Media Law: Freedom of Information

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows anyone to make a request for information from a public authority.

The Act was one of New Labour's key pledges made in their election manifesto of 1997. The intention was to create a piece of legislation to improve democracy and accountability within government through increased transparency.

Tony Blair has gone on to say that he now regrets implementing these changes as they have a "chilling effect" on government. In other words, public authorities are now incredibly careful about what they keep in writing, preferring "sofa politics."

The main points to remember about Freedom of Information (FOI) requests are:

• A "public authority" is not defined by the Act, however, most are listed within the Act itself or by other statutes.
• There are over 100,000 bodies including the NHS, local government authorities, universities, colleges and schools, plus many more.
• Several bodies are not covered for national security reasons, like MI5 and MI6.
• The public authority must respond within 20 working days. They then have 40 days to supply the information or state a reason why they cannot.
• The public authority may refuse if the information will cost too much to find out. £600 is the limit for larger bodies (government departments) and £450 is the limit for smaller authorities. 
• There are several exemptions that stop a request e.g. if the information will prejudice international relations. (See McNae's for a full list and commentary.)
• One reason for not giving the information is that the authority plans to publish in the future. This has been seen as an escape route by many.
• Authorities may delay or deny the request if they do not believe it is in the public interest. A journalist must be prepared to argue that it is. 
• You can achieve this by appealing for an internal review. If this fails you can go to the Information Commissioner and an Information Tribunal. The High Court is the last available route of defence and was used to break the MP's expenses story. 

whatdotheyknow.com allows anyone to make an FOI request, or to view FOI requests that others have made; five FOI request have been made against the University of Winchester recently.

Other people's requests:

New Forest District Council spent over £7000 on shredders between 2003-2008.

242 Hampshire Constabulary Male Police Officers passed basic driving exams, 42 failed.

No staff at Channel 4 have been disciplined for inappropriate use of social networking sites such as Facebook.

A request for a copy of the BBC canteen menu
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/47122/response/120285/attach/html/4/RFI20101263%20Classics%20menu.pdf.html

Beaulieu Fire Station in the New Forest only had 38 incidents to deal with last year, compared with 923 in St.Mary's, Southampton.

Media Law: Copyright

Reading McNae's last week made for some epically dull reading. I can find a great deal of interest in ideas like libel and freedom and information, but copyright law doesn't really do it for me. However, I can appreciate it is an increasingly important area of law due to the nature of the internet, and the sheer volume of information that it presents.

Copyright gives protection to creative and artistic works, by giving the author legally enforceable rights under law.

This protection comes from the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which extends to any "literary, dramatic, artistic, or musical work, sound, recording, film, broadcast, or typographical arrangement."

One area in particular affects journalists. That is, there is no copyright in "facts, news, ideas or information." Instead copyright exists in the way this information is presented, as this is seen as the action that requires skill and labour. So technically we are able to lift ideas from other people, as Dan Brown did in his book The Da Vinci Code.

However, journalists must be careful. A journalist can be in breach if they take facts from others stories time and again, showing no individual research. This is even true if the story is entirely rewritten each time.

Since the Copyright Act came in to force the owner of the copyright is the author of the work. For example, the person who takes the photograph will be the owner of the copyright of that photograph. The exception to this is when a person completes work in the course of their employment. Any articles undertaken whilst at a newspaper will be owned by that newspaper, unless there is a clause in the employment contract to the contrary.

The defence of fair dealing allows journalists to use copyrighted work while reporting on current affairs. For example, the BBC can show Sky's football pictures from that day, as long as it is in a very cropped, highlighted format, and remains current affairs, e.g. it is shown on the same day.

Problems will only arise if too much of the work is used than absolutely necessary. The work must also be accredited to the owner. In one case between the BBC and Sky it was held that clips between 14 and 37 that had an accreditation were within the definition of fair dealing. The same applies when using clips for artistic review.

The length of copyright protection varies depending on the work published. In general, copyright lasts 70 years after the author's death. Copyright of a broadcast lasts 50 years, and 25 years for a photograph after it has been published.

