UK media may be banned from reporting stories deemed against the interests of national security

[truffles 2]

Remember Prince Harry having to return to UK because it was leaked he was serving in Afghanistan with his men (for SVVT remark about not being able to read articles in US newspapers, interestingly the British media actually kept this out of media - it was broken by foreign media) - Just one example of where national security is at risk.

Remember the outrage when pictures where printed of soldiers who appeared to be abusing prisoners ? It created a problem for all the authorities because they had not only to conduct investigations but field the press at the same time, meanwhile the images spread across the world - including the middle east, fuelling anger and possible retallation. It would have been much better for the investigations to have taken place first - and be reported when the full "story" had been told - at least them the authorities would have been able to show they had not only investigated the events but also punished as appropriate any who were found guilty.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The Prince Harry thing was stupid. If his serving in the active war zone was such a threat to National Security - the powers that be should just have told him he couldn't go... What they did essentially was say that his life is more valuable than the other troops who put their lives on the line.

The guy is an adult - if he wanted to put himself in harms way in Afghanistan he should have been allowed to - without condition - regardless of whether or not it would be revealed in the press.

Incidentally - I think it was the US where images of flag draped coffins were censored, for fear it would affect public opinion on the war. Another disservice to the voting public.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[mawilson 2,133]

Well... the UK doesn't have a 1st amendment / constitutional basis to free speech,

so if the government decides that it wants to impose a presumptive impediment on

some kind of speech, it actually has the legislative power to do that.

[IAMX 3,055]

Remember Prince Harry having to return to UK because it was leaked he was serving in Afghanistan with his men (for SVVT remark about not being able to read articles in US newspapers, interestingly the British media actually kept this out of media - it was broken by foreign media) - Just one example of where national security is at risk.

Remember the outrage when pictures where printed of soldiers who appeared to be abusing prisoners ? It created a problem for all the authorities because they had not only to conduct investigations but field the press at the same time, meanwhile the images spread across the world - including the middle east, fuelling anger and possible retallation. It would have been much better for the investigations to have taken place first - and be reported when the full "story" had been told - at least them the authorities would have been able to show they had not only investigated the events but also punished as appropriate any who were found guilty.

If he wants to be a soldier, let him die like the rest if need be. Him serving and the UK making him out to be a celebrity, they put themselves at risk. Don't blame the media. That's just simply stupid.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SRVT

[truffles 2]

He was willing to be a soldier - his uncle managed it quite nicely during the Falklands ...the issue was by highlighting where he was it wasnt just him that became an enhanced target - his men became targets as well.

If the press had stuck to the agreement... not to report it, chances are he would have been able to complete his tour - and I repeat the UK media didnt report it - FOREIGN media reported it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well... the UK doesn't have a 1st amendment / constitutional basis to free speech,

so if the government decides that it wants to impose a presumptive impediment on

some kind of speech, it actually has the legislative power to do that.

The free speech stuff is formalised under European Law, I believe.

Besides we already have laws that cover this sort of thing - the official secrets act precludes publication of sensitive material and the govt can submit DA Notices prior to the publication of stories deemed "sensitive" - with the final decision being left up to newspaper editors via the usual process of self-regulation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He was willing to be a soldier - his uncle managed it quite nicely during the Falklands ...the issue was by highlighting where he was it wasnt just him that became an enhanced target - his men became targets as well.

If the press had stuck to the agreement... not to report it, chances are he would have been able to complete his tour - and I repeat the UK media didnt report it - FOREIGN media reported it.

That still begs the question as to why they allowed him to serve at all if his high profile nature would make him a threat to the rest of his unit. It seems quite obvious that it was done for political reasons - that if he were killed out there his death would likely further polarise an already disgruntled public and force an immediate UK withdrawal from the middle-eastern wars.

It just goes to show how silly this all is - you can't keep a secret that big from being revealed by the world media.