Wordblog

The news today makes sorry reading for everyone in Britain who believes in freedom of information and that includes journalists.

There is the case of the German father and son tourists ordered by police to delete photographs of a a London bus station from their camera because photographing anything to do with transport is “strictly forbidden“.

A nurse has been struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council for secret filming in a hospital for a Panorama expose of the neglect of elderly patients. If whistleblowers are in danger of losing their livelihoods, they are naturally going to think twice before approaching journalists.

While the Director of Public Prosecution’s decision not to prosecute was a clear victory for freedom, it raises serious questions about the Government’s attitude. In the face of this withering ruling, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, was unrepentant saying: “My priority and the Home Office priority in this is to make sure that we maintain the protection of some of the most sensitive information in government. That is what we set out to do at the beginning of this.”

That is a worrying attitude and she is little redeemed by announcing a review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and its use for “trivial” purposes such as in the investigation of fouling dogs. The government was bent on this act is the face of opposition of many grounds including giving such powers to local councils.

The Guardian has a transcript of a YouTube video in which a police inspector refuses to give a protester his number. More chilling for press freedom is this You Tube video in which a police inspector orders journalists to leave an area during the G20 protests.

At one point a voice is heard asking: “You don’t believe in the free press?” The police inspector responds: “The only thing I believe in the paper is the date.”

The police have since apologised for for using Section 14 of the Public Order Act to move on journalists at the protest, but like so much recent legislation it is capable of wide interpretation. It was originally sold as a way of stopping “raves”.

Yesterday, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, whose work on DNA profiling revolutionised police detection, condemned the government for retaining the profiles of innocent people.

We can go on, but the picture quickly emerges of a state which has little regard for personal liberty or of the freedom of the press.