By Indika Sri Aravinda | Daily Mirror
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The Siyatha television station which was attacked earlier today will go on air using its test transmission till it resumes normal broadcasts sometime next week, Roshantha Kariyapperuma Chairman of Voice of Asia, the broadcasting company of Siyatha TV told Daily Mirror online.
More than 40 computers, several air-conditioning units and other electronic equipment have been damaged due to the fire. The Main Control Room (MCR) of the Siyatha television was also damaged so the network is unable to broadcast at the moment. The radio stations also have been interrupted.
There were no threats against the radio and TV stations, we have not insured the equipment as well, Kariyapperuma said.
Meanwhile Director General of Government Information, Ariyaratne Athugala stated that usually if a radio or television station did not broadcast for 24 hours the broadcast license could be revoked and that the station could be taken over by the government.
However he noted that in the case of Siyatha because of the special circumstances such action will not be taken.
© Daily Mirror Online
Read More
Summary only
BBC News
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
An armed gang has attacked a private TV and radio station in Sri Lanka's capital, Colombo, with firebombs.
Two people were injured in the attack on the independent station, Siyatha.
Siyatha's owner left the country some months ago after reports emerged that he had also funded the opposition presidential candidate, Sarath Fonseka.
The government temporarily prevented Siyatha from covering official events and withdrew advertising from its newspaper, which has now closed down.
However, its broadcasts have not been critical of the government.
Witnesses told the BBC that about 12 masked men, most of them armed, stormed Siyatha's premises in the city centre and went on a rampage early on Friday.
They threw petrol-bombs and destroyed much of the broadcasting equipment, forcing staff to kneel at gunpoint and assaulting two of them.
The BBC's Charles Haviland in Colombo says the attack was reminiscent of an earlier firebombing of another TV station 18 months ago.
A US-based journalists' rights organisation ranks Sri Lanka as the fourth-worst country for impunity in attacks on journalists.
© BBC News
Read More
Summary only
Daily Mirror Online
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The United Kingdom has updated its travel advisory on Sri Lanka by removing the advise against travel to the four northern provinces of Mullaitivu, Killinochchi, Mannar and Vavuniya.
The British High Commission in a statement said that the advice follows a security assessment carried out by a High Commission delegation, led by Deputy High Commissioner Mark Gooding, which visited the Northern provinces in June.
Commenting on the changes British High Commissioner, Dr Peter Hayes said, “This latest change means we no longer advise against travel to any part of Sri Lanka. Britons wishing to travel to the north should be aware that there remains a risk from mines and unexploded ordinance and that they need to obtain permission from the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence before they travel.”
© Daily Mirror
Read More
Summary only
Photo Courtesy: Lankadeepa
By Bharatha Mallawarachi | Associated Press
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
A dozen men armed with assault rifles and petrol bombs attacked the offices Friday of a media company whose owners had strongly supported the opposition in the last presidential election.
The men entered the premises of Voice of Asia Network in the Sri Lankan capital around 1:30 a.m. Friday and assaulted a security guard before setting the buildings on fire with petrol bombs, said Jimmy Deen, a spokesman for the company, which runs a private television station and three radio stations. The security guard and another employee were injured.
The blaze gutted the building housing the company's television channel Siyatha TV and damaged the station's control room, studio and library, Deen said. The TV station had to be shut down, but the radio stations were still broadcasting.
Police spokesman Prishantha Jayakody confirmed the attack, but said authorities needed more time to confirm the details.
Deen said he couldn't think of any reason for the attack, since the stations were mainly focused on entertainment and education. It was widely known, however, that the company's owners backed the main opposition candidate, ex-army chief Sarath Fonseka, in January's presidential election.
Fonseka lost, and he and many of his supporters were arrested after the vote. Fonseka faces a court-martial for allegedly planning his political career while in the army.
Fonseka's supporters say President Mahinda Rajapaksa is punishing the general for daring to challenge him.
© Associated Press
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Read More
Summary only
Read the "Sun" apology
By Roy Greenslade | Guardian
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
There are a number of interesting features to today's (29) libel victory by Tamil hunger striker Parameswaran Subramanyam.
I can see how the Daily Mail tripped up. Clearly, a police source gave the paper false information, leading to its way-over-the-top report: "Hunger striker's £7m Big Mac."
There were also two unequivocal picture captions: "Tamil who cost London a fortune in policing was sneaking in fast-food" and "Tamil takeaways" plus, naturally, a picture of a Big Mac itself.
