Reply #45: Reuters have now issued a "corrected" version of this story

[evermind]

which seems to be propagating around quite nicely :)

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-23T200730Z_01_SIB357452_RTRUKOC_0_US-BRITAIN-USA-JAZEERA.xml&archived=False

There's a big difference between this and previous "gagged" stories in the UK press (we've had a few..)

Previous "gagging orders" (like say the one relating to David Shayler's claims that MI6 tried to buy a hit on Gaddaffi from an Al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group) only injuncted the press not to print the story.

In the present case, newspapers are being threatened with actual prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

As far as I am aware, this is something new. Even in the famous Spycatcher case of the mid-80's, during Thatcher's rule, there were no threats of prosecution (that I know of).

The previous policy of injunctions had gone hand-in-hand with the policy of not commenting on leaks, the idea being that to prosecute under the official secrets act would be tantamount to admitting that the information concerned was genuine (else it can't be an official secret).

The threat of prosecution in this case certainly seems like an admission that the memo is genuine, and is in circulation.

Hopefully, it will turn up on Cryptome in the next few weeks! :-)

Next year, I expect to see the UK heading down the free-press rankings towards the unenviable position of the US... :-/