Alan Lodge's Blog

A seminar Exploring Society’s Suspicions of Photographers
House of Parliament. London – Wednesday 27th October 2010

“Which law would that be, officer?” David Hoffman, photographer

How To Change Attitudes – Summary, John Toner, NUJ Freelance Organiser

“Which law would that be, officer?” Chez Cotton, Head of Police Misconduct Department, Bindmans LLP

“Which law would that be, officer?” Introduction by London Photographers’ Branch (LPB) Chair Jess Hurd.

“What makes you think you can take my picture?” Anna Mazzola, solicitor, Hickman and Rose.

“What makes you think you can take my picture?” Professor Chris Frost, Head of Journalism at Liverpool John Moores University

Liberal Democrat MP Don Foster introduces the parliamentary seminar “Who’s Afraid of Photographers?”

Will Street Photography still be around in five years time?

Continuing from yesterday, Barrister for the prosecution, Miss Felicity Gerry continued to hack her way in reading through the significant sized list of papers, maps, equipment and property. Laying out the sophistication of the plans.

We now got to the technical kit including
3x walkie-talkie radios [460hz] with approx. 3km range
Camcorders and batteries
A microwave transmitter. [Police experts suggesting that this equipment was for a directional video ‘downlink’.  The signal to be able to be received at a distance in line-of-sight. A compass was also listed, used to assist in this process.]
Assorted digital cameras
Laptop computers found secreted in various rooms within the school.
A ‘dongle’ to enable an internet connection.  The judge helpfully unplugged and held his dongle up for the jury to see!

{Yesterday, a bit of a chuckle went round the court, when the judge gave a short weather forecast; as there was concern about the bad weather today.  Pointing out that that he was the only one in court allowed to google!! }

Taken together with the equipment and preparation listing from yesterday, the prosecution’s comments have unveiled the extent of the 114’s safety measures. For example using gas detectors, respiratory protection, ear protection, as well as first aid kits. These details demonstrate the hard work and planning that went into an action that the prosecution have been trying to portray as ‘a bit of a laugh’.

On now to catering matters. There was fair amount of equipment found there, not belonging to the school. Miss Gerry introduces documents that mention ‘Veggies’ [yet again] and an order to supply 120 people over a week. Noted “don’t tell anyone about it” There is another paper presented quoting “At Veggies, we like a challenge” 

A while was now spent on a description of fingerprint evidence.  This was presented such to describe the positioning of the defendants dabs that had been found on assorted papers and folders and phones..

Miss Gerry now moves onto the positions and circumstances of the arrests made on the morning of the 13th April 2009 at the Iona School, Sneinton, Nottingham.  All 20 defendants were arrested cautioned and mostly remained silent.  They were taken to a variety of police stations across the region.

Although there would have been taped interviews, none were played in court.

She read to the jury, the words of the police caution:
“You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”.

Now, as the defendants had largely said nothing on their arrest or interviews, she seemed thus to be asking the jury to make an inference of their guilt.

Now, back into ‘list mode’ she starts to list the defendants arrest location, reference to the ‘no comment’ interviews of each and very long lists of seized personal property taken and returned.  Right down to assorted screws, pens, water bottles, biscuits, portions of cheese !! Descriptions of the police processing of times dates and places.  We get through the first few.  Mr Rees for the defence rises and asks if we need this level of details, but Miss Gerry says she has already summarised the material …. And perseveres for another hour or so!!

On a personal note, I was a bit perturbed during all this to discover that there was a police officer involved in the processing, called  one Detective Constable Lodge.  Uummmm!  I guess we might meet in the street sometime.

The monotony of this listing was broken briefly when Miss Gerry quoted the response of MS replying under caution said:

“There may be a bail-out for the banks,
but not for humanity with climate change.  Nature doesn’t do bail-outs”

Out of the corner of her eye, she saw me suddenly spring into action with my pen to get that down. She said that Mr MS has helped the press with the ‘quote of day’.

After lunch, further mention is made of legal advice papers. Listing documents such as the climate camp ‘bust card’ and papers including reference to ‘no comment’ advice.

In sum, Miss Felicity Gerry says that all 20 people were arrested at the Iona School on the 13th April 2009 as part of the larger group of 144 detained. That they conspired to carry out the action described. The prosecution closes.

The defence will open its case at 10.00am on Monday 29th November 2010.

