interview we did with Austin Mitchell MP
http://web.splashcast.net/web_watch/?code=LEWA4904VU
and on Radio4
Here’s a long version of the interview we did with Austin Mitchell MP. We also spoke to Mark Whitaker and to Peter Smythe, who chairs the Metropolitan Police Federation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/2008/04/youve_been_framed.shtml
John Toner is an eminent and respected union leader, with experience, integrity, energy and vision, and an enviable record in serving the NUJ and has a proven track record.
John has been a member of the NUJ for 27 years, an eminent and respected member of the NEC representing Scotland for 9 years, and served as both President and Honorary General Treasurer of the NUJ. He was Northern Organiser for 4 years before taking up the job of Freelance Organiser in 2001. He is quick-witted, efficient and unflappable. The NUJ needs his experience, integrity, energy and vision. The NUJ needs an effective and experienced Deputy General Secretary
“I’m backing John because… he has a range of experience that is useful to me as a photographer & freelance member. Additionally, and beyond the usual fees and copyright, is intimately aware of the other matters that make our lives so difficult. Police Vs media, rights-grabbing, non-crediting, late/no payment …. and so on!”
– Alan Lodge (Nottingham)
A Labour MP (Mitchell, Austin) has tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the House of Commons condemning police action against lawful photography in public places.
His EDM reads as such:
That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people’s art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public’s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.
Photographers lobby parliament over police curbs :: Press Gazette
Labour MP Austin Mitchell is planning to take a delegation of photographers to the Home Office to protest about the growing number of cases in which police officers and others try to stop professional and amateur photographers taking pictures in public places.
Mitchell, MP for Grimsby, has already tabled an Early Day Motion at the Commons which has been signed by 131 MPs, giving it wide cross-party support.
Mitchell said he tabled the motion because of the increasing number of occasions in which police and others had tried to stop people taking pictures in public places.
“People have complained about photographers being stopped from taking pictures by police, PCSOs, wardens and by various officious people,” he said.
“People have a right to take photographs and to start interfering with that is crazy. It seems crazy when the streets are festooned with closed-circuit television cameras that the public should be stopped from using cameras.
“The proliferation of digital cameras and mobile phones with cameras means that everybody carries a camera these days.”
Mitchell said that last year he was challenged when taking a picture of the view while visiting the Leeds-Liverpool canal by a lock-keeper who wanted to know why he was taking photographs.
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also protested about the growing number of cases in which police and others have stopped press photographers doing their jobs.
NUJ general secretary Jeremy Dear staged a one-man protest outside the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police on March 28 to highlight the failure of law enforcement officers to protect media freedoms.
Press photographers are growing increasingly frustrated because they are regularly obstructed from doing their jobs by police officers who do not understand the law.
Dear said his one-man demo was intended to help senior police officers spot the difference between a protester and photographers covering the protest.
Mitchell’s Early Day Motion reads: “That this House is concerned to encourage the spread and enjoyment of photography as the most genuine and accessible people’s art; deplores the apparent increase in the number of reported incidents in which the police, police community support officers (PCSOs) or wardens attempt to stop street photography and order the deletion of photographs or the confiscation of cards, cameras or film on various specious ground such as claims that some public buildings are strategic or sensitive, that children and adults can only be photographed with their written permission, that photographs of police and PCSOs are illegal, or that photographs may be used by terrorists; points out that photography in public places and streets is not only enjoyable but perfectly legal; regrets all such efforts to stop, discourage or inhibit amateur photographers taking pictures in public places, many of which are in any case festooned with closed circuit television cameras; and urges the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers to agree on a photography code for the information of officers on the ground, setting out the public’s right to photograph public places thus allowing photographers to enjoy their hobby without officious interference or unjustified suspicion.”
In February, photojournalist Marc Vallée, who was injured while covering the “Sack Parliament” demonstration in 2006, received an apology and an out-of-court settlement from the Metropolitan Police.
In May last year, Thames Valley Police rescinded a caution which was given to photographer Andy Handley, of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at a road accident scene.
The force rescinded the caution, which was deleted from the Police National Computer, after NUJ took up the case.