Remedies to breach of copyright include both civil and criminal actions. The owner of the copyright can get an injunction against the person using their work, and then seek damages. The amount of damages will depend on how reckless or deliberate the infringement has been. An order to reclaim any infringing work can also be issued. A criminal penalty can also occur, but according to McNae's this is generally reserved for piracy cases.

Vanilla Ice v Queen and Bowie:

Vanilla Ice decided to blatantly lift the baseline from "Under Pressure" by Bowie and Queen, thinking no permission would be needed as he has changed the tempo. He was, of course, very wrong and was forced to settle out of court for a large amount.

http://www.fairwagelawyers.com/most-famous-music-copyright-infringment.html

Who put the ball in the Germans net?

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer announced his decision to leave Manchester United last week to become manager of his home town club, Molde.

Always the consummate professional, Solskjaer spent fourteen years at the Premier League's number one club, scoring an impressive 126 goals.

Known as the "Baby-Faced Assassin" for his incredible knack of coming off the bench to put United ahead in the dying minutes, while managing to look no older than fifteen, Solskjaer scored two of my favourite United goals.

The first came in a pivotal F.A Cup 4th round match versus United's biggest rivals in 1999. Liverpool had been 1-0 up for 85 minutes, before Dwight Yorke levelled with two minutes remaining. Most teams would happily settle for the replay at this point. But not Manchester United and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer.

The ball fell to Ole in the box, who proceeded to smash the ball beyond David James into the bottom corner, winning the match. The goal gave the eleven year old me the opportunity to mock my liverpool supporting friends for weeks on end, for this I'll be forever grateful.

The second is infinitely more famous, coming "that night in Barcelona." Again, United are behind from an early goal, this time from Bayern Munich's Mario Basler.

The tone of the match was set, Bayern edged possession and chances. With all my young hope gone, United pushed forward into injury time, winning a corner. Beckham crossed it in, perhaps aiming for the goalkeeper Schmeichel. The ball was cleared and scuffed back in by Giggs, before being poked home by Teddy Sheringham.

There was only one outcome in this match now, United. Another corner was won, drifted in once again from Beckham. Headed down by Sheringham..... "and Solskjaer has won it!!!!!"

Ecstacy for United, one Baby Faced Assassin to thank for it.

I thank you Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, for giving me two of the greatest moments of my childhood.

Photographs

Action Photographs:

Action photographs are the most common photographs used in news. They show the reader what is going on. For example, they are very common in sport.

Identification Photos:

"Mugshots." They are used to identify the person in question to avoid any libel issue that may occur, (e.g. if someone else has the same name and, therefore, is implicated by the story)

Features

NME, 13/11/2010:


Observational: "One Very Big Weekend: Babyshambles' return...."
Feature Interview: "Kings of the Wild Frontier." My Chemical Romance interview.
Profile: "The Man Who Shot the Seventies." Profile of Mick Rock, photographer to the stars in the 1970's.
Arts Review: The review section, includes a review of Rihanna's new album.

Live Magazine, The Mail on Sunday, 07/11/2010:


Consumer Review: "Live for Tech: Rob Waugh." Technology review.
Feature Interview: " The $3 Billion Man." Denzel Washington interview.
Comment and Analysis: "Does a guy who makes a really good chair owe money to anyone that ever made a chair?" Essay on Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg.
Confessional Interview: "The world according to Emilia Fox."

Celebs on Sunday, The Sunday Mirror, 14/11/2010:


Pictures/Fashion: "Groomed & Doomed." Pictures of famous people in variety of jumpers.
Feature Interview: "Matt Barker and Aliona Vilani..."
Confessional Interview: Tom Felton
Response: "Help!" Questions from the reader.

Easy Living, 12/2010:


Response: "Your Letters..."
Feature Interview: "Mistress Of All She Surveys." Interview with Sarah Parish.
Pictures/Fashion: "Your most stylish Christmas ever." Clothes to buy for Christmas Day.
Consumer Review: "Christmas Gift Guide: Best wishes from the EL team xx."