Their first witness will be Dr. James E. Hansen, Head of National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA’s Goddard Institute.  He will be arriving from the United States and is expected to give his opinions on climate change and mans influences on these processes.

the case still continues etc ……..

Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [Feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

Ratcliffe Trial Day 2 – Prosecution’s Opening
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/702

Ratcliffe Trial Day 3 – Prosecution case continues
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/710

Ratcliffe Trial: Prosecution Opens [Feature 2]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/714

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

Barrister for the prosecution, Miss Felicity Gerry continued to outline their case.

Taking the jury further into the huge bundle of paper they’d been given to consider, she spent much time on the press release that had already been prepared ahead of the action intended.

She points out the press release notes describe the actions intended. They include element such as peaceful protest, trespass, the intent of climbing structures and securing access. Notes about the Ratcliffe power stations operations. Then there was another section drawing attention to the issues the then Energy Secretary Ed Milliband MP, who was considering an application for the construction of another coal-fired power station by E-on at that time.

Notes suggested that the protesters had researched issues for several months before their arrest to ensure the health and safety of themselves and others before engaging in the action. Further, to minimize power disruptions.

By reading out the press release, almost in its entirety to the court, I was struck in thinking that this was perhaps doing a lot of the defences work for them! I formed the impression of the great amount of care, consideration and research that had been put into the whole project. But i think the motive here is clearly to demonstrate the amount of premeditation and possible conspiracy that the prosecution allege had taken place.

Miss Gerry continued onto the question & answers leaflet that had also be found at the school. She again seemed to me to be suggesting that the depth of research, thought-out consequences, again demonstrated the premeditation and a conspiracy.

Another leaflet was introduced titled: ‘Important notice for people working at Ratcliffe Power Station’ intended to provide an explanation to workers about the action. On then to a media contact list prepared with the contact and phone number of a number of TV and newspaper journalist and newsrooms.

Further into the bundle, she introduces an assortment of papers, some torn up and reassembled by the police, found within various rooms in the Iona School. A flip chart paper and a couple of other bits and bobs. All describing aspects of the proposed action, amounting in fact, to an operational plan.

Miss Gerry spent some time describing the operation of a flow chart. Its object was to lay out what to do on arrival at the plant if challenged by worker or security / or not challenged. The arrangement of people into ‘task groups’ and how to proceed when confronted with a variety of obstacles.

The presence of ‘what to do if’ and arrest advice papers suggested that they intended to engage in illegal activities. Another note discovered referred to a company called Veggies “Please supply high calorific high density durable foods” individually packed but sometimes would be available for sharing. Food bags were discovered with days of the week written on them.

Great emphasis was put of another leaflet titled: Ecological Show Stoppers. Street theatre, Sunday 12th April 2009 Iona School, Sneinton, Nottingham.

After lunch we continue with a oh so long listing of equipment.  The back bench of the court has a large array of exhibits in plastic bags, all carefully presented by a court officer resplendent in blue sterile gloves. Unnecessary I thought, when holding ropes , bits of metals and wood which are all contained in plastic. But, me thinks, it all gives an air of crime, danger, presentation etc.

Although not absolutely everything seized, Miss Gerry tells the court that it is a sample to give a flavour of the materials involved.  She has the court officer display to the jury:
D-locks
Cycle steel rope locks
Climbing ropes, clips and harnesses [a variety of all-sorts]
Hard hats, masks and ear-defenders
A roll-able metal climbing ladder
‘Lock-on’ tubes [constructed from fire extinguisher casings, a steel tubes encased in concrete

Police photographs then presented in the bundle showing:
A hired gas detector
Steel device with handles to block a door
Assortment of power tools inc. cutting equipment, drills etc

Miss Gerry suggests that all this equipment would enable the defendants to carry out their stated aims to shut down the power station for a week.

Banners of varying sizes including the words:
For climate justice
2000 tons of carbon saved
Coal = Climate Disaster
No more coal

A sketch was also found showing how to hang a banner with ropes and weighting down with sandbags.

Crumbs!  Today was very much about lists. Lists of papers, equipment & kit,  personal items, sleeping bags, bedding etc etc etc etc ….. we are now onto vehicle. Hired from a variety of companies and locations.

An assortment of receipts for kit, tools, fuel, maps and routes.