Handley was arrested and handcuffed after refusing to give a police sergeant the memory card from his camera, which carried pictures he had taken from a public road and from behind police tapes at the crash scene at Stony Stratford, Bucks.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=40875&c=1
Open letter to Jeremy Dear
General Secretary
National Union of Journalist
Hello Jeremy
Thank you for your efforts in highlighting our continued difficulties with police, these continue in spite of the guidelines and agreement that we had. The one man show at Scotland Yard might get it discussed a bit more in our own professional circles, but I still wonder if there will be any progress with the police themselves. Further thanks for coming to Nottingham and being a supporter in my own case here.
I think in a democratic society like ours (??) the more senior police managers can only agree with us, that it is not an offence to take photographs in a public place and to pursue stories of public interest. Hence, I guess, we will find little opposition in agreeing the guidance with them. You will know that the real problems begin with the lower ranks.
Since my own arrest for obstruction, my adventures continue with a situation at least once a week.
You may know that on the Nottinghamshire Police Guidelines cover, it says: “Guidelines for police and media at incidents”.
On several occasions, I have been told by police that: “ah mate, no, it’s not an incident, it’s a scene!!”. For this to have happened several times, clearly there have been some watchroom conversations about it all, and to think up devices. Then, at a couple of criminal justice events, I found myself in conversation with middle rank Inspectors and Chief Inspectors who knew nothing of the issue of these guidelines locally. They were to have been widely distributed within the force after agreement.
A more common reaction though, when police are trying to prevent pictures being taken or I’m being hassled about my presence, is simply to push them back at me, without reading them or acknowledgement. Thus to plead continued ignorance of their provisions. Basically they just don’t care. Down here on the street, nothing has changed, all is the same as ever.
There is now another level of policing, non-warranted officers, wardens etc …. I have to say that they are even less clued-up, than the average policemen and these can be even more officious, and lack understanding of their powers.
John Toner was interviewed for this piece, you might find interesting:
http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this
Since they do lack such understanding, I have asked locally if the wardens have been issued with the guidelines. I have been told that it was not relevant to do so and was not appropriate. Well, in the light of experience, I think it is.
You may also know that when we negotiated the Nottinghamshire Guidelines locally, I had made freedom of information act enquiries of all police forces [john has copies of all these], asking about there treatment of photographers at situations. It was the differences of reply that leads us to suppose that national guidance is required.
I think experience has shown though, that even if all is taken nationally, there is no consequence for them being ignored by police, and so they are. They do not form part of police operational orders. I know only to well of what happens to us if we are accused of dis-obeying police instructions, we get arrested and convicted. I understand the Legal Officer was taking steps to see if these guidelines provisions could be included in the police and criminal evidence act. As far as I can see, this is the only way that the police will respect them, that if by ignoring them, that they break the law themselves.
Anyway, as I started, I just want to say thanks for your effort. It’s such a long road, and quite tiring.
Regards
Alan Lodge
Title: Solo protest by NUJ chief
Feature: news
Date: 2 April 2008
The National Union of Journalists held a one-man protest in an effort to highlight concerns over police harrassment. Olivier Laurent reports
Jeremy Dear, the National Union of Journalists’ general secretary, stood outside the New Scotland Yard headquarters of the Metropolitan Police on 28 March for one hour in protest at worsening relations with press photographers. The one-man demonstration calling on police to ‘respect media freedom’, was attended by a dozen photographers there to cover the event. It was designed to show police forces the difference between a protester and photographers.
Dear also planned to hand in a letter to Ian Blair, the Met commissioner, however, the police refused to accept it and asked for it to be posted instead.
In May last year, journalist unions and the Association of Chief Police Officers agreed on guidelines to help improve relations between the police and press photographers. The decision to adopt these guidelines was designed to improve on worsening relations, notably during the London bombings of July 2005, when press photographers complained of ‘gratuitous obstruction’ (BJP, 30 May 2007).
However, recent incidents have raised questions as to whether the guidelines are being followed by police forces. ‘What’s really frustrating is that they are already in place which should deal with the problems we experience,’ says Dear. ‘We’re not even campaigning for a change to the rules. All we want is for the policy that currently exists to be properly enforced.’
Last month, the Met settled out of court with freelance photographer Marc Vallee, who was hospitalised after covering the unlawful ‘Sack Parliament’ protest in London on 09 October 2006. In March, Lawrence Looi, a photographer from the West Midlands-based photographic agency, News Team, was asked by two police officers to delete photographs he had taken of a protest. Looi agreed to delete the images under duress, but has filled a complaint against the officers (BJP, 05 March).