Cristiano Ronaldo v The Daily Telegraph

The Daily Telegraph has been forced to pay “substantial damages” after defaming Cristiano Ronaldo.

The article in question alleged that the footballing superstar had been out partying and drinking alcohol when he should have been resting whilst recovering from an injury. The Daily Telegraph had reported that Ronaldo put down his crutches to party with a group of models, in fact he had stuck to a quiet corner drinking only non-alcoholic energy drinks.

The Daily Telegraph also suggested that his manager at the time, Sir Alex Ferguson, had been dismayed by Ronaldo's behaviour. However, according to the BBC, Sir Alex had actually offered to stand as a witness for Ronaldo.

Without having access to the judgement, I think we can assume that the judge would have said that the report “tended to” disparage Ronaldo in his business or trade, by suggesting that he was not acting in a way a professional sportsman should. The “reasonable person” test is also satisfied here.

The other aspects of the test to prove defamation are also easily proven.

Identification: The article obviously refers to Cristiano Ronaldo as it names him. A picture was also printed next to the article.

Third Party Publication: The article was published in the Daily Telegraph, a newspaper with a large readership.

None of the defences to libel are available in this case. Justification could be used if there were any proof that backed up the claims. However, there appears to be none. There is no defence of fair comment as the article represented facts, not opinion. The defence of privilege is irrelevant.

The Daily Telegraph could have argued that the information was in the public interest and that their story had been a product of responsible journalism. However, it appears that the story was not considered important enough to be in the public interest, or that all of the strict criteria that were laid out in the Reynolds case were not satisfied.

This case shows there can be a fine line between a defamatory story and a non-defamatory story. If the Daily Telegraph had merely reported that he had gone to the club it would have been fine, but to suggest he had danced without crutches whilst intoxicated made the story defamatory.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11709871

Media Law: Privacy

There are several areas of law regarding confidentiality that journalists must consider. These include official secrets, private secrets and the human right of privacy.

The Official Secrets Act 1911 prevents those who have signed a confidentiality agreement with the state from revealing any information they may be privy to. The Act is quite wide reaching; even those who work at the Post Office are required to sign it. However, the main purpose of the Act is to protect national secrets, particularly at times of war.

The law encompassing private secrets is more complex. Protection is extended to protect both commercial and family secrets.

In Coco v AN Clark three elements were set out that were required to form a breach of confidence. The information must have:

•      The necessary quality of confidence;
•      Have been imparted in circumstances imposing an obligation of confidence;
•      There was no permission to pass on the information, and;
•      Detriment is likely to be caused.

Information will have the “necessary quality of confidence” when that information is imparted in circumstances that imply confidentiality.  Information that is already in the public domain, or available from other sources will not have a quality of confidence.

An obligation of confidence arises most often when there is a contractual relationship between two parties, often in an employment relationship. For example, if I knew in advance that the pub I work in was to raise its prices, it is likely that I would be under a common law obligation not to tell anyone in advance. 

Often a gagging clause will be written into a contract. However, even if there is not one present there will be an implied term that any employee will not act in a detrimental way towards the employer’s interests.

Obligations will arise when there is a reasonable expectation of confidence. There is always an expectation on a doctor or a parent to keep information a secret. The obligation is dependent on the importance of the information and the person that you are telling. For example, it is less likely that a brother or sister will be under an obligation than a parent, but could be if the information was serious enough.

The legal duty of confidentiality will pass to a journalist if they know that the information imparted is of a confidential nature. So, a journalist will be liable under the law if they attempt to publish material that they know is confidential that they have obtained from someone in a privileged position. If we are investigating someone for an article it is not a good idea to talk to the parents or doctor of the person in question, as it is likely the duty of confidence will pass to us.

Lastly, there must be a detriment to the person. According to the Spycatcher case that detriment does not have to be a financial one. Instead, a detriment may be caused if the information is disclosed to someone the subject would prefer it not to be.

