Lawyers for the multi-national firm Trafigura have gagged the BBC from reporting about the dumping of Toxic waste in the West African state of Ivory Coast. The problem for the firm is that once things are out on the Internet they are very difficult to control and in response to the ban many people are posting about this issue and posting links to the video. Here is a BBC Newsnight report on Trafigura's attempts to suppress media reporting of their Toxic Waste dumping;
And here is the original Newsnight report on the Toxic Dumping Affair
As you will see on the first report the firm even went so far as to try to gag Members of parliament from asking questions about the matter. Trafigura now appears to have been successfull in imposing injunctions on the media to prevent reporting of an investigation into the toxic dumping affair.
It's important that we all resist attempts by companies or governments to control the reporting of public interest stories such as this. This is a real strength of the Internet - it's use by ordinary citizens to keep watch on those who have power over us.
Showing posts with label Freedom of Information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom of Information. Show all posts
Dec 17, 2009
Nov 19, 2008
BNP Membership list leaked Scottish members
The BNP (British national Party) an extreme right wing political party with allegedly racist views are complaining that their BNP membership list has been leaked by disaffected party members. Oddly the BNP which opposes Human Rights legislation is now claiming that the leaking of the list amounts to an infringement of the human rights of their members. Hypocrisy is clearly not something that the BNP are ashamed of.
The publishing of the list will lead to problems for members who are serving members of the police force as membership has been deemed incompatible with being a serving police officer. Also on the list are teachers and other public servants.
There are a number of names on the list of people who are residents in Ayrshire in particular in Ayr, Irvine and Kilmarnock and the list contains the names and addresses of BNP members from other parts of Scotland. I don't intend to directly publish these names and addresses here but if you are interested then the full list in text form can be downloaded from wikileaks BNP membership list download
Update: I managed to download the list earlier but Wikileaks has since been giving a server overloaded error so you may have difficulty getting hold of the list at the moment.
Do you have any views on the leaking of the BNP membership list? Please leave a comment here and a link to your site or blog.
The publishing of the list will lead to problems for members who are serving members of the police force as membership has been deemed incompatible with being a serving police officer. Also on the list are teachers and other public servants.
There are a number of names on the list of people who are residents in Ayrshire in particular in Ayr, Irvine and Kilmarnock and the list contains the names and addresses of BNP members from other parts of Scotland. I don't intend to directly publish these names and addresses here but if you are interested then the full list in text form can be downloaded from wikileaks BNP membership list download
Update: I managed to download the list earlier but Wikileaks has since been giving a server overloaded error so you may have difficulty getting hold of the list at the moment.
Do you have any views on the leaking of the BNP membership list? Please leave a comment here and a link to your site or blog.
May 18, 2007
Freedom of information - not us say MP's
MP's have shown their true colours on Freedom of Information and passed the third reading of a bill that would remove MP's from Freedom of Information laws. With the BBC having recently won it's case preventing the release of the controversial Balen report this is yet another blow for Freedom of Information. Yet again it seems to be a case of one rule for them and another rule for everyone else.
Gordon Brown, despite pledging more open politics, has apparently also rejected calls for him to block the controversial move by MPs to remove them from the scope of freedom of information laws.
This is a truly shameful day for Parliament
The MPs claim that they want to protect private letters from constituents - but it seems more likely that the real reason is that it will also allow them to keep things like their expenses secret.
The government are trying to hide behind the sham of claiming that this move is a matter for MP's but their inaction gives the lie to this and it seems more likely that the government are in favour of the Private Members' Bill and that this is why they have allowed it the time to progress through Parliament.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said the events made him "ashamed to be an MP".
The Bill now goes to the Lords for further consideration.
The FOI bill will remove both the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities who are obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which came into force in 2005. The bill also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops other authorities, such as councils or companies, from confirming or denying if they have received a letter from an MP.