The Met has also launched a new anti-terrorism campaign asking the public to report any ‘odd’ seeming photographer. While the Met police ‘reassures photojournalists they are not going to act on impulse,’ adding ‘it will analyse all evidence before action is taken – if action is taken at all’, photographers remain worried that they will be the targets of increased checks while on the job.
In its letter to the Met, the Union says: ‘The guidelines recognise this important relationship, but it seems that in the majority of cases individual officers are not aware of the existence of the guidelines and NUJ members have reported numerous cases where they are not being followed. Many of these reports are made by photographers, who cite examples of police officers obstructing them in their work, confiscating their equipment, forcing them to delete images or of physically removing photographers when they are lawfully exercising their duties.’
The Union asks that police officers be given copies of the guidelines at briefings that take place in advance of major public events. For more information, visit www.nuj.org.uk.
NUJ General Secretary, Jeremy Dear, has today (28/03) staged a one-man protest outside the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police to highlight the failure of law enforcement officers to protect media freedoms.
The event, attended by dozens of press photographers, was in response to numerous complaints about how the police deal with the media, particularly at public events and demonstrations. Photographer members of the union are frustrated because they are regularly obstructed from doing their jobs by police officers who don’t understand the law around media freedom. Jeremy hoped that his one-man demo would help senior police officers spot the difference between a protester and photographers covering the protest.
Photographers’ case taken to Scotland Yard
Last year a set of guidelines on dealing with the media was agreed between the NUJ and the Association of Chief Police Officers, an extension of guidelines already agreed with the Metropolitan Police. However, cases have continued to surface of police officers taking action that is not within their legal powers. Most cases involve officers obstructing photographers from taking photos and the confiscation or deletion of pictures once they have been taken.
There are also examples of journalists being arrested, or threatened with arrest, because they have refused to stop taking photos and in other cases photographers have had their equipment seized. Many NUJ members have reported being physically and mentally intimidated by the police and some cases have included actual physical violence.
Photographers regularly criticise the police for their handling of the media at major events, particularly public demonstrations where officers often fail to draw a sufficient distinction between protestors and members of the press who are reporting on the event.
To mark the protest, Jeremy Dear has sent a letter to New Scotland Yard highlighting the union’s concerns. A letter from the NUJ Parliamentary Group to the Home Secretary has also been dispatched to the Home Office to raise the issue at the highest levels.
Speaking in advance of the protest, Jeremy Dear said: “It’s a shame that we have to hold a stunt like this to help the police spot the difference between a protestor and a press photographer. It really isn’t that difficult.
“What’s really frustrating is that guidelines are already in place which should deal with the problems we experience. We’re not even campaigning for a change to the rules. All we want is for the policy that currently exists to be properly enforced.
“Although the one-man protest is intended to be a little light-hearted, this is a really serious issue. Police officers are preventing photographers from reporting on important events with action that is at times bordering on harassment. In an open and democratic society it’s vital that photographers and members of the media are free to report on what is going on in the world. Police officers need to understand their responsibilities when it comes to respecting media freedom.”
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=760
also ……..
Photographers by the Yard http://re-photo.co.uk/?p=250 Peter Marshall blog.
NUJ General Secretary, Jeremy Dear, will tomorrow (28/03) stage a one-man protest outside the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police to highlight the failure of law enforcement officers to protect media freedoms.
The union is frustrated that a large number of its photographer members continue to be regularly obstructed from doing their jobs by police officers who don’t understand the law around media freedom. The one-man protest will aim to help senior police officers spot the difference between a protester and photographers covering the protest.
Last year a set of guidelines on dealing with the media was agreed between the NUJ and the Association of Chief Police Officers, an extension of guidelines already agreed with the Metropolitan Police. However, cases have continued to surface of police officers taking action that is not within their legal powers. Most cases involve officers obstructing photographers from taking photos and the confiscation or deletion of pictures once they have been taken.
There are also examples of journalists being arrested, or threatened with arrest, because they have refused to stop taking photos and in other cases photographers have had their equipment seized. Many NUJ members have reported being physically and mentally intimidated by the police and some cases have included actual physical violence.
