BNP Bombers - DA-Notice Press-Gubment collusion works smoothly to supress comment

The Mystery continues. BNP members Robert Cottage, and David Jackson, (now in custody) attended a pre-trial hearing at Preston Crown Court yesterday (24/12) on charges under the Explosives Act and a trial date has been set at Manchester Crown Court of 12 th February 2007.

These bald facts have not been published by any National or Local printed press to date, but have appeared online at BBC, ITV, and the International Herald Tribune carries a very brief online AP report. The Socialist Worker simply publishes the facts.
Libcom.org report the hearing with a comment ....

"Left-wing activists who contacted various media outlets to question the blackout were told by the BBC that "editorial staff always have more news reports than can be fitted into the time available" and that insufficient room was available to publish the story more widely." Pic Jude Abbott of Chumbawumba at Menwith Hill June 2005 advertsing white male terrist.

Currently there are 5 Standing Defence Advisory Notices (DA-Notices which supersede the old D-Notice) in effect which are issued by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee, (website - which is well worth a visit) adherence to which is voluntary. ( Note that The (book) Publishers Association choose not to be represented , but their members use the DA-Notice system. Links have also been established with the UK Internet Service Providers Association.)

The operation of the DA Notice System is lucidly described by the current Secretary to the Committee, Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance in a speech he gave to the 4th International Conference for Information Commissioners 23 May 2006 - SECRECY VS SECURITY; THE JIGSAW EFFECT. (see website)

Anybody seeking to understand how this system works is well advised to very carefully read and understand what he says. It is worth noting that ;

Stressing that the system is voluntary he disengeniously argues,

"unsupported by any form of legal sanction." he points out that whilst the Government guards secrets ;" .....it is the media that plays the decisive role. It is ultimately they who will judge whether or not, and how widely, information is published or broadcast, and in reaching that decision they face balancing their own rights and interests against their wider societal duties and obligations."

He continues to claim that the DA-Notice system ...

" has delivered a great deal in the protection of our national security simply because it accepts that media-government relations in this area at least must be based on a partnership rather being automatically adversarial."

He claims in a typically class ridden British appeal , "we are all in the same boat" appeal for social cohesion, that this incestuous dialogue ...

"fosters collective responsibility for something of key importance to us all, and it upholds the absolute right of the media to breach the established guidelines without the threat of legal sanction if they judge at any time that the arrangement is being exploited or that a crucial principle is being risked."

Evidently it is impossible to suppress the appearance of people in Court on charges under the Explosives Act in remote Burnley or Preston (way oooop North!) , but it is curious that there has not been a single word of analysis, political comment, or contextual reference. This self imposed purdah is certainly not accidental by the major UK News outlets, whilst the BBC / ITV online sites carry the bald facts, the story of the BNP Bombers has not had an airing on any UK Radio / TV program (unless you know different!) or newspaper / magazine . The lesson is clear , good solid class riddled belief in the status quo and the suppression of any suggestion that it is under threat.

There is clearly a conspiracy of silence, a mutual and carefully orchestrated omerta which is scrupulously observed by a willing and obedient press. So far this stately dance continues - it is therefore both fascinating and revealing of the "official" mind and their their understanding of the public perception of "secrecy" and the State.

For example consider the concluding remarks the Secretary made to the Soho Writers' Festival Civil Liberties Panel 19th November 2002 (on the D Notice website) which displays both a Metropolitan arrogance and the hauteur of an establsihed, civil and very disodedient servant of the public.


"So where does that leave official secrecy? Even before September 11 last year, we all saw how the Freedom of Information Act had been watered down behind the scenes, and implementation postponed. You may not have seen, but I can assure you it is so, that the way in which Ministries now treat Data Protection Act requests is also not as open-handed as when it first came into force. And to end with the oldest Act in question, the current version of Official Secrets Act is now effectively 14 years old.

It was written in a vastly different world, still in the Cold War era, and for a public who then had rather different attitudes to many aspects of what can loosely be described as human rights. Many other aspects of British and international life have also changed in the intervening years, including the style of our government, the international legal framework, and the role of the media, and of course there is the impact of the internet on matters of secrecy. It seems logical therefore to me that, sooner rather than later, the Official Secrets Act will need to be looked at again.

However, this, and other aspects of greater openness, have no high political or bureaucratic priority, nor are the media themselves, individually or collectively, very consistent in pressing for greater openness. Nor, in the view of many in Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street, does anyone in the British public beyond the M25 have much interest in any of this. Personally I disagree strongly with such a cynical view. But I am not sure what it will be that will light the blue touch-paper of the rocket of reform."


It will be fascinating to see how the Press reporting is muzzled (or modified) when the trial reaches Manchester in February next year. The address by the D Notice Committee Secretary in 2002 had this illuminating "guidance" on terminology .."The D-Notices do not, for example, consider even the most violent of the current Animal Liberation Front activists to be terrorists.". qv the BBC has described the Northern Irish IRA as "terrorists", but describes Palestinian armed groups as "militants" to this day. The BBC guidelines on the use of the word terrorist (Microsoft Word .doc)are well worth reading as is the Guradian style guide for using the word.

i.e Muslim youths who make ill considered remarks on their mobiles about Man U are "terrists" but middle aged white men , who assemble rocket launchers, chemical precursors to explosive materials, etc., Internet based recipes for same, MOD Bio-warfare kit, etc., are clearly just enthusiastic (if misguided) firework enthusiasts chargeable under the Explosives Act.

For reference the FBI definition is ...Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. e.g invading Iraq, Lebanon etc.,