Not for the first time, Americans are more informed about the British terrorist threat than the Brits. The latest victim of the UK’s patronising and elitist Contempt of Court law is the suppression of an article about the recent terror arrests that appeared in Monday’s edition of the New York Times: Details Emerge in British Terror Case

However, British readers are blocked and receive instead the message:

“On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial.”

I’ve written about Britain’s archaic Contempt of Court law before. Empirical studies have shown that jurors are perfectly capable of putting aside what they read in the newspapers and judging a case on the facts presented in court. In the UK, no such studies have been conducted; in fact it is a Contempt of Court even to ask a juror any questions about their court experience!

So in the complete absence of any facts, we have a policy that stifles a vital element of open justice. In addition, public authorities routinely use Contempt of Court as a means of avoiding accountability. As long as they can say a prosecution is possible (no need to give an actual date or even arrest anyone), then all public discussion is gagged. Witness the total information blackout on the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005 or the still secret reports into the London bombings of July 7 and 21 that year.

While the blame for such censorship rests squarely on the UK Government, it is also disturbing to see how easily the New York Times caved in to this egregious censorship.

“I think we have to take every case on its own facts,” said George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company. “But we’re dealing with a country that, while it doesn’t have a First Amendment, it does have a free press, and it’s our position that we ought to respect that country’s laws.”

This sounds remarkably similar to the reasons given by Google and Cisco Systems for acquiescing to China’s demand for Internet censorship. I would have thought a newspaper of the calibre of the New York Times would defend the rights of the British people to know what their government is doing. Instead, by blocking British readers’ access to the story it has upheld an unjust system of censorship and secrecy.

Questions after NYT blocks UK access

It was only last month that Charlie Falconer, the Minister in charge of freedom of information, claimed the law was a waste of taxpayers’ money and as such fees must be slapped on any member of the public foolish enough to ask questions of politicians.

Now we learn the true hypocrisy of this bogus argument. While the Government whines about the ‘waste’ of being accountable to those who fund it, there seems to be no problem with the exuberant ues of tax money for pumping out shameless political propoganda.

Spending on spin trebles under Blair
Daily Telegraph

Spending on Government spin has trebled under Labour and taxpayers are now supporting an army of more than 3,200 press officers.

When Labour came to power in 1997, just over 300 fully-fledged press officers were working in Whitehall, although that figure excluded a small number of other public relations staff.

The amount being spent on Government advertising, marketing and public relations has risen three-fold since Mr Blair entered No 10.

The Central Office of Information’s PR, advertising and marketing budget has soared from £111 million in 1997 to £322 million last year. Much of the money has been spent on advertising flagship policies, including tax credits and extra help for pensioners.

Maybe now that Cheeky Charlie has seen the error of his ways, we can look forward to the introduction of fees for all those wasteful political press releases.

Again this Government is doing what it does best: going backwards not forwards. One of the first disclosures after the Right to Know law was enacted 1 January 2005 was the list of guests who dined at the Prime Minister’s Chequers residence. The list included a whole range of luminaries from the editor of the Guardian to TV celebs Richard and Judy. Now it seems, Tony Blair is fighting to keep this information secret. What does he have to hide?

Blair’s lips sealed over dinner guests at Chequers
Independent, 22 August 2006
By Oliver Duff

Wealthy donors aren’t the only New Labour supporters Tony Blair is keen to shield from the inquisitive spotlights of press, politicians and public. He is similarly protective over who he invites to dinner.

Lord Falconer, the Constitutional Affairs Secretary (and Blair’s former flatmate), may call the Freedom of Information Act “a giant step forward” in eroding official secrecy, but the PM again refuses to list the guests he has entertained at his Elizabethan country residence, Chequers.

The Liberal Democrat MP Norman Lamb is the proverbial thorn, hassling the Cabinet Office to release details of Tony’s cronies since November 2005. Lamb made a similar request last year, eventually succesful – revealing that David Bowie, Sir Ben Kingsley, Richard Madeley and Judy Finnegan were among those to have enjoyed the Blairs’ hospitality.

This year, however, Downing Street pen pushers have denied Lamb his moment of glory, relying on a nifty legislative loophole which says that they don’t have to reveal anything now – just so long as they plan to publish it “at some future date (whether determined or not)”. How about in 10 years’ time?

“The whole spirit of the freedom of information legislation is about openness, but the Government’s attitude towards it is to scupper it as much as they can,” says Lamb. “They established the principle of disclosure last year, but this time round I’ve suddenly been met by a brick wall.”

Downing Street commented that it had decided to publish the information at “regular” intervals.