at Cryptome, the UK media has been gagged from reporting on the trial of an ex-intelligence agent. More than this, they've even been gagged from reporting on the gag! Several UK websites that were covering the story have removed it. Insidious..."

8 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. does this happen often? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i'm aware of the US's uniqueness in the fact that we have a freedom of the press, and "free" governments in general (except china, ect) generally let the press do as they may, within reason. how often does the UK gov put gag orders on the press? if they can gag the gag orders, it seems like this would be somthing that happens fairly often...

    i'm not a history major or anything, but i'm curious, why wern't the US media allowed to cover the vietnam, or was it korean, war? i mean it's understandable that the governement would withold details of war for tomorrow's attack, but as i understand it there was more or less a gag order on the entire war. or maybe i'm completely wrong.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:does this happen often? by peter+hoffman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The press covered Vietnam in detail. It was the "living room war" and that led directly to the protests.

      It was the first conflict where television was widely available. In 1946 there were only 8,000 sets in the U.S. By 1950 there were 3.88M sets (9% of the population) and by 1955 64.5% of the population had a set. The shooting portion Korean conflict was from 1950 to 1953 so television wasn't able to have much of an affect.

      The Pentagon learned their lesson from Vietnam and that is why no conflict since then has been covered by the press in the same way. Today we get the sanitized news the Pentagon wants us to get.

      Btw: the last actual war the U.S. had was WWII. Everything since then has been a "conflict" or "police action" or some other term.

    2. Re:does this happen often? by Second_Derivative · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Btw: the last actual war the U.S. had was WWII. Everything since then has been a "conflict" or "police action" or some other term.

      Yeah, they've moved on from attacking just sovereign states to attacking entire abstract concepts (any nation states that might happen to involve are just a side issue)

  2. If this were the US by medcalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    no doubt, we would see articles about how the US exemptions from the ICC lead to our soldiers raping and pillaging with total immunity. At least it's a (nominally) European country, so we don't have to listen to that kind of tripe.

    --
    -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
  3. Not quite true by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Newspapers cannot comment on a trial such that information revealed would predjudice the outcome of someone on trial. i.e. reporting that the accused has a criminal record.

    That newspapers cannot comment on unsolved crimes is untrue.

    For instance one of our serial killers was called Fred West. He never went to trial because he committed suicide in custody but many of the details of the case we revealed in the media during the investigation. The press published pictures of the bodies being removed from the scene etc.

    Local news reporting on trials will give the name of the accused, his/her area of residence but not the house number.

    Parliament does have what is called a "DA Notice" [formerly "Schedule D Notice"] such that it can impose news blackouts.

    The names of the accused and witnesses can be used in reporting with some exceptions [rape victims for instance].

    It is unknown how widespread D Notices are because the procedure excludes it's own reporting too.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:Not quite true by benhaha · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Possibly this has changed, but disregarding the old Schedule D Notices was not automatically an offence. Rather the notice served to tell the media organisation concerned that the information was likely to compromise national security. Once in receipt of a D Notice, the people concerned are forwarned, and if the media organisation still reports the information, and if a court agrees that national security was in fact compromised then the organisation is in trouble.

      Because an offence is not automatically committed, and the matter still has to go before a court and the government prove that national security was in fact compromised to get a conviction, the D Notices seem not to be abused. And because they are not abused, they are widely heeded: What newspaper really wants to compromise national security?

      --
      NO ID: BEING FREE MEANS NOT HAVING TO PROVE IT
  4. I was five... by Soskywalkr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I believe I was five when I first read of the good Doctor. A man by the name of Seuss. He told of hotch watchers and hotch watcher watchers or some such nonsense. Now many years later, I stop to pause and ask, "Are the security watcher watcher watchers being watched properly??"

  5. Re:eh? by Craevenwulfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am from the UK and this has been going on for ages. He fled to Paris where he was hiding for a while with his girlfriend. He eventually returned to the UK where he wanted to have a fair trial or something.
    He's ex-secret service, he knows things the government would rather were not revealed and he was serialising his book..would you prefer they assassinated him?