成人快手

The home movie footage of the Queen giving a Nazi salute may have been grainy and over eighty years old, but it's brought into sharp focus the issue of public interest. The publication of the clip by the Sun has been widely condemned. Buckingham Palace said the Sun was exploiting a private family film. The paper says it provides a fascinating insight in to the warped prejudices of Edward VIII and that it's the job of journalists is to bring to light things that happened. Whether publishing the film was in the public interest or just of interest to the public is a moot point, but it highlights what is becoming an increasingly contentious area - what the public has a right to know and who should decide? Operation Elveden, a three year, twenty million pound investigation in to journalists and their sources has been left in what some people have described as in tatters after convictions were overturned in the court of appeal. A former head of the Crown Prosecutions Service is now arguing that we need tougher laws to defend journalists and that phone-hacking, bribery of public officials, "sting" operations, refusal to name sources should all have a public interest defence in law. At the same time the government has launched a review of the Freedom of Information Act amid claims that it is stifling discussion on policy and encouraging politicians and civil servants to be more secretive. The Act was introduced in 2000. Tony Blair described himself as an "irresponsible nincompoop" for bringing it in. This week an FoI request revealed that British military pilots were involved in Syrian air strikes and activists believe that any changes will lead to more secrecy, more mistakes and bad decisions. What should we, the public, have a right to know and who ought to decide?