Photographers regularly criticise the police for their handling of the media at major events, particularly public demonstrations where officers often fail to draw a sufficient distinction between protestors and members of the press who are reporting on the event.
Jeremy Dear will deliver a letter to New Scotland Yard highlighting the union’s concerns and will stage his protest to help demonstrate the differences between a protestor and press photographers. A letter from the NUJ Parliamentary Group to the Home Secretary will also be delivered to the Home Office tomorrow to raise the issue at the highest levels.
Speaking in advance of the protest, Jeremy Dear said: “It’s a shame that we have to hold a stunt like this to help the police spot the difference between a protestor and a press photographer. It really isn’t that difficult.
“What’s really frustrating is that guidelines are already in place which should deal with the problems we experience. We’re not even campaigning for a change to the rules. All we want is for the policy that currently exists to be properly enforced.
“Although the one-man protest is intended to be a little light-hearted, this is a really serious issue. Police officers are preventing photographers from reporting on important events with action that is at times bordering on harassment. In an open and democratic society it’s vital that photographers and members of the media are free to report on what is going on in the world. Police officers need to understand their responsibilities when it comes to respecting media freedom.”
With the recent distress and trouble about the end of the ASBO squat in Burns Street, Radford, Nottingham …… [I have been covering events there for the last few years]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/03/392793.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/03/392994.html
By contrast, if you want to see what the under-informed think of squatting as an activity, please check out:
Police Community Support Officer Blog : Squatting page at:
http://policecommunitysupportofficer.blogspot.com/2007/11/squatters.html
However, for those of us that thought that squatting should be thought of as an activity of those engaged in social concerns, please check out the ‘London Squatter’s’ Comment at: http://tinyurl.com/2wq8kn
because it helps provide the antidote to this PCSO’s viperous attack.
Levellers & Diggers 350 year Anniversary at St.George’s Hill.
Please check out my speech at this event on YouTube
My speech there, describing the fact that current protest and festival events like the free festivals, Stonehenge Gathering etc ….. are directly draw from the Levellers land squats of the 17th century. The people organising amungst themselves after the civil war.
With the Criminal Justice Act and the other shed-load of legislation recently, these things are still, more than ever, worth standing up for.
For some background and history, on what I’m on about here, check out my pages starting at: http://tash.gn.apc.org/leveller.htm
and all about the day to remember these communities and what they stood for.
The Diggers 350 yr anniversary: http://tash.gn.apc.org/diggers_350.htm
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/FWk9rRJsk5I&hl=en]
also…..
since I’m reminded, I made this ‘slide-show’ video of some of my photography from the event that day.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/v/nh6NIDCjquw&hl=en]
A friend found this, a film maker gets some grief on the streets of London. I meet this stort of thing, every single bloody day!!!!
The video covers your rights to take photos in public place. Includes interview with John Toner of the NUJ.
from current.com at: http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this
A photographer from a Birmingham-based photographic agency has raised a complaint with West Midlands Police following an incident in which he says a police officer forced him to delete images from his memory card.
Lawrence Looi, 31, who has been a staff photographer with news agency News Team for the last three years, had been sent to cover a protest on public roads outside the International Conference Centre on Thursday morning when he was approached by a police constable who objected to having been photographed.According to the written complaint, a copy of which has been seen by EPUK, the officer held Looi by the upper arm and asked him to delete any photographs that had been taken of police officers. The officer also asked Looi to identify himself, but refused an offer to see Looi’s NPA-issued National Press Card.“I remained calm and polite at all times and add that, at no point did I become aggressive”, writes Looi in the complaint. “I politely requested for his name and details, explaining my wish to lodge this complaint. I was then released and allowed to carry on with my work.”
Looi says he was then approached by a police sergeant who asked to view the photographs taken. Looi agreed to this, but refused a request from the sergeant for any photographs which showed identifiable police officers to be deleted.
When Looi refused, the complaint says: “[the police sergeant] then threatened to take my camera from me to delete the photographs, to quote…‘Do it or I’ll do it myself’. He then grabbed hold of my camera with the intention of doing so”
According to the complaint, the two police officers had said that images could compromise the safety of any officers pictured who may later undertake undercover operations.
Looi says it was at this point that he agreed to delete the images. “I didn’t want the hassle of him trying to intimidate me and waste my time by detaining me”, he told EPUK. “In hindsight, I should have probably have let them arrest me.” Looi was unable to later recover the images using specialist recovery software.