It then took a while for her to describe the number of mobile telephones and an assortment of sim cards. Also some radio equipment. They were found in various places about the school and on people present there. All were unregistered and recently purchased. Effort was made in then explaining some of suggested links between them and numbers that had called each other.

We all adjourn until 10.30am tomorrow.

the case continues etc ……..

+++

Ratcliffe Trial Day 2 – Prosecution’s Opening
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/702

Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

After yesterdays administrations and argument, today started with the jury being introduced to the prosecutions main elements of the case. The indictment reads:

The Queen V 20x names. are charged as follows:
Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass, Contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.

That .. between the 1st day of January 2009 and the 15th day of April 2009 conspired together and with others unknown to commit aggravated trespass.

Opening for the Prosecution, Miss Felicity Gerry invited the jury to write down “conspiracy, trespass, disruption, lawful activity”. Suggesting that if they find the defendants to have done this, then they are guilty of offence.

During the Easter weekend on 13th April 2009, 114 people were gathered together at the Iona School, Sneinton, Nottingham to plan and engage in a conspiracy to trespass at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station.
Executing search warrants, Nottinghamshire Police mounted a major action Operation Aeroscope. Resulting in the arrest of all present. People had travelled from all over the country.  Documents recovered at the scene showed there was an agreed plan. To drive to the Ratcliffe power station, to climb the plant there and to display banners.  Thus they would disrupt the ‘lawful activity’ of the plant, it was hoped, for a week.  The crown claim the planned disruption was plainly a conspiracy. The police had recovered a press release prepared in advance demonstrating the intention of the defendants involved in this conspiracy.  Other documents found referred to food and supplies for the weeks occupation.

At this time the [then] Secretary of State for Energy Ed Milliband had application on his deck from companies wishing to build another power station.

This group had no intention of engaging in a democratic discussion on these issues and thus became involved in unreasonable direct action.  The press release included journalist contact list, thus to derive the maximum possible publicity for their actions.  Further, other document were found to be distributed to workers on the site to explain the groups actions in restricting to power stations operations.

The crown claim it is admitted by all, what their motives and intentions were.  specialist equipment seized included
10 vehicles
D-lock and steel rope cycle locks
climbing ropes and slings
heavy duty plastic carriers for food supplies etc
hard hats, Hi-vis vests
face masks
ladders
power tools
rucksacks
4x banners

Miss Gerry was critical saying defendant should address their remarks to MP’s on not in direct action with banners. Legal briefing were also discovered at the school, showing they knew they were committing crime. All defendants admit to being there.  There is no dispute between the parties.

Many believe the burning of fossil fuel is putting the planet in jeopardy.  Bu that is not what the trial is about.  It’s about what is a reasonable way to express their beliefs.  When arrested, they didn’t say that, but largely remained silent.

During her opening speech to the jury Miss Gerry kept eluding to the thought that direct action might be more fun than democracy.  There are many ways to disagree with policy.

“Is it really necessary to close down a power station when there are so many democratic means available?” – referencing a political process that has allowed the first member of the Green Party to become a Member of Parliament. ‘Was it more fun’ she asked, to plan this action or to vote for Zac Goldsmith? Did the defendants do all this, because they didn’t have a Glastonbury ticket?

At this point – a member of jury passed a note with three questions to the Judge. The prosecution finished their opening and the Judge left it to the Defence Counsel to answer.

Opening for the defence barrister, Edward Rees QC said: “Zac Goldsmith? Man Utd? Glastonbury? What is the relevance of these?” asked the Jury. The Mr Rees answered that there was none!!

The Defence referred back to the Prosecution’s ‘fighting talk’. I won’t go as far to say that the Prosecution’s remarks about the defendants were offensive – but to allege that the defendants don’t engage with the democratic process is not the case.

Ratcliffe-on-Soar was responsible for over 9 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007 and that this amount continues to rise. Don’t worry … politicians and energy companies have it all in hand.

They haven’t. The defendants believe authorities were failing to deal with the issue.  In their view there was inadequacy in the processes of dealing with climate change.  It is agreed the the protesters had a well ordered plan, suggesting that during the period of the planned occupation 150,000 tons of CO2 emissions would have been prevented.

The issue here is whether what they planned and intended to do, was in fact a crime..  The test is that action was reasonable in all the circumstances.  The jury are not to be asked to decide on competing climate change facts themselves.  As a matter of law, looking at what the defendants believed to be reasonably true.