Mr Baker said: "It is an effrontery for the House of Commons to make the deeply hypocritical move of exempting itself from a law that applies to every other public body in the country."
At least there are a few elected representatives who show some shame about this move as yet again our politicians demonstrate just why the population has lost so much faith in the electoral process.
Gordon Brown, despite pledging more open politics, has apparently also rejected calls for him to block the controversial move by MPs to remove them from the scope of freedom of information laws.
This is a truly shameful day for Parliament
The MPs claim that they want to protect private letters from constituents - but it seems more likely that the real reason is that it will also allow them to keep things like their expenses secret.
The government are trying to hide behind the sham of claiming that this move is a matter for MP's but their inaction gives the lie to this and it seems more likely that the government are in favour of the Private Members' Bill and that this is why they have allowed it the time to progress through Parliament.
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said the events made him "ashamed to be an MP".
The Bill now goes to the Lords for further consideration.
The FOI bill will remove both the Commons and House of Lords from the list of public authorities who are obliged to release information under the 2000 act, which came into force in 2005. The bill also protects all MPs' correspondence from release and stops other authorities, such as councils or companies, from confirming or denying if they have received a letter from an MP.
Mr Baker said: "It is an effrontery for the House of Commons to make the deeply hypocritical move of exempting itself from a law that applies to every other public body in the country."
At least there are a few elected representatives who show some shame about this move as yet again our politicians demonstrate just why the population has lost so much faith in the electoral process.
Mar 3, 2007
UK Cash for honours- hints of a prosecution
The first flutterings in the wind suggesting that a prosecution may follow from the cash for honours police enquiry have been detected.
The BBC is reporting that the Attorney General , at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Friday night, obtained an injunction against the BBC to stop it broadcasting an item about the cash for honours investigation.
Lord Goldsmith's office said he had acted "completely independently of government" on the matter. The BBC claimed that its reporting of the story was a matter of public interest.
In a joint statement the attorney general's office and the Metropolitan Police said the application by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith was made "at the specific request of and in co-operation with the police because of their concerns that the disclosure of certain information at this stage would impede their inquiries...The attorney general acted in this respect completely independently of government, and in his independent public interest capacity."
The Attorney General is supposed to act in the public interest, and to ensure that no possible prosecution is prejudiced or that no possible defence to a prosecution is prejudiced. The leader of the Liberal Democrats Sir Menzies Campbell has commented that the fact that he felt it necessary to seek this injunction may indicate that the Attorney General contemplates the possibility that a prosecution of some kind will follow.
The BBC is reporting that the Attorney General , at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Friday night, obtained an injunction against the BBC to stop it broadcasting an item about the cash for honours investigation.
Lord Goldsmith's office said he had acted "completely independently of government" on the matter. The BBC claimed that its reporting of the story was a matter of public interest.
In a joint statement the attorney general's office and the Metropolitan Police said the application by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith was made "at the specific request of and in co-operation with the police because of their concerns that the disclosure of certain information at this stage would impede their inquiries...The attorney general acted in this respect completely independently of government, and in his independent public interest capacity."
The Attorney General is supposed to act in the public interest, and to ensure that no possible prosecution is prejudiced or that no possible defence to a prosecution is prejudiced. The leader of the Liberal Democrats Sir Menzies Campbell has commented that the fact that he felt it necessary to seek this injunction may indicate that the Attorney General contemplates the possibility that a prosecution of some kind will follow.
Jan 30, 2007
BBC must be pressed to report the Balen report controversy?
In a previous Balen Report article we noted that the BBC was resisting a Freedom of Information request for the release of an internal report, the Balen report, which it is thought alleges bias in BBC news reporting of the Israeli / Palestine conflict.
Giving some further thought to this we wondered if there was any mention of this on the BBC news website. Surely this would be at minimum at least a minor news item? The BBC is not slow to use Freedom of Information legislation to seek information about the operation of government departments - and quite rightly so. Surely then we though they would see it as their duty to report a controversial Freedom of Information request directed at the BBC itself?