In his letter to West Midlands Chief Constable Sir Paul Scott-Lee, Looi writes: “I believe that I was unlawfully physically detained …against my will and the direction to delete the photographs had no legal backing. I only complied to save further detention and aggravation and because I had other urgent work to complete.”
The incident is a clear breach of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) national police-press guidelines which state: “Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and [police officers] have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record.”
“It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence.”
The guidelines also warn that any police officer who deletes a photographer’s images could face criminal, civil or disciplinary action.
The case is the latest in a series of controversial incidents between police officers and photographers, and comes just a week after the Metropolitan Police agreed an out-of-court settlement with injured protest photographer Marc Vallee.
Under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, journalistic materials such as a camera memory card are classified as “special procedure materials”, and are subject to certain safeguards under law. However, solicitor Mike Schwartz of Bindman and Partners has previously warned that police are using their powers of arrest to gain access to these materials.
Speaking at the 2007 NUJ Photographers’ Conference, he said:“The police are arresting journalists, seizing their equipment, treating them as suspects, looking at their photographs, taking copies, perhaps returning them to them, taking no further action often (but not always) and they’ve got, straight away, what they want.”
West Midlands Police were unavailable for comment on the incident.
Looi’s incident joins a long list of controversial incidents where police have been accused of misusing their powers to try to control press photographers:
March 2006: A joint two-year effort between the British Press photographers Association (BPPA), the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the Chartered Institute of Journalists (CIJ) results in the first police-press guidelines being agreed with London’s Metropolitan Police.
March 2006: While photographing an armed incident in Nottingham, photographer Alan Lodge is arrested firstly for assault, then de-arrested, before being arrested and de-arrested for breach of the peace, and finally being arrested and later charged with obstruction. Lodge, who helped draft the guidelines used by the police for dealing with the press, was later found guilty .
August 2006: During a terror alert, police at Heathrow Airport forced two staff press photographers to delete images from their camera memory cards. All photographers arriving at the airport were banned from taking pictures of the incident.
September 2006: Milton Keynes News staff photographer Andy Handley is arrested for obstruction after refusing to hand over his equipment after photographing a traffic accident. Police later apologise, and describe his arrest as “a serious misjudgement”.
October 2006: Photographer Marc McMahon is arrested for breaching the peace while photographing an incident on Newcastle’s Tyne Bridge where a man was threatening to commit suicide. Despite showing his press card, police unlawfully told McMahon he could not take photographs, and when he continued to do so, he was arrested. McMahon’s camera bag containing £10,000 of camera equipment was later stolen after being left at the scene by police officers. A court found McMahon not guilty of obstructing a police officer, and said that he had acted “professionally”. McMahon later sued the police for the loss of his equipment.
October 2006: Photojournalist Marc Vallée is hospitalised and left unable to work for a month with injuries sustained following police action at a demonstration in Parliament Square. The Metropolitan Police later agree an out-of-court settlement with Vallée, but do not accept liability.
November 2006: After being photographed, off-duty SO14 officer Paul Page pursues Sun freelance photographer Scott Hornby, ramming his car to a standstill then forcing him out of the car at gunpoint. Page is later found not guilty of dangerous driving, possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear, and false imprisonment after telling a jury that he thought the photographer was a hitman.
April 2007: The police-press guidelines used by the Metropolitan Police are adopted by all other police forces in Britain.
September 2007: Freelance photographer Mike Wells is stopped and searched three times and had his phone taken while covering the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition in London. Despite showing his press card, officers told Wells that he was being searched on the grounds that he was a person likely to cause criminal damage such as graffiti.
November 2007: Amateur photographer Phil Smith was stopped from photographing the Christmas lights being switched on by police at a public event in Ipswich, and asked whether he had a “licence to use the camera”. A police spokesperson later said that officers had been “overzealous in the execution of their duty”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwJarFI3Ic4]
A friends last day of driving a bus. He asked me to take a few piccys, for his mum. But I got a bit carried away, and made this as a bit of jolly.
As part of the ‘LGBT History Month’, the rainbow flag, flew above the Council House. As well as various events held around the city, there is an exhibition of photography in the Central Library [on the 1st floor], Angel Row, Nottingham.