There are matters such as tipping points that we simply don’t know the facts.  The defendant wish to err on the side of caution on these matters. There is in fact, a ‘democratic deficit’ in any action on climate change. Looking at the test of reasonableness, it was necessary to act.  In fact it might be considered that the discharge of CO2 is itself a crime.  The defence of necessity [duress of circumstances] is about preventing a greater damage.  It is not for the defendants to prove that they were reasonable, but for the crown to prove it was not.

Starting with the prosecution evidence, Miss Gerry takes the jury through the contents the bundle they had each been given. It contained assorted papers, plans, photographs, vehicle routes and catering arrangements.  A special mention of a company called ‘Veggies’ that had been contacted, asking for high calorific foods to be supplied.

She then went on to give a 10 min very basic description of the technical operation of a coal-fired power station and how it produces electricity.

She then called the first witness. Mr Raymond Henry Smith.  At that time, he was plant manager of the Ratcliffe power station, employed by E-on. He said he was called by police at 3am on 13th April 2009 to say that a police  operation had prevented the arrives of the demonstrators at the plant. Asked if they had arrived, what would the effect have been? He said the plant may have operated at reduced power or shut down,  This was the decision of the plant or duty manager on what to do in the circumstances.

Beginning his questioning, defence barrister, Edward Rees QC asks if the plant was in fact offline at that time. Mr Smith said it was.  He was questioned about E-on company decisions in its operations regarding market conditions, system demands, price of coal, all trying to elicit the idea that it was largely profit considerations in the companies operations. Mr Smith said he couldn’t answer as he was not qualified in these aspects. Mr Rees keeps suggesting that he does in fact know about such market conditions.  E-on also owns a number of gas turbine stations, and it was commercial considerations for the company to consider on which to operate for its best economy.  Its coal or gas stations could thus maintain supply as it likes.  Mr Rees does get Mr Smith to agree that it is largely market conditions dictating its operations and profitability but within current legislation.

Then questioned about carbon capture. It was suggested to him that E-on had pulled out of competition stating that it was not profitable.  In fact 30 of the most polluting stations, half were located in the UK.  But Mr Smith doesn’t know. He also wouldn’t say if he or the company believes that CO2 emission result in the effect of global warming.

Ratcliffe built in 1968 / 42 years old. But £ millions have been invested to improve efficiency. However Ratcliffe emissions had continued to rise. Mr Smith says that although efficiency has improved, more generation does result in still greater emissions.

Mr Smith said he had previously been aware at least 5 days before the activist planned actions. But he didn’t know if an injunction had been sought.  The witness stands down

For the prosecution again Miss Gerry introduces a video shot by police after all the defendant had been removed and the building had been searched. Now in daylight, we were shown room after room with some outside shots to give a sense of place and to demonstrate the buildings layout.  the jury had a map, correlating to the references on the video.  The place looked well disheveled and  I thought, were trying to show mess, damage and a lack of care of the building.  A door hanging off the hinges, holes in walls and doors etc.  Papers and property were displayed. I have to say that it was one of the most boring videos I’ve seen in a while! Some of the jury yawned … the judges’ eyes seemed to me to get heavier.

After this view, I found it hugely encouraging when the jury passed a note to the judge. When read out, they asked was the mess and damage to the door building etc caused by the protesters, or, the police during the conduct of the operation.  Prosecution agreed that yes, it was the police!!

She then went onto photos in the bundle, of food supplies in vehicles, more equipment, sleeping bags etc.

the case continues etc ……..

+++

Ratcliffe Conspiracy Trial Begins [feature]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/701

Ratcliffe conspiracy to trespass trial opens today
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/articles/693

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

18 months after 114 people were initially arrested at the Iona School in Sneinton, 20 climate change activists have begun a month-long trial today. They were originally arrested on 13th April 2009.

On Monday 22 November 2010, they have appeared to answer charge at Nottingham Crown Court: that they conspired together to cause aggrevated trespass at the Radcliffe Power Station. The trial is expected to last 4 weeks.

On Monday 22 November 2010, they have appeared to answer charge at Nottingham Crown Court: that they conspired together to cause aggrevated trespass at the Radcliffe Power Station. The trial is expected to last 4 weeks.

