Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE TIMES OF London took an interesting approach to its reporting of a terror trial this morning.
27-year-old Erol Incedal was sentenced to three and a half years in prison yesterday after being convicted of possessing a document likely to be of use to terrorists.
Of more note were the charges he was not convicted of – specifically plotting terrorist attacks in Britain.
Of still more note is the fact that large portions of the trial were conducted behind closed doors in the interests of ‘national security’, including almost the entirety of the defence evidence.
‘Accredited journalists’ were allowed view certain parts of the behind-closed-doors segment of the trial, but were banned from reporting on them, including the main allegation that had been made against Incedal.
In defiance of this ‘major departure from the principle of open justice’ crime journalist Sean O’Neill chose to include the sensitive parts of the trial in his report but then blanked (or redacted) them out.
Examples include:
Miaoww.
The full report can be read here (paywalled).
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
In fairness they can **** right off because I know ****** and he’s ****. Oh I once slept with the sexiest of the journal reporters, isn’t that right ********!
sounds like you were very very very very drunk ;-)
Secret courts?
Looks like the Brits are taking a leaf out of the Yanks book.
What next?
A Brit Guantanamo torture camp in the Arran Islands?
I suppose it might be handy, seeing as they are flying their torture subjects through Shannon.
Can happen?
May Happen?
What’s to stop it happening?
David do you sit at home by yourself thinking of things to be worried about?
They spelt ****** wrong!
I could never understand the arrogance of the media when it comes to some topics. They keep spouting the line “the public haa the right to know” and portray themselves as impartial modern day heroes seeking out the truth.
The fact is that they are comercial businesses whose sole motive is to return a profit for shareholders. They hide behind this “right to know” in order to get the sexy story that’ll sell the most papers.
Some things are kept secret for a reason and I dont believe that the profit driven media are the best judges of what should and shouldnt be released to the public.
In short certain sections of the media need to get off their moral high horses and realise that they’re just a pawn in business just like most other employees.
And the government isn’t answerable to big business? Cop on man!
To be fair, this instance is about highlighting the erosion of a cornerstone of western justice rather than just selling newspapers. The two may go hand in hand here & perhaps the journo is more interested in sales than justice, but that doesn’t take away from the fact they are highlighting an important incident that is very much in the public’s interest to be aware of.
Irish Sceptic – the exact same could be said about the government both in Ireland and the UK. UK political parties receive massive amounts each year from big business who are essentially buying influence in political decision making. The interests of the citizens are pushed down the pecking order in favor of money. The same can be seen in Ireland. Brian Cowen was appointed to the board of Topaz, owned by Ireland’s wealthiest man, despite doing a terrible job in office. Who are the UK government protecting by not allowing the people access to this information? By censoring it, it set’s a dangerous precedent where governments can do what they like and not be questioned by the people who voted them in in the first place.
correct term for our governance system is a corporatocracy. always has been and always will. democracy (2 identical parties to choose from who don’t answer to the public) is a myth
The Times article reads like something from ‘Have I Got News for You’ only a lot less funny. Should have asked Paul Merton for a comment or two to fill in the missing words?
How sad that so many cannot see how freedom is being eroded.
A legal system that has no principle cannot be a source of justice.
Well done to Seán O’Neill and the editor…
Only journalists find journalism interesting
The British government consider themselves protectors of people. But protecting people can result in the withholding of the truth.
I guess, I’d rather people are unprotected from the truth.
Perhaps someone can proof read the headline…
*proof-read
“Practical job-training for proofreaders”
Now I’m confused.
When is the right time to hyphenate? Is there ever a right time to hyphenate?
The headline has been corrected now anyway.
BTW, all versions are correct:
http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammar-tip/is-it-proofreader-proof-reader-or-proof-reader/
*btw
;)
Any time of the day, but mornings are better! :-)
A bit like cappuccino then….
Then the Journal puts a stupid ‘Meoww’ at the end of a very serious story. Pathetic!
have your say