Part of the exhibition is to show the diversity of characters, including artists, comedians, actors, musicians, playwrights, novelists, statesmen & women, sports people …… etc.
Another wall is dedicated to Nottingham Pride events over the last 10 years. As it turns out, largely consisting of my photography at the last few ‘prides’. Selections of this work, can be seen at these links.
Nottingham 2007 Pride
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/377404.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/07/377425.html
Nottingham 2006 Pride
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/348508.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/348529.html
Nottingham 2005 Pride
Pix 1 http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319629.html
Pix 2 http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319652.html
Nottingham 2004 Pride
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/07/295272.html
Manchester Pride 2006
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349780.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349801.html
Manchester Pride 2005
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/322251.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/322272.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/322293.html
Manchester Pride 2004
http://tashcamuk.fotopages.com/?entry=542032
*****
Nottingham Pride
Web: http://www.nottinghampride.co.uk
E-Mail: info@nottinghampride.co.uk
&
NTU LGBT Awareness Fortnight
info@ntupride.org.uk
http://www.ntupride.org.uk
This time it is the photographers and videographers we have to fear.
The two links will take you to the Met’s own website and enlighten you, frighten you, and have you phoning in suspicious behaviour calls on every journalist, photojournalist, video journalist, mainstream, union registered and especially those pesky independent “citizen journalism” activist Indymedia types.
Now the message is, who’s that behind the camera? What are they filming, or photographing, and why?
>
Extract from their new campaign:
Met Launches New Counter-Terrorism Campaign 25.02.08
IF YOU SUSPECT IT – REPORT IT
“Observation and surveillance help terrorists plan attacks. Have you seen anyone taking pictures of security arrangements such as CCTV? Has it made you suspicious?
“Meetings, training and planning for terrorist attacks can take place anywhere. Do you know someone who travels but is vague about where they’re going?
and so on…..
MET Police new terrorism Campaign
2008 Counter-Terrorism advertising campaign launched
less and less hope …….. !
NUJ member Marc Vallée has accepted an apology and out-of-court settlement from the Metropolitan Police today (25/2), further to issuing proceedings against Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for “Battery” (assault) and breaches of the Human Rights Act, relating to freedom of expression and assembly.
Photojournalist Marc Vallée, was taking photographs of the ‘Sack Parliament’ demonstration protest in Parliament Square on 9 October 2006.
Marc received injuries further to action by Metropolitan Police officers, which resulted in an ambulance attending to give urgent attention and then treatment at St Thomas’ hospital.
He has received a written apology and an out-of-court settlement and his legal costs for pursuing the action will also be met by the police.
Ms Chez Cotton, Marc Vallée’s solicitor, said: “This was an extremely unpleasant incident. Neither the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or his officers has any legal power, moral responsibility or political responsibility to prevent or restrict what the media record. Mr Vallée is a well-respected photojournalist, lawfully present to photograph a political protest outside parliament, yet he was brutally prevented from doing so by the police. It is right that Mr Vallée has received an apology, an out of court settlement and that his legal costs will be met by the police.”
NUJ General Secretary, Jeremy Dear, said: “Marc will be pleased to have finally got an apology from the police, but it is no cause for celebration. It is disgraceful that the police brutally obstructed a member of the press from reporting on a political demonstration. Press freedom is a central tenet of our democracy so Marc Vallée’s treatment by the police is deeply worrying. The Met needs to take a close look at what must be done to ensure its officers respect journalists’ rights.”
Mark Thomas, comic, activist and a writer said: “Marc’s win shows that police simply cannot attack journalists and get away with it. The Met should be ashamed that the case had to be taken on in the first place, physically assaulting journalists in the pursuit of their job is an outrageous and vile act that smacks of the worst kind of censorship and bully boy tactics. One can only hope that the Met will learn from this and refrain from beating up members of the press in future.”
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=719
Well done Marc
Climate change is killing us. So why are we still so reluctant to quantify the deaths it has caused?
In April last year a group of environmentalists shut down E.ON’s coalfired power station in Ratcliffe-on-Soar. The goal: to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and, in their words, “save lives”. Yesterday judge Morris Cooper presented a 20-page judgment accepting there was an “urgent need for drastic action”, but convicted them of aggravated trespass, saying their defence, that their crime was necessary to save lives, could not be substantiated.