Human rights law has superseded this common law idea of a relationship between two parties.  The rights of privacy and the enjoyment of family life are guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention. On the face of it this article gives complete protection of privacy to someone. However, the Human Rights Act requires that courts must have regard for the right to freedom of expression when coming to a decision. In the Douglas case it was said:

“Everything will ultimately depend on the proper balance between privacy and publicity in the situation facing the court.”

Currently, the private life of Wayne Rooney has been splashed across the front page of The Sun newspaper. Initial analysis of this would conclude that there has been a clear breach of privacy law, as the photos detail a private situation between a married couple, there is no public interest. However, this shows the complex nature of the relationship between celebrities and newspapers. It is likely this is in fact a set-up situation in order to raise the profile of the Rooney family, and to sell more newspapers.

Writing Practice: Press Releases

Below is some writing practice based on press releases from Government agencies.

UK Space Agency:

Britain's commercial space interests received a boost today after an agreement was reached between the UK Space Agency (UKSA) and their Russian counterparts.

The agreement will lead to increased cooperation between the two nations in their civil space activities, in particular, between the UKSA and the Russian Federal Space Bureau.

Chief Executive of UKSA, Dr David Willams said: “It is a truly global activity and one where it is right that we should work together.”  

The Association of Police Authorities:

The number of police on British streets could be reduced after cuts to the police budget in the spending review.

Police authorities across the country face cuts of 4% cuts year on year after George Osbourne’s announcement yesterday.

The Association of Police Authorities said: “We await further detail on today’s announcement, in particular on individual force allocations.”

The Serious Organised Crime Agency:

A man pleaded guilty today after being caught running a drugs empire whilst in prison.

The inmate, already serving a 15 year sentence for drug offences, was caught using a mobile phone attempting to import cocaine from South America.

SOCA’s Director General, Bill Hughes said: “This is a warning shot for anyone who thinks prison won‘t affect business as usual. We are determined to stamp down hard on criminals.”

The Crown Estate:

Green campaigners were celebrating today after it was announced the Government will support new offshore wind farms.

£60 million will be invested in the development of the UK’s offshore wind manufacturing capacity, in the hope of eventually cutting the reliance on fossil fuels.

Prime Minister David Cameron said: “The potential for Britain to lead in the offshore wind industry is immense. We need thousands of offshore turbines in the next decade and beyond.”

“It will create jobs, help secure our energy supplies and protect our planet.”

Writing Practice

On Friday we were asked to write a story for an online publication after receiving information from a police press release. Here is my attempt at the first four pars;

A model dinosaur in Portsmouth was burnt to the ground after a fire in the early hours of this morning.

Fire crews were called to the incident on Southsea Common at 2:30am but were unable to save the model.

It is unclear what caused the fire and police have yet to rule out arson after several people were seen nearby taking videos on their mobile phones.

Police say they are  looking into the possibility of launching a forensic investigation but the current bad weather has made it impossible.

To read the Daily Mail's version click here.

Bane, Antidote and Harold Bishop

Another defence to defamation is that of bane and antidote; all the writing must be taken together to form one conclusion. So even if a statement appears to be defamatory on the surface, it may not be due to the context that it is in.

In a case heard before the Court of Appeal in 1995 the actors that played Madge and Harold in Neighbours brought an action against the News of the World after they printed photos of a pornographic nature, with the actors faces over the original faces.

The newspaper had used the photos to illustrate their story, which reported on a video game in which the players of the game could see similar photos. The actors lawyers argued that most people would only look at the photo and read the headline, which read:

"Strewth! What's Harold up to with our Madge?"

They argued that readers could only reach one possible conclusion. However, the judges said that it should be up to a jury to decide if the antidote was enough to satisfy the bane. It would all depend on the context of the piece as a whole, and in this case the antidote was said to cure the bain. It was sufficient in this case that the News of the World had made it clear that these were not true photos of the pair.

There is really only one question to ask about this case; who on earth would want to see Harold Bishop naked in the first place?

