More on Reporter Going to Jail...
Roy Greenslade, being a proper journalist (unlike yours truly) bothered to phone the regulator to get their side of the story. According to Roy, the regulator claims that the information is restricted to protect those being investigated. Yeah ok, but in normal criminal matters it is possible to report that an investigation is being made. It is also legititmate to report on aspects of the investigation providing such reporting does not prejudice the outcome of a trial.
It is not as if the reporter in question has published the "restricted information" itself. Why should pension companies enjoy greater protection than a private individual faced with an investigation into something he or she may or may not have done. Are pension companies really worthy of more legal protection than say, John Leslie?
If the Pensions Act test is merely that information it deems to be restricted (who arbitrates on what is restricted?) may not be used or referred to then this really is little more than the state deciding what we can and cannot know.
Labels: Incisive Media, press freedom, roy greenslade
posted by Businessmediablogger @ 5:32 pm
1 Comments:
These are people's pensions we are talking about and surely people have a right to know that something is wrong with their pension scheme? Also, there were rumours in the market that were damaging other trustee firms because of the regulator's secrecy. As always, only the innocent suffer when secrecy and concealment triumph over freedom and openness. Unfortunately, we live in a country with a government that does not value press freedom and keeps handing out powers like this to unelected and unaccounatble bodies.
Post a Comment
<< Home