A short entry today you may be relieved to hear - I have a presentation to give on Wednesday and it is about as complete as a Virgin TV channel package.
Today it was announced that the BBC was finally allowed to reveal the contents of a key document in the cash for honours enquiry.
'A cover-up' the BBC call it. John Snow announces it on Channel 4 news and many others see a victory for the BBC, with the story surely being carried in many of tuesday's papers.
But whilst the BBC may gloat and present this as a victory, it is something far short of that - it is downright childish.
Revealing it is not, surely. Afterall, it is one of their main functions to peel back the veneer of government spin and present us - the public - with all the facts. But when this flies in the face of the law it is something quite different.
The Attorney General postponed the reporting of the document by taking out an injunction against the BBC. This may scream cover up, but in fact, he is well within his rights to do so. Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act allows "the postponement of publication of a report or any part of a report to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice" (yep, still haven't pawned my law textbook!).
The case is sure to go in front of a jury, and reporting on vital evidence would no doubt have an effect on potential jurors. Some may argue that any trial is a long way off and any potential juror would have forgotten the report by then.
But the case is now so famous that reports such as these would lead many to the presumption of guilt on the part of Ruth Turner - resulting in what could only be seen as an unfair trial. Afterall, it is a pillar of the British justice system that someone is held innocent until proven guilty.
So for all its gloating and declarations of victory, the BBC is misrepresenting the ruling as it was (and is) nothing more than a fair and accurate use of the law, one that upholds a key principle of our justice system.
While the BBC whinge about 'cover-ups' and Government having one rule for themselves and another for everyone else, they would be wise to read the law and realise that no, in this case it really is one rule for everyone and surely they should be big enough not to spit the dummy out when it's used against them!
Today it was announced that the BBC was finally allowed to reveal the contents of a key document in the cash for honours enquiry.'A cover-up' the BBC call it. John Snow announces it on Channel 4 news and many others see a victory for the BBC, with the story surely being carried in many of tuesday's papers.
But whilst the BBC may gloat and present this as a victory, it is something far short of that - it is downright childish.
Revealing it is not, surely. Afterall, it is one of their main functions to peel back the veneer of government spin and present us - the public - with all the facts. But when this flies in the face of the law it is something quite different.
The Attorney General postponed the reporting of the document by taking out an injunction against the BBC. This may scream cover up, but in fact, he is well within his rights to do so. Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act allows "the postponement of publication of a report or any part of a report to avoid substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice" (yep, still haven't pawned my law textbook!).
The case is sure to go in front of a jury, and reporting on vital evidence would no doubt have an effect on potential jurors. Some may argue that any trial is a long way off and any potential juror would have forgotten the report by then.
But the case is now so famous that reports such as these would lead many to the presumption of guilt on the part of Ruth Turner - resulting in what could only be seen as an unfair trial. Afterall, it is a pillar of the British justice system that someone is held innocent until proven guilty.
So for all its gloating and declarations of victory, the BBC is misrepresenting the ruling as it was (and is) nothing more than a fair and accurate use of the law, one that upholds a key principle of our justice system.
While the BBC whinge about 'cover-ups' and Government having one rule for themselves and another for everyone else, they would be wise to read the law and realise that no, in this case it really is one rule for everyone and surely they should be big enough not to spit the dummy out when it's used against them!
No comments:
Post a Comment