So we searched. And we searched.
There were a couple of mentions of the report in comments in an editors blog. But was there an actual news report on the issue? What do you think? Zilch, zero, nuffin, nowwt, diddly squat.
It seems likely that the BBC will attempt to keep this issue dark and secret unless it is forced to the surface. Well folks - thats what the internet is for - we need to start pressin the BBC to report this matter!
You can read an independant report that the BBC governors commissioned on the impartiality of their news reporting of the Isreal/Palestine conflict.
For more views on alleged BBC bias try http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Giving some further thought to this we wondered if there was any mention of this on the BBC news website. Surely this would be at minimum at least a minor news item? The BBC is not slow to use Freedom of Information legislation to seek information about the operation of government departments - and quite rightly so. Surely then we though they would see it as their duty to report a controversial Freedom of Information request directed at the BBC itself?
So we searched. And we searched.
There were a couple of mentions of the report in comments in an editors blog. But was there an actual news report on the issue? What do you think? Zilch, zero, nuffin, nowwt, diddly squat.
It seems likely that the BBC will attempt to keep this issue dark and secret unless it is forced to the surface. Well folks - thats what the internet is for - we need to start pressin the BBC to report this matter!
You can read an independant report that the BBC governors commissioned on the impartiality of their news reporting of the Isreal/Palestine conflict.
For more views on alleged BBC bias try http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/
Jan 28, 2007
BBC seeks to suppress Balen report.
A Jewish activist solicitor, Steven Sugar, who claims BBC reporting is biased against Israel, is heading for the High Court to force the BBC to release the details of an internal report on its Middle East coverage, which he suspects will prove a bias against the Jewish state as well as pro-Palestinian tendencies.
The court case comes as part of a long and heated legal battle between Sugar and the BBC. Sugar has tried to use Freedom of Information laws, which aim to encourage openness, to force the BBC to release details of its own internal 20,000-word Balen Report. This report investigated the levels of balance in the BBC’s Israel reporting.
The BBC refused to release the report but then the Information Commissioner, who adjudicates on Freedom of Information disputes, backed Mr Sugar and demanded the BBC release the report. Under the Freedom of Information Act, public companies must release internal documents to improve openness unless exceptional circumstances prevent it.
But on 2oth Jan in London, the BBC confirmed it would still be refusing to release the document, and would take the battle through the last legal avenue available to it - the High Court.
The case is a landmark case which may have wide implications for the future working of the Act and for public broadcasters. At the High Court Mr Justice Forbes, directed that the BBC’s appeal, and accompanying applications for judicial review, should be heard over two days beginning on March 27.
Sugar, who was in court to hear the verdict, was given permission to make his own submissions in person. He said after the preliminary hearing: "A very large proportion of the Jewish community felt rightly or wrongly that the BBC’s reporting of the second Palestinian intifada or uprising that broke out in 2000 was seriously distorted. I myself, as a member of the Jewish community, felt that and was very distressed by it. I am even more distressed that the BBC failed, until it commissioned the Balen Report, to respond substantively to the criticism. Now I don’t know whether it is important to see this report or not. Instinct says that if they don’t want to give it to me it may be important. The BBC is a public body and I believe I have a right to know what the report contains."
The report was compiled by a senior editorial adviser, Malcolm Balen, in 2004. It examined hundreds of hours of BBC radio and television broadcasts. Along with Channel 4, Britain’s other public service broadcaster, the BBC is allowed to hold back material under the UK’s unique Freedom of Information laws that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism. The corporation has on those grounds rejected more than 400 Freedom of Information requests. Mr Sugar argues that the Balen report is not held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism "because it’s a report about journalism itself", and that he is therefore entitled to see it under the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Tribunal agreed with him. A final legal win for Mr Sugar could mean the corporation having to release thousands of pages of other documents that have been held back.