In the trial, for which I was an expert witness, crucial questions were how many people does climate change kill, and what proportion is the UK responsible for? I was surprised to discover that nobody knows. Scientists such as myself are involved in programmes to measure CO2 emissions, air temperatures, sea-ice loss and the much more complex impacts on birds, rainforest trees and coral reefs. We know that climate change-related events are killing people, yet there is no comprehensive global monitoring program to document the lives lost due to climate change. There is no official climate-change body count.
Admittedly, the impact of climate change on human health and mortality is difficult to quantify. There is no comparison group of people not exposed to climate change. Deaths are often due to multiple causes. And while the probability of a particular event occurring under modified climate conditions can be estimated, no single event can be solely attributed to climate change. The biggest obstacle is the sheer variety of effects it has on health. These include direct effects such as drowning in floods and complex indirect effects, such as falling crop yields which increases malnutrition and changes in the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria. Furthermore, care must be taken to subtract any positive health impacts on climate change, such as the reduced effects of cold weather on health in a warming world.
The World Heath Organisation publishes the only global estimate of the number killed by climate change – about 150,000 annually. Worryingly, this estimate comes from a single modelling study in 2002, and includes only four impacts of climate change (deaths from one strain of malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoea-type diseases and flooding). It is, as the authors point out, a highly conservative first estimate and, by now, considerably out of date.
Why are we relying on a single, limited, out-of-date study for our information on the numbers of people killed by climate change? This is not a criticism of the WHO; the real question is why they are apparently alone in this effort.
The core of the climate-change community, of course, is that group studying the atmosphere. Their questions therefore don’t often relate directly to human health. The medical profession is obviously more interested in saving lives now than in the slower and longer term effects of climate change, and so have been late in engaging with the question.
Naturally, funding influences which questions are answered. Politicians have not asked for a body count. But why not? Perhaps there are parallels with another politically charged issue involving widespread mortality, where nobody counted: the war in Iraq. Governments probably do not want to hear about people dying in foreign lands because of their own choices. Who is going to fund comprehensive studies when the headline might read “British carbon emissions responsible for 3,000 deaths last year”?
The precise relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and deaths that both the environmentalists and Judge Cooper wanted information on should not be beyond scientists in the future. Equivalent statements are routinely made by medical specialists, such as the proportion of all stroke deaths attributable to hypertension in a given year, or attributing lung cancer deaths to passive smoking. It is merely a question of deciding whether it is an important question to answer.
Such an understanding is essential for two quite different reasons. First, it is a basic issue of justice. The dead should be remembered and their families and friends should understand the factors involved in their deaths. Second, it seems likely that the numbers of people killed by climate change has been significantly underestimated. This means that, in addition to issues of the morality of equating human lives with the time spent waiting in airport queues, such cost-benefit analyses used to shape government policy with major climatic impacts, such as building a new runway at Heathrow, are likely to be biased by underestimating the cost in human lives of such decisions.
Dr Simon Lewis is a Royal Society research fellow at the Earth and Biosphere Institute, University of Leeds
s.l.lewis@leeds.ac.uk
On the 10th April 2007, 11 people walked into the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station and locked on to the coal conveyor and assorted plant there.
Their objective was to take direct action to halt operations and thus to diminish the CO2 emissions of the E-on plant, the greenhouse gas thought to be largely responsible for climate change.
They were all changed with aggravated trespass “trespassing on land and entering into buildings with the intention of obstructing or disrupting persons engaged in a lawful activity, contrary to section 68(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Throughout the court case [described in the links below], the defendant argued that yes, they did take these actions, but employed the defence of “duress of circumstances” or necessity, and pleaded not guilty.
At the beginning of the case, there was legal argument on if the court would hear this defence. It did and the case was proceeded with in making such argument. It is thought to be the first case dealing with environmental matters, that this defence had been employed.
On Monday 25th Feb, 10 defendants [one having had the charges dismissed due to lack of evidence] returned to court to receive the judgement. He had earlier said that he wished to compliment all the defendants on the way they had handled themselves and on the presentation of their case. However all were found guilty.
The District Judge Morris Cooper said that he had rejected the defence of necessity, this being so, and the defendant had all admitted their action they were thus guilty of these offences.