Media Law 3: Defamation

Defamation is defined in law as a tort, a civil wrong. It is an area of law that journalists must be at least aware of in order to avoid being sued, for what could be a large sum of money.

A defamatory statement can occur if it tends to:

• lower the claimant in estimation of right-thinking people;
• if it causes them to be shunned or avoided;
• if it disparages them in their business, trade or profession;
• or exposes them to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

For example, in the case we looked at in class we had to consider several quotes that had been given. Some of the quotes that had been gathered appeared to disparage the claimant in his business. However, it later appeared that these claims were not unsubstantiated as they had been proved in a court case, and were therefore not defamatory.

The important bit of this definition is the word "tends to." This implies that the claimant does not have to prove that any of the above actually occurred, only that they could have. The standard that is used is that of the "reasonable man," a term that is widely used in law. In other words, the claimant must prove that the statement would be found defamatory by a man or woman of reasonable intelligence and judgment.

Further problems can arise when statements contain inferences, or innuendos. According to McNae's an inference is:

"a statement with a secondary meaning which can be understood by someone without special knowledge who "reads between the lines in the light of his general knowledge and experience..""

In class, an inference could have occurred when talking about the claimant's Bentley car, and how it would be impossible for him to have enough money to afford it without defrauding the council. Again the standard of the "reasonable man" is used. If a "reasonable man or woman" can see the inference, then the statement may well be defamatory.

On the other hand, an innuendo is defined which may appear to be innocuous on the surface, but becomes defamatory because people may have special knowledge of circumstances. For example, Lord Gowrie sued The Star newspaper, after they used the words "expensive habit," and "snort." In the context of the piece it was implied that Lord Gowrie was a regular user of illegal drugs, and although a direct allegation was not made, it is still clear of the meaning that is intended.

Once the claimant has proved the statement is defamatory they must also proved the statement refers to them. Identification need not be direct, therefore defamation can still occur even if the person's name is not mentioned. Basically, if people who know the claimant can identify them from your writing, then the piece can be defamatory.

The claimant must also prove that the defamatory statement has been published. In  other words, the defamation must have been communicated to at least one other person, this includes the internet, and the repeated statements of other people. Each fresh statement can create another action for the claimant to pursue.

Several defences exist to protect us. First of all, there is the justification defence. In other words, if the information that is printed is true it is not defamatory. However, the burden of proof is on the journalist to prove that the statement is true, not on the claimant to prove it is not. This is judged "on a balance of probabilities." In other words, it must be more likely that the version you are telling is a statement of the true facts.

A second defence is that of fair comment, which is used to protect opinions , not statements of fact. According to McNae's, case law has established several rules. The published comment must be the honestly held opinion of the person, the comment should be recognisable as opinion, the opinion must be based on what is provably true, which must be alluded to in the publication and the subject must be a matter of public interest. If any malice is intended the defence may no longer stand.

Another set of defences come under the heading privilege.The idea of absolute privilege covers reporting of Parliament and court cases, as long as the report is fair, accurate and contemporaneous. The Defamation Act 1996 list several examples of qualified privilege, if the statement is considered important in the public interest, for example, council meeting and police statements.

The Reynold's Defence is a further protection. As long as the writer has ensured "responsible journalism." A full list of circumstances that will be considered by the courts can be found in McNae's.

Most importantly, we must use all this knowledge to recognise risk.We must ask several questions; who am I writing about? Could they sue me or my organisation? Is what I am writing about potentially defamatory? Do I have a defence? If we are unsure as to the answer of any of these questions it is always better to refer the problem to a someone with more experience or with greater legal knowledge.

Higher Priced Education

All except the genuinely rich will struggle under new plans for student tuition fees.

With universities able to charge students whatever fee they see fit there is a genuine risk that we could be left with a two-tier higher education system. The Russell Group universities already have a disproportionate amount of privately educated students in comparison to the ex-polys. If the best universites charge increase fees it may dissuade brighter pupils from working class, and even middle class backgrounds, to apply to these universities, or to apply to any university at all.