Mass Arrest of 114 Climate Activists in Raid in Nottingham
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427471.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/04/427496.html

Today has largely been taken up with agreeing a timetable for the progress of the case. Arguement about whether legal representatives are to visit the Ratcliffe site.  The defence would like to, to get a ‘feel for the location’. The prosecution thinks this un-neccesary, since no one was arrested there. E-on didn’t want to co-operate with this visit, health and safety implications etc … The swearing in of the jury has also now been completed.  Opening statement from counsel will begin tomorrow.

>> Statement from their blog:

Supporters gathered outside Nottingham Crown Court holding signs which read, “I would stop emissions too”.

Anyone in the Nottingham area who would like to meet the defendants or help out can come along to the SUMAC centre (NG7 6HX) each evening after the trial at 7pm for dinner at People’s Kitchen.

The arrests were thought to be the biggest ever pre-emptive arrest of environmental activists. The defendants are charged with Conspiracy to Commit Aggravated Trespass for planning to safely shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station for a week and in doing so stopping 150,000 tonnes of CO2 from being emitted. While they admit the intent, they maintain that they are not guilty of of a crime.

The defence will show that the activists acted out of necessity, to prevent death and serious injury. According to official sources, 300,000 people per year already lose their lives due to the effects of climate change and half a billion are at “extreme risk”. (http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=9668)

Rebecca Quinn, 32, who was one of those arrested in April but later had the charges dropped, said, “Climate Change is hitting those least responsible for it the hardest. Low-lying island nations are already seeing salt water encroach on their farm land, and in recent years we have seen an increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Coal is the dirtiest method of electricity generation, and must be stopped. To avoid a climate crisis, we must put people before profit. In the face of government apathy and the failure of the Copenhagen conference, it is ordinary people taking direct action who are desperately trying to avoid a bleak future of flooding, drought, crop failure and water shortages.”

James Hansen, the high profile scientist who is the Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute, is one of the many expert witnesses who will testify during the trial at Nottingham Crown Court. The leading climatologist will guide the jury through the complexities of climate science and explain how coal burning is jeopardizing the lives of millions.

Caroline Lucas MP, Leader of the Green Party will give expert evidence about the failure to achieve action on climate change domestically and within the EU parliament through more conventional political means. It will be argued that the defendants had no alternative but to physically stop the power station emitting CO2, having exhausted other channels such as lobbying, campaigning, and attending marches.

The defendants are a diverse mix of people of varying ages from 21 to 45. Living across the UK, they work in teaching, science, computing, and many other areas. 114 people were originally arrested on 13th April 2009, but most subsequently had their charges dropped.

For regular updates on the trial see http://ratcliffeontrial.org/blog

>>

Notes from the previous trial held at Nottingham Magistrates Court from 14 – 16th January 2008
Ratcliffe Power Station : Court Case Reporting
[addionally, this post contains some collected links to past coverage of the issues surrounding the Ratcliffe Power Station and concern about its operations]
http://notts.indymedia.org.uk/zines/670

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

the trial continues etc………

Ratcliffe Trial: Nottingham Crown Court beginning Monday 22nd November 2010

http://ratcliffeontrial.org

http://ratcliffeontrial.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ratcliffeontrial.pdf

In the early hours of April 13th 2009 a highly expensive and widely condemned policing operation saw 114 climate campaigners arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit aggravated trespass and criminal damage. In what has been deemed the largest ever ‘pre-emptive’ arrest, hundreds of police burst into a meeting room where plans were being made to safely shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK’s third largest coal fired power station.

Had the action gone ahead it would have stopped around 150 thousand tonnes of carbon emissions from being released into the atmosphere, while drawing attention to the failure of provided democratic channels.

Through invasive surveillance police had gathered information on the activists, pinpointed their location, and interrupted the meeting meaning the action never went ahead. The campaigners were held for over twenty hours before being released onto the streets of Nottingham in the middle of the night, many with their phones and money confiscated.

All charges were dropped for the majority of the 114, but 26 have been committed to Nottingham Crown Court on a charge of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass. The maximum sentence for this offence is three months in prison, a fine of £2,500, or both. All entered a plea of not guilty.

Six of the defendants hadn’t yet decided whether or not to take part in the action when the police arrived on the scene. They were arrested anyway, just for thinking about climate action! Their trial starts on January 10th 2011, and will be an important case with regard to freedom of protest in the UK. Watch this site for more information closer to the time.