There had been extensive evidence presented to court by an expert witness Dr Simon Lewis. The court had accepted this without contention. In the written judgement DJ Cooper points out that …
“The law relating to this subject is far from clear as to scope of such a defence. I am not aware of any legal authority that addresses the question of whether a global threat brought about or contributed to by global human activity is within the scope of such a defence. This case, there fore, goes into uncharted legal territory”.
Also, I was struck by a quote from one of the authorities relied on in making the decision. London Borough of Southwark V. Williams [1971].
“Well one thing emerges with clarity from the decisions, and that is that the law regards with the deepest suspicion any remedies of self-help, and permits those remedies to be resorted to only in very special circumstances. The reason for such circumspection is clear, necessity can easily become simply a mask for anarchy”.
So, there you have it!
They were fined varying amounts between £100 – £250. Additionally, the prosecution asked for £100 costs each and the victim surcharge of £15. The total bill coming to £2670. All were given time to pay.
Ratcliffe Power Station Court Case : Nottingham Magistrates [day 1]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/01/389467.html
Ratcliffe Power Station Court Case : Nottingham Magistrates [day 2]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/01/389535.html
Ratcliffe Power Station Court Case : Nottingham Magistrates [day 3]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/01/389654.html
‘Clean’ Coal On Trial [Feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/01/389386.html
>> check here for links to the action and surrounding issues
On Friday 22 February at 12.30pm, Nottingham adopted the first Speakers’ Corner in the UK since an Act of Parliament paved the way for the original in London’s Hyde Park almost 150 years ago. The council press release says: ‘It is to be located in the heart of the city centre as a powerful symbol of citizens’ rights, a focus for civic pride and a platform for free public exchange in the midst of Nottingham’s daily hustle and bustle”. With the pedestrianisation of King Street, Speakers’ Corner will then be inaugurated in the autumn
At a ceremony in Market Square, the Council Leader Jon Collins and the Sheriff of Nottingham Jeannie Packer formally announced its creation at King Street. This would be the country’s first since the original was established in London’s Hyde Park in the 1870s.
Tim Desmond, chair of the Nottingham Speakers’ Corner Committee and who’s day job is the chief executive of the Galleries of Justice, said: “We see this as a day of celebration for Nottingham on which we can showcase our heritage as a great free-thinking city and our future as a centre of innovation and above all take pride in the people who make up our community.
“We’ve tried to organise a day with something for everyone. We all have strong views but we rarely get the chance to express them. The whole idea of the initiative we’re pioneering in Nottingham is to bring people together to exchange and enjoy ideas and opinions, to learn from each other and to have a greater say in how are lives are run.”
Then, Peter Bradley, director of Speakers’ Corner Trust, the charity behind the initiative, added: “The sheer breadth and ambition of the day shows just why we chose Nottingham for our national pilot. This is a city bursting not just with ideas and energy, but also with goodwill.
So, that’s alright then! Personally, I think it’s a splendid idea. But many folks have have expressed reservations that this might be a council wheeze, to help ‘clear up’ assorted groups from stalls and protests across the rest of the square and surrounding areas, and place them all neatly at this ‘official location’. But they wouldn’t do that, would they? We know the police and wardens are sometimes quite confused about free speech, handing out leaflets [an allowed activity for political purposes, without the need for permission. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/10/352444.html ]. Further ambiguity exists, when setting up a stall. Check out an earlier example. http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2007/05/371109.html
While Coun Collins was speaking, someone at the back shouted ‘bullshit’ [amongst other things]. Earlier in the week, there had been a demonstration in opposition to the council plan to close the Victoria Baths in Sneinton. Firstly, there was an initial ‘misunderstanding’, about access to the council chamber, then there was a further issue about what public consultation could achieve. So, the heckler seemed confused that coun Collins cited the Victoria Baths campaign as an example of such free speech.
Speakers included:
Town Cryer
Tim Desmond, chair of the Nottingham Speakers’ Corner Committee
Peter Bradley, director of Speakers’ Corner Trust
Jeannie Packer, Sheriff of Nottingham
Jon Collins, Council Leader
Adrian Lunga, the Zimbabwean human rights campaigner
Eddie Izzard [via video screen]
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/day_for_debate_to_launch_nottingham_speakers_corner
http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/eddieizzardbacks.htm
Speakers Corner Trust: http://www.speakerscornertrust.org
Tash on YouTube
