UK Government looking to further gag journalists

[studio150]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/11/journalists-obtain-leaked-official-material-could-sent-prison/

Which will mean if a journalust obtains a leaked paper on the Brexit negotiations they could be jailed fir 14 years if the information is deemed to be harmful to the economy.

Welcome to the new UK home of the silent press

 

[Soulman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/11/journalists-obtain-leaked-official-material-could-sent-prison/

Which will mean if a journalust obtains a leaked paper on the Brexit negotiations they could be jailed fir 14 years if the information is deemed to be harmful to the economy.

Welcome to the new UK home of the silent press

Crikey, surely this could have been put on the whining Brexit thread, and perhaps waited until Monday. Get over it.

 

[Medwayseagull]

Comes to something when the Tories want to gag their own cheerleaders.

 

[beorhthelm]

HBOS nearly when bust when Peston published sensitive leaked information for the sake of a scoop - the information would have been public within a day but in a more controlled manner. point is, journalist must take some responsibility with leaks that may have major impact, and as they cant be trusted to keep something confidential these days.

 

[The Albion Roar]

HBOS nearly when bust when Peston published sensitive leaked information for the sake of a scoop - the information would have been public within a day but in a more controlled manner. point is, journalist must take some responsibility with leaks that may have major impact, and as they cant be trusted to keep something confidential these days.

If it's the public interest, why should they?

 

[beorhthelm]

If it's the public interest, why should they?

its a balance. public interest has to be weighed against the broader impact of the infomatino being public. its not in the public insterest to have a run on the banks for example, or say have a stock market crash due to some improperly released information.

 

[The Albion Roar]

its a balance. public interest has to be weighed against the broader impact of the infomatino being public. its not in the public insterest to have a run on the banks for example, or say have a stock market crash due to some improperly released information.

Did Peston lie? Is he there to do the government's bidding? Did he cause the things that happened next?

And that's not even taking into consideration what would have happened had he not said anything. Your post implies Peston was reckless when the reality is it was the banks themselves who were.

The big problem with the news that the OP has posted is it seeks to presume a level of secrecy based on paranoia, in turn based on the government having such an appallingly weak hand to deal with. Was a law like this in place when Edward Heath was negotiating Britain's entry into the EEC? Or Major into the Maastricht Treaty? Or Blair into the Lisbon Treaty?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/11/journalists-obtain-leaked-official-material-could-sent-prison/

Which will mean if a journalust obtains a leaked paper on the Brexit negotiations they could be jailed fir 14 years if the information is deemed to be harmful to the economy.

Welcome to the new UK home of the silent press

Unlike you to go overboard or misrepresent a story. These are recommendations from the Law Commission a statutory independent body .. the chances their recommendations will be accepted in full then come into law, completey unamended or changed some time in the future is rather low.

 

[beorhthelm]

Did Peston lie? Is he there to do the government's bidding? Did he cause the things that happened next?

And that's not even taking into consideration what would have happened had he not said anything. Your post implies Peston was reckless when the reality is it was the banks themselves who were.

Peston didnt lie but released sensitive information that was negative to the company involved. at the time it was suggested that his releasing the news precipated the actions taken, changing the options available to BoE and government. im not saying he cause the crash, Lehman had already happend and RBS and HBOS were in dire straights, but his action had an impact on a major situation due to wanting to get the scoop.

this isnt about that event, it just serves as a well known case where journalistic desire to do something "for the public interest" wasnt on balance in their interest. there are probably many in the areas security and defence. official secrets act already exists so theres an established principle of restricting highly sensitive information. thats all this story is about, extending the pubishment for something thats already an offence, obtaining and publishing official classified documents. there isnt any change to cover Brexit specifically.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

HBOS nearly when bust when Peston published sensitive leaked information for the sake of a scoop - the information would have been public within a day but in a more controlled manner. point is, journalist must take some responsibility with leaks that may have major impact, and as they cant be trusted to keep something confidential these days.

So, HBOS releasing the same information a day later and in a more "controlled" manner, whatever this means, would have made all the difference between almost going bust or not? Have I understood this correctly?

I'm no financial expert but maybe HBOS not royally ****ing up in the first place might have helped their case more.

 

[drew]

HBOS nearly when bust when Peston published sensitive leaked information for the sake of a scoop - the information would have been public within a day but in a more controlled manner. point is, journalist must take some responsibility with leaks that may have major impact, and as they cant be trusted to keep something confidential these days.

Disagree, corporate governance is entirely the responsibility of the board, not politicians and not journalists. A company should not let themselves get into a situation in the first place. If this legislation was passed, which I don't for one minute think it would, then it is a charter for cover ups. Who decides what is sensitive to the economy as opposed to sensitive to the profits of one particular company?