Lorde Browne's report suggests that those in families earning up to £60,000 will get financial help on a sliding scale basis. But this does not go far enough, what of students at the bottom end of the scale, or those families already supporting another sibling at university? Only the children of the rich will have guaranteed support from their parents.

Students will not pick a university based on academic ability, rather, on their ability to pay for fees.

Furthermore, Lord Browne suggests that subsidies will be removed for all courses that are not seen as strategically important. Arts faculties around the country will struggle. Many will argue this is sensible, we need more doctors and engineers. Yet the benefits of a classical education, reading history or english, are abundant and should not be belittled. Besides, a tradition of free choice exists at our universities. Those wishing to better themselves by going to university should not be forced in to a practical education when they yearn for the philisophical.

Most alarming of all in this situation is the turnaround from the Liberal Democrats. Their election pledge of opposing higher tuition fees has been blown out of the water by Vince Cable's admission that his party will be supporting the government's new position.

The party that heralded itself as the party for students has made a complete u-turn on its pre-election position; a position that the Liberal Democrats have held for years. It is a complete betrayal to those who have voted for them in the past. The Liberal Democrats have an incredible amount of work to do in order to re-establish trust in its younger voters, myself included.

Media Law 2: Criminal Courts

Often, the criminal courts are a brilliant source of news for journalists. However, it is a source that comes with certain risks. We must realise these risks to ensure we do not prejudice the outcome of a case, and find ourselves in contempt of court.

As journalists we must understand the complex nature of the criminal courts. Cases start out in the magistrates court.  The magistrates court usually consist of three lay persons who decide upon the outcome of a case. When a trial concerns a summary offence, the least serious crimes, the case will be heard in its entirety by magistrates.

The Crown court deals with the most serious offences that take place, known as indictable offences.  These tend to be crimes that are particularly newsworthy as they have a huge effect on the community, for example, rape and murder. Trials that take place at the Crown court take place in front of a judge and jury. The Crown court has more scope to hand out a longer sentence than the magistrates court. 

Either-way offences create an interesting situation whereby defendants may be tried at either court. Some evidence establishes that those tried at the Crown are more likely to be acquitted and as it is usually up to the defendant to decide where he is tried, he can risk a longer sentence at the Crown or play it safe knowing he will get much shorter sentence at the magistrates.

In our lecture we looked at an example involving the reporting of a robbery as the case unfolded, reaching preliminary hearings at the magistrates. It became obvious as we worked through the case that the facts that we can report on are very limited once a case becomes "active." A case is legally active if several things happen;

• police make an arrest;
• an arrest warrant is issued;
• magistrates issue a summons, or;
• a person is charged with the crime.

Once the case reaches the preliminary stages in the magistrates court, the facts that journalists can report on become very limited. As no jury has yet been selected, any information they read, watch or listen to could prejudice their opinions on the case. Section 8 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 lists the facts that can be published;

• the name of the court;
• the name, address and occupation of the persons involved;
• the charges;
• the names of legal representatives;
• information on bail (although generally not reasons for refusal as this could be prejudicial;)
• information on legal aid
• and, if proceedings are adjourned to another time and place.

Some obvious restrictions are therefore in place.

Firstly, we cannot report on any evidence that has been heard. For example, Graham Glen, editor of The Citizen, was fined a substantial sum for reporting on the confession by Fred West of the murder of his daughter, after this information was disclosed at a preliminary hearing. It is quite obvious that information such as this could prejudice any prospective jury member.

Secondly, we cannot report on any previous convictions that the defendant may have. The very nature of "the presumption of innocence" rests on the jury being impartial of any factors that may influence them. Any information on previous convictions has obvious implications for this, as many could go by the old maxim; "once a crook, always a crook."

Special rules are set out for cases involving sexaul offences in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. A separate set of complex rules also governs the reporting of children in court. In most cases they will remain anonymous. We must not risk identifying them, especially inadvertadly by being too precise in descriptions.