I noted the following day that the Mail carried a story of Subramanyam's denial, Tamil hunger striker: I did NOT break my fast, but it was a news report rather than an apology.
It suggested that the paper did not believe Subramanyam, because it also contained a (sort of) justification for its original story. One sentence said: "The Mail revealed how police surveillance teams saw fast food being smuggled to Mr Subramaniyan."
And the concluding sentence stated: "Scotland Yard last night refused to discuss whether it had received intelligence that the hunger striker had been passed food."
That's one of those intriguing non-comments. Did it mean that the story was correct but the police didn't want to say anything on the record? Or was it an indication that the story was just plain wrong?
The latter turned out to be the case. As the Mail's counsel said in court this morning, the paper "published the article in good faith based on information that, at the time, was understood to be reliable."
I can also understand how The Sun came a cropper. Its online team simply repeated the Mail story without checking on its veracity. And that, sadly, happens often - in print and online - when a story conforms to a paper's prejudices.
But the editors and journalists on both newspapers know all this. They would have been aware for many months of the shaky ground for the false allegations made against Subramanyam.
So, once again, the central problem is about the length of time it takes to obtain justice once people sue papers for libel.
The stories libelling Subramanyam were published in October last year, so he has had to wait almost 10 months for the story to be officially denied.
Why? Well, once newspapers are sued the legal machinery kicks in because, aside from reputation, money is at stake. In this case the claimant has been paid "substantial damages" (£80,000 evidently) plus his costs.
First off, papers try to bluff it out, hoping to justify the unjustifiable. Once they've lost that battle, it all comes down to haggling over the level of damages and the wording of statements.
The final agreement will have been hammered out in lengthy and costly negotiations. It is an unsatisfactory way of sorting out such matters.
Ahead of mooted libel law reform, there have been various ideas about dealing with these cases by the setting up a legal panel. This would be a much swifter and less costly way of settling disputes.
All three parties involved - the Mail, The Sun and the upset, libelled Subramanyam - would have benefited from the creation of such a sensible and practical arbitration panel.
© Guardian
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Read More
Summary only
News First
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
The case filed by the MTV Channel Private Limited against the fact that the frequency on which Shakthi TV transmitted in the Jaffna peninsula for seven years, was given over to another company was settled today.
The case was taken up before the President of the court of appeal Sathya Hettige and Justice Anil Gunaratne.
Senior state counsel appearing for the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission Sumathi Dharmawardena stated that the frequency UHF 46 has been allocated for Shakthi TV to transmit in Jaffna.
He further said that this frequency can be obtained by making the necessary payment in this regard, on or before the 4th of August.
The petitioner withdrew the case, as the TRC agreed to grant MTV channel private limited a frequency for Shakthi TV to transmit in the Jaffna peninsula.
Attorney at law Sandamali Chandrasekara and Sanjeewa Jayawardene appeared on behalf of the petitioner, acting on the instructions of Sudath Perera associates.
© News First
Read More
Summary only
Agence France-Presse
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
Sri Lanka's former army chief and defeated presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka was brought before the Colombo High Court on Thursday to answer charges of provoking violence.
Fonseka, who already faces two courts martial and two more criminal cases, was taken before a three-member "trial-at-bar" for the first time and charged, his attorney said.
"The main charge is inciting people to violence," lawyer Nalin Laduwahetti said. Some 20 witnesses will be called during the next hearing, on September 27.
The trial-at-bar dispenses with the normal practice of trial by jury, and is normally used by the state to fast-track legal proceedings in high-profile cases. If convicted, Fonseka could be jailed for five to 20 years.
Fonseka was charged under tough emergency laws in relation to accusations he incited violence by commenting to a newspaper that surrendering rebel leaders were executed during the country's civil war, which ended in May 2009.
Fonseka maintained that the published comments -- which suggested defence secretary Gotabhaya Rakapakse, the younger brother of the president, had ordered the executions -- were in fact misquotes. Rajapakse has denied the charge.
A retired four-star general, Fonseka led the Sri Lankan army to a spectacular victory against Tamil Tiger rebels in May last year, ending the island's 37-year separatist conflict.
But he has since fallen out with the government and says the legal cases against him are politically motivated.
Fonseka made an unsuccessful bid to unseat Rajapakse at elections in January, but went on to win a seat at April parliamentary polls.
He is currently in military custody, facing two courts martial for allegedly dabbling in politics while in uniform and illegally awarding contracts to a company in which his son-in-law had an interest.
Fonseka's party has said the cases against him are fabricated and form part of a political vendetta.
© AFP
Read More
Summary only
