UK Media Gagged In "Official Secrets" Trial

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..."

Comments

does this happen often?

[Hadlock]

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.

Re:does this happen often?

[peter hoffman]

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.

Re:does this happen often?

[Second_Derivative]

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)

If this were the US

[medcalf]

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.

Gag Order Nesting?

[WeaponOfChoice]

If you have been gagged from reporting on a gag on a story you have intended to run does it naturally follow that you are able to report on being gagged from reporting on the gag on the gag on the report?.[phew].

[repeat until bored]
Even if they gagged you again that very gag would be able to be reported on (unless it was also gagged etc)
[end repeat]

One way around this

[redelm]

The easiest way way around this gag order is to send a series of American journalists in, one per day, and have them leave the UK and files their stories from the US onto the web/sat. They might need to stay out of the UK 'til the trial is over.

It's really silly to try to keep things half-secret. Either keep them fully secret in Star Chambers or fully open. You can't have it halfway, and trying is repugnant.

Not quite true

[DrSkwid]

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.

This has been on freenet for days now.

[Harik]

Quoting from "Pussy Galore" (SSK@xdDLu9KYaJGEL9543hOrarcoFM8PAgM/PussyGalore// ) who got it from rotton.com.

13th October in the Year of Our Lord 2002

"The British media have been gagged from reporting sensational courtroom evidence of the former MI5 spy David Shayler, including his alleged proof that the secret service paid £100,000 ($280,000 at current exchange rates) for al-Qaeda terrorists to try to assassinate Libya's leader, Muammar Gaddafi, in 1986.

In its efforts to contain Shayler's allegations, the Government has even stopped the media from reporting its successful attempt to win a court gag order."

Is this not incredible, an Alice in Wonderland scenario? Not only can the press not report the proceedings but also they cannot report that they have been gagged. Yet, foreign press and websites can do as they please. Sadly, in the UK such happenings are not incredible, they occur too often.

Duke Morbid's Freesite is UK based. We have not received a "Public Interest Immunity certificate" so we shall say what we like; we would anyway.

Blunkett and Straw, two notable fascists in Fuehrer/Anti-Christ Blair's government issued the gagging orders; they were not behaving out of character. But who is being denied the news? Not foreigners and not London's chattering classes. The chattering classes at their dinner parties will be fully in the picture as to what is going on in court even if the case is held in camera. Everyone down from the judge, through the barristers and jury to the humblest court official will be discussing the case. Of course they will be discussing it "in confidence" and of course it is standard practice to pass "confidences" onward "in confidence". Soon every half-educated person in London (10% of its population) will know the details. Provincial Dukes and their supporting infrastructure of artisans and peasants will hear nothing of this.

Why the, partial, secrecy? What is there to protect? Certainly not sensitive intelligence operations in progress. The events relate to 1986 and much water has passed under the bridge since then. Thus what is being protected is the good name of MI5 and, much much more importantly, the reputations of diverse politicians of differing persuasions who have been overseeing MI5. God forbid that any politician should be made to look stupid either through conniving with a daft MI5 scheme or by failing to give MI5 proper scrutiny. The potential scandal reaches to the Privy Council, no less, and Brenda chairs it (actually the prats all stand around a table for 'traditional' reasons but there are significant sub-committees that do the real work in secret).

What of the press and their much vaunted fearless reporting of the truth? Collectively the press could easily smash the power of gagging notices imposed by the executive: in a supposedly civilised democracy it would seem odd if a host of editors were to be imprisoned for contempt of court. So why do they acquiesce? The answer is obvious: there is something in it for them (proprietors especially). They can have the satisfaction of being kept fully in the know (and thus have reason to feel important because the information is denied to provincial Dukes, artisans and peasants) and expect to to be rewarded by life peerages (proprietors), knighthoods (editors) and lesser baubles (the journalistic rabble); really well behaved editors will also get the chairmanships of lucrative QUANGOs too when they retire (proprietors are too rich to require this boon).

We are already a Duke, so the establishment has nothing further to offer us (apart from the Crown), thus we can afford to be fearless in our reporting.

Way to be on the ball, people! Looks like freenet has faster news then slashdot, despite only being able to update at midnight GMT.

Re:Insidious?

[JonK]

OK: a bit of background.

The guy being tried is one David Shayler, who is being prosecuted for breaches of the Official Secrets Act. His defence is that he was whistle-blowing, which is an admissible defence in UK law (see R vs Ponting, where Clive Ponting was prosecuted for a breach of the OSA by the Crown for revealing to an MP (Tam Dalyell) that Ministers were mis-leading Parliament. He was found not guilty, basically because the jury refused to swallow the prosecution line that revealing Ministerial malfeasance was not a justification for breaching the OSA). Shayler revealed, extensively, just how much of a joke MI5 (the branch of the British goverment responsible for "internal security" - keeping tabs on subversives, terrorists, republicans (note the lower-case R), anti-apartheid campaigners and the like) was: among the individuals who MI5 kept files on were about half the members of the current Cabinet, while the organisation itself was a joke: hidebound, locked into a cold-war culture and mindset and staffed by demoralised alcoholics. See this article for a more forensic examination.

Unsuprisingly, MI5 wasn't at all happy about being held up for ridicule in this way and, while denying all the allegations, also pressed for Shayler to be prosecuted for breaching the OSA. Shayler, with the backing of various human rights organisations, has fought this, claiming, amongst other things, that the revelations were in the public interest and did not damage national security, and that the human rights act, which came into law in October 2000, protects whistle-blowers who act in the public interest. Various courts, up to and including the Law Lords, have decided that he has no absolute exemption and must stand trial, which is what is now happening.

So, did Shayler, by his actions, put Britain or British agents in danger. Well, no. Did he embarass the security services? Yes, absolutely. Does this mean he should be tried in camera. In my opinion, no: surely there is an absolute protection for the man who blows the whistle, and this includes (wherever possible) giving him his day in open court in front of the judge and jury, and in the public eye.

Whew!

[Snafoo]

...at least they haven't been gagged from reporting the gag on the gag.

Re:Insidious?

[paul.dunne]

> while the organisation itself was a joke: hidebound,
> locked into a cold-war culture and mindset and staffed by demoralised
> alcoholics.

You say that like it's a bad thing! If we must have spooks, isn't it preferable that they be ineffective?

Re:official secrets.... yeah, right.........

[aebrain]

how can you have 'official' and 'unofficial' secrets? How can that work? and what secrets are 'official' and which are 'unofficial'?

The unofficial answer is that I could tell you, but I'd have to kill-9 you. The official answer? You're not cleared for that.

But seriously folks... the definition of the types of information that is considered officially secret is within the Official Secrets Act legislation. I've signed the Official Secrets Act (Australian version - actually section 79 of the Crimes Act). And that's about all I can really say about it, apart from the fact that the quoted link's to an unofficial version. The UK version is a bit different, and the quoted link is to an official version.

Unlike many websites, neither has anything to do with secretaries, or secretions.