Other factors that can effect journalists who report on court cases include fair and balanced reporting of the trial. For example, we cannot report the prosecution and then refuse to report the defence. This would not allow for a fair and balanced report of the case and could leave the journalist open to losing their absolute privilige.

Media Law Introduction

On Thursday, we had out first lecture in media law with Ian Anderson. The lecture consisted of a basic overview of the English legal system and it’s importance to us as journalists. It had the feel of a revision lecture for me, having studied law for my undergraduate degree.

The main focus of the lecture detailed the problems that we face as journalists, including the various laws that make our job harder. Including that the defamation laws of this country are the strictest in the world. 

Despite these draconian rules we do have the tradition of free press in this country. Lord Donaldson states in the Spycatcher case that a free press is an essential component in maintaining democracy and the "British way of life as we know it."

This is in direct contrast to somewhere like Iran, for example, where this week the blogger Hossein Derakhshan was sentenced to a 19-year jail term for commenting on political reform. The Times reports that Iran now has around 40 journalists in its jails, the worst record in the world. The Iranian regime argue that these innocent journalists are a threat to public security, and therefore a threat to the state.

Theoretically, this could occur in the UK. As journalists our right to freedom of expression is enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and since 1998 has been incorporated into English law via the Human Rights Act.

However, the second paragraph of Article 10 (freedom of expression) sets out a number of areas where this right can be withdrawn where “necessary in a democratic society.” These reasons include  “interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety.” Other restrictions can occur when considering conflicts between the right to freedom of expression as a journalist, and the right to privacy and family life of those we report on.

Luckily, we have a number of other checks and balances in English law that protect the work of journalists, it is therefore very unlikely that a situation could arise in which a journalist was imprisoned. These include the rule against prior restraint, and rules governing the “public interest,” which we will learn about over the coming weeks.

As civilian deaths increase, is it time to talk to the Taliban?

Figures released earlier this week show a 31% increase in civilian deaths in Afghanistan in the first half of this year. These numbers equate to over 1250 deaths in a mere 6 months. With civilian deaths increasing year on year, is it perhaps time to rethink the timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops scheduled to begin next summer?

I do not support this war. Intervention upon a sovereign state should always be seen as the last resort. We are only there as a retaliation for 9/11. However, the fact is, American, British and other UN troops are in Afghanistan and have been there for the past 9 years.

The public perception of the war will continue to falter with the continued publication of civilian deaths, as well as those of British and American troops. Pressure on politicians to withdraw from Afghanistan will only increase.  Appeasing voters in the US before mid-term elections, should not be an excuse for departure.

Withdrawal is obviously the long term aim, yet with civilian deaths occurring more frequently it is obvious that there is still a job to be done. Next summer is far too soon for a mass withdrawal.

Some will argue that the Afghan army is now in a position whereby it can take up the majority of the work. But recent figures from an American government agency suggest that only 23% of Afghan troops were capable of working unsupervised, a figure that does indicate long term success. It is apparent the Afghan army is in a better working state than it has been in recent years, nonetheless, this report would indicate it is not ready to fight the continued insurgency.

So perhaps the time has come for the Americans and the UN to talk to the Taliban. As of yet, only the Afghan government has made any attempt at communication. However, trust for the Afghan government is limited, especially by those that do not share the same ethnic background as President Karzai. American or UN involvement would give any mediation legitimacy.

American policy thus far has been one of offence. Reintegration of former Taliban insurgents is seen as key. This position does appear to be softening, and in recent weeks it has been made clear that the US now supports the Afghan government’s negotiations.

General Sir Dave Richards, British commander of international forces between 2006 and 2007, has long been an advocate of communication. Consultation with the IRA in Northern Ireland was ultimately a success, leading to the Good Friday agreement and a lasting peace. The same approach should be applied here, for the sake of innocent lives.

While these prospective negotiations take place there must be a continued troop presence. Any timetable for withdrawal must  recognise the need to protect the innocent Afghan people. A security void that could lead to increased civilian casualties, and perhaps civil war, must not be the legacy that allied forces leave behind.