Just what publicity has the BBC goven to this case? None that we are able to find. It didnt make the news and a search of the BBC website only revealed a mention of the report in some comments posted to a BBC blog. Surely the BBC is supposed to be on the side of the public in championing an open and free society. In our view there are times when the BBC appears to show a degree of bias. It was against the Iraq war from the outset and the tone of its reporting and editorial content has in our opinion always reflected that view. IN our view it has shown less bias on the Israeli /Palestione issue - but thats not the point. There will always be valid debates about the extent to which a national broadcaster is or is not showing bias. This is right and to be expected. What is not right and what must not be tolerated is a national broadcaster which tries to suppress information which may reveal those biases.
There's a report of an internal email from Jeremy Bowen the BBC Middle East Editor (link here) which also arguably shows the same alleged bias.
Technorati tag BBC bias
The court case comes as part of a long and heated legal battle between Sugar and the BBC. Sugar has tried to use Freedom of Information laws, which aim to encourage openness, to force the BBC to release details of its own internal 20,000-word Balen Report. This report investigated the levels of balance in the BBC’s Israel reporting.
The BBC refused to release the report but then the Information Commissioner, who adjudicates on Freedom of Information disputes, backed Mr Sugar and demanded the BBC release the report. Under the Freedom of Information Act, public companies must release internal documents to improve openness unless exceptional circumstances prevent it.
But on 2oth Jan in London, the BBC confirmed it would still be refusing to release the document, and would take the battle through the last legal avenue available to it - the High Court.
The case is a landmark case which may have wide implications for the future working of the Act and for public broadcasters. At the High Court Mr Justice Forbes, directed that the BBC’s appeal, and accompanying applications for judicial review, should be heard over two days beginning on March 27.
Sugar, who was in court to hear the verdict, was given permission to make his own submissions in person. He said after the preliminary hearing: "A very large proportion of the Jewish community felt rightly or wrongly that the BBC’s reporting of the second Palestinian intifada or uprising that broke out in 2000 was seriously distorted. I myself, as a member of the Jewish community, felt that and was very distressed by it. I am even more distressed that the BBC failed, until it commissioned the Balen Report, to respond substantively to the criticism. Now I don’t know whether it is important to see this report or not. Instinct says that if they don’t want to give it to me it may be important. The BBC is a public body and I believe I have a right to know what the report contains."
The report was compiled by a senior editorial adviser, Malcolm Balen, in 2004. It examined hundreds of hours of BBC radio and television broadcasts. Along with Channel 4, Britain’s other public service broadcaster, the BBC is allowed to hold back material under the UK’s unique Freedom of Information laws that deals with the production of its art, entertainment and journalism. The corporation has on those grounds rejected more than 400 Freedom of Information requests. Mr Sugar argues that the Balen report is not held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism "because it’s a report about journalism itself", and that he is therefore entitled to see it under the Freedom of Information Act. The Information Tribunal agreed with him. A final legal win for Mr Sugar could mean the corporation having to release thousands of pages of other documents that have been held back.
Just what publicity has the BBC goven to this case? None that we are able to find. It didnt make the news and a search of the BBC website only revealed a mention of the report in some comments posted to a BBC blog. Surely the BBC is supposed to be on the side of the public in championing an open and free society. In our view there are times when the BBC appears to show a degree of bias. It was against the Iraq war from the outset and the tone of its reporting and editorial content has in our opinion always reflected that view. IN our view it has shown less bias on the Israeli /Palestione issue - but thats not the point. There will always be valid debates about the extent to which a national broadcaster is or is not showing bias. This is right and to be expected. What is not right and what must not be tolerated is a national broadcaster which tries to suppress information which may reveal those biases.
There's a report of an internal email from Jeremy Bowen the BBC Middle East Editor (link here) which also arguably shows the same alleged bias.
Technorati tag BBC bias
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
