Overturning restrictions
The story of , the al-Qaeda plotter who planned to kill thousands of people in the UK, has been all over the news this week. Sentencing him to life in prison, the judge said that if his plot had succeeded he could have caused carnage on a "colossal and unprecedented scale".
Our correspondent Daniel Sandford had been across this trial for some time and obviously recognised its significance. So he was more than a little dismayed when the trial judge decided to impose restrictions on the reporting of the case which would have stopped us making any of the details public until over three years after Barot's arrest. (The judge believed that the publicity the case would receive might prejudice the trial of seven other men who are still in custody.)
We begged to differ, and thankfully, so did our lawyers. Just over a week later the 91Èȱ¬, along with colleagues from the Times and Associated Press, went to the Court of Appeal to try to get the decision overturned. This kind of challenge can be an expensive and risky business but we decided the story was so strong that it was well worth it. We turned out to be right; the judges declared the original ruling unlawful and lifted all reporting restrictions. If they hadn't, one of the major stories of the week would not have been told.
We weren't the only ones who felt this was too important a story for the public not to know about it. As Barot began his life sentence Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism commander told the media: "For well over two years we have been unable to show the British public the reality of the threat they faced from this man. Now they can see for themselves the full horror of his plan".
Comments
Hello Alison,
Very good of you and the papers to fight for the right to tell us the story
Are you going to fight as hard to tell us the truth of 911 and 7/7?
Or would that be risking just a wee bit too much for the truth
Excellent. Are you going to continue to report the ridiculous smoke-detector bomb plan with a straight face? Because the science will show that it's total guff - the alpha rays coming off Americum are hardly dangerous to human health. The only danger is the propaganda from the media reporting it as a dirty bomb. Well done there.
Would that be carnage on the "colossal and unprecedented scale" Iraqis have suffered since their "liberation"?
The fact is, being a Brit is still pretty darn safe. Dirty bombs or the genuine article are still quite a way off.
After that time comes - which it will - you may want to dissociate yourself more vocally from a policy that's already reduced one country to meltdown.
Well done on having the restrictions overturned.
Met bosses need to accept that high profile intelligence failures such as Forest Gate and the made-up WHM combined with Tony Blair's refusal to legislate to admit phone-tap evidence has caused public scepticism.
Even where people accept the threat exists we're not all so keen to check-in our principles and liberties under the threat of a bogeyman which the spin-doctors have repeatedly tried to elevate from a few nutters in a cave to a global SMERSH-like organisation of Bondian proportions.
Far from defending our liberties this government has perversely eroded them in the face of public opposition.
Mandatory ID cards, detention without trial, house arrest, jury-less & evidence-less trials and curtailing the freedom of speech have all handed the terrorists victory on a scale they could never have dreamed of.
OOPS!
RE post 4 (# At 05:01 PM on 09 Nov 2006,
# Martin Hoscik wrote:)
of course I meant WMD not WHM...
Well done! I look forward to hearing more about this extraordinary case. Specifically, I would love to know how someone who is clearly just a fruitcake with not the slightest possibility of ever carrying out his supposed terror plots gets one of the stiffest sentences ever imposed by our courts. Sounds very fishy to me.
"... which the spin-doctors have repeatedly tried to elevate from a few nutters in a cave to a global SMERSH-like organisation of Bondian proportions."
Priceless. This is a copyright-free zone, right? But wasn't it SMART? Damn those motivational flipcharts.
This was an evil man to the very core: obviously he has a warped mind wanting to kill and maim innocent people. What drives misguided individuals like this monster? The judge wanted to ensure true justice and hence the reporting restrictions. But now that the news media have managed to lift reporting restrictions the ramifications of this case can be examined without falling foul of the law. The public has certainly a right to know the real danger they were in.
It seems you have been subjected to a concerted attack from ultra left-wingers who refuse to believe that we in Britain are in any danger, simply because the terrorists' plans have not succeeded.
One would think that the above contributors would be only too happy had the terrorists not been apprehended.
good thing you got access but now what? Are you really going to get to the truth? Are you going to use this opporutnity to wake people up from the fake terror scare or keep them duped. This man have been a terorist. Probably was. He could have also been a lunatic, gunie pig, psycho, or just an actor,...he may not even exist for all intents and purposes. When did Journalism and Research...real research become enemies? I stopped believing the actual implications of news stories. I just take the facts and roll with em. Suggest you chaps do the same.
'Our correspondent Daniel Sandford had been across this trial for some time and obviously recognised its significance'
Word of advice - 'obviously' adds nothing to the sentence.
What would you rather die from, a dirty bomb or a clean bomb? Einstein said that if there was a nuclear WWIII, WWIV would be fought with bows and arrows!
Well done guys, I'm actually impressed for once. :-)
And Ms. Robertson - I prefer not to die at all.
If you get life for planning carnage on a "colossal and unprecedented scale" then what do you get when your plan actually produces that carnage? 650,000 people have died in Iraq as a result of the Blair and Bush plot.
A bit of calling the kettle black isn't it?
You scream about freedom of the press, but on your messageboards you ban anyone who opposes changes in the 91Èȱ¬.
If you believe in freedom of speech, give us it on your own websites.