The remaining 20 defendants admit that they planned to shut down the power station, but argue that they are not guilty because they were acting to prevent the greater crimes of death and serious injury caused by climate change. This is called a ‘defence of necessity’. Their trial starts on the 22nd November 2010.

Why Necessity?

In addition to slowing Ratcliffe’s carbon emissions, this action was to be part of a wider movement for global environmental justice. You only have to look at the floods in Pakistan and the droughts in Russia to see that climate change is hitting those least responsible for it the hardest while putting all of our futures in jeopardy.

Around the world governments are failing to address the climate crises. Instead they protect business as usual as they continue to compete for endless economic growth. This is in spite of increasingly stark warnings from the scientific community of the cost of inaction. By allowing the coal to keep burning at dinosaurs like Ratcliffe-on-Soar, the UK government continues to evade its legal duty to cut emissions by 80% by 2050.

As we face the worst spending cuts in decades we have to ask why so many resources are being ploughed into monitoring climate campaigners, while so little is being done to create an environmentally and economically just future.

From the suffragettes to the civil rights movements, direct action has long been the pathway to change the world for the better. Those on trial are ordinary people experiencing the failures of our present political system, who remain determined to see action taken on climate change.

Ahead of the coming Ratcliffe Trial, I thought it helpful to remind all of the last Ratcliffe trial involving the defence of ‘necessity’ or ‘duress of circumstances

The trial held at Nottingham Magistrates Court from 14 – 16th January 2008
11 defendants go on trial charged with ‘aggravated trespass’ an offence under section 69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. In that they trespassed and then disrupted people engaged in a lawful activity.
Judgement delivered on 25th February 2008.

This is a .PDF of my collected notes, assorted coverage and the judgement.

Download this zine as PDF

Additionally, these are some collected links to past coverage of the issues surrounding the Ratcliffe Power Station and concern about its operations:

Nottingham Spring into Action :: Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367714.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367736.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/04/367757.html

Did Climate Change Cause Floods around Nottinghamshire?
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374448.html

‘Clean’ Coal On Trial [Feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2008/01/389386.html

Ratcliffe Power Station Court Case : Nottingham Magistrates [day 1-3]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389467.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389535.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389654.html

Ratcliffe Power station Climate Action, The Verdict
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/02/392323.html

Ratcliffe Power station Climate Action, The Judgement
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/03/392833.html

Fossil Fools Blockade E.On Offices in Nottingham
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395382.html
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395403.html

Fossil Fools Blockade E.On Offices Surveillance and Specialist Equipment
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395429.html

Police Searches Houses After Arrests At E.On Blockade
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395366.html

Fossil Fools Take On E.ON In Nottingham [Feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/395424.html

Nottingham’s part of 48 hours of nationwide action against E.ON
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/11/413951.html

Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station Still Steams Ahead
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/12/414383.html

E-on Nottingham ‘Fossil Fools’ protest: prosecution offers no evidence
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/01/418610.html

Testing a post from Nokia E72 mobile phone.
now can use login at http://m.wordpress.com

Cool eh!

Police, photographers and the Law EPUK

http://www.epuk.org/Resources/958/police-photographers-and-the-law

Police, photographers and the Law
Civil Rights lawyer Shamik Dutta answers fifteen key questions on police powers and photography in Britain today. Photographs Jules Mattsson and David Hoffman.

Nothing in this guide can be certain to prevent a photographer or journalist being arrested unlawfully by a police officer. However, the guide may help photographers to know what their rights are so they can discuss those rights and the policies from which they derive with police officers. In doing so, it is hoped that photographers can continue pursuing their own lawful activities and police officers’ time can be focused, elsewhere, on unlawful activity.
What is an officer obliged to tell me before a search?

According to Paragraph 3.8 of Code A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, before any search an officer must take reasonable steps to give you the following information:

* You should be informed that you are being detained for the purposes of a search;
* You should be given the officer’s name (or warrant or other identification number) and the name of the police station to which the officer is attached;
* You should be told the legal search power which is being exercised;
* You should be given a clear explanation of (a) the purpose of the search in terms of the article or articles for which there is a power to search; and (b) in the case of powers requiring reasonable suspicion, the grounds for that suspicion; or (c) in the case of powers which do not require reasonable suspicion (for example s.44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or s.60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994), the nature of the power and of any necessary authorisation and the fact that it has been given.

What are the most commonly used search powers?

Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, allows the police to search you if they have reasonable suspicion that you have an offensive weapon or an article which you intend to use for burglary, theft, taking a motor vehicle, fraud or criminal damage. They also have the power to search you for bladed articles or prohibited fireworks.

Section 23(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 gives a constable the power to search you if they have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are in possession of a controlled drug or evidence of drug use. In those circumstances they may seize and detain, for the purposes of proceedings under this Act, anything found in the course of the search which appears to the constable to be evidence of an offence under this Act.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act gives officers the power to search you without reasonable suspicion, but only in a designated area and only for offensive weapons.

Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives a constable the power to stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives officers the power to search anyone in an ‘authorized area’ without reasonable suspicion for articles ‘of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism’.

TERRORISM ACT 2000

Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 – Photographs

Section 58(1) Terrorism Act 2000 deals with the collection of information. It states that a person commits an offence if (a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or (b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.

Section 58(2) states that a “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

How can I defend myself against an accusation that a photograph falls within s.58?

Section 58(3) provides that it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

The House of Lords interpreted Section 58 Terrorism Act 2000 in the recent case of R. v G. [2009] UKHL 13. The Court ruled that the offence is premised upon there being someone who is actually planning an act of terrorism. “Likely to be useful” is interpreted as “likely to provide practical assistance.”

Helpfully the House of Lords also said that it could not have been the intention of Parliament to criminalise the possession of items useful for everyday purposes simply because those items could also be useful to someone planning an act of terrorism.

So, if you are asked to stop taking pictures under s.58 of the Terrorism Act you could ask the officer which terrorist he thinks you are trying to assist and if there is no such person you could suggest that the officer should not try to stop you taking pictures and you could refer the officer to the other policies on this subject detailed below.

s.58A Terrorism Act – photographs of police officers etc.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 creates the offence of “Eliciting, publishing or communicating” information about members of armed forces, intelligence services or police constables. A person commits this offence if they elicit, attempt to elicit, publish or communicate information about an individual who is or has been a member of these services, if it is “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.”

Again it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

The above House of Lords case also suggests that no offence can be committed unless there is someone, somewhere, planning a terrorist act who you are personally helping.

Does this prohibit me from taking photographs of police officers?

The Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State have both indicated that s.58A of the Terrorism Act does not criminalise the taking of photographs of the police.
Should I be stopped from taking photographs in an “authorized area” under s.44 of the Terrorism Act?

No. Home Office Policy 012/2009 – ‘Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000’ states:

“Section 44 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in an authorised area and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 44.”
Can an officer look through my images?

Digital images can be viewed as part of a Terrorism Act search to discover whether you have in your possession anything which may constitute evidence that you are a terrorist (but see below regarding Special Procedure Material).
In what circumstances can my images be taken away by the police?

Cameras, film and memory cards can be seized if the officer reasonably suspects that these may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

However, officers do not, during a search, have the power to delete images or destroy film and if they do you may be able to bring a claim against the police for any loss caused to you.

Once cameras or other devices are seized, to preserve evidence, officers should not normally attempt to examine them further. Seized cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found in and forwarded to appropriately trained forensic staff for forensic examination.

Section 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, states that items including pictures, memory sticks or cameras can be seized by a constable if there has been a lawful search and it is not reasonably practicable for it to be determined, at the time and place of the search i) Whether what the constable has found is something he is entitled to seize (i.e. whether it is Special Procedure Material); or (ii) the extent to which he has found something that he is entitled to seize. Items can be seized to enable those questions to be determined.

If items are seized then Section 52 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 states that notice must be given to the searched person specifying, amongst other things:

* what has been seized;
* the grounds on which the power has been exercised;
* the right to apply to court for return of the material; and
* the right to apply to be allowed to attend the initial examination of the material.

Section 53 goes on to say that items should be examined as soon as reasonably practicable (bearing in mind the desirability of having the person searched present if he chooses). If the police had no power to seize, then the items should be returned. There is also the potential for seizure on arrest.

What policies can help me in persuading an officer to allow me to carry on taking pictures/filming?”

1. Home Office policy – 012 / 2009

This came into force on 18 August 2009 and clarifies the scope of Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (set out above). It states:

* Section 43 does not prohibit the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place and members of the public and the press should not be prevented from doing so in exercise of the powers conferred by section 43.
* A police officer can only stop and search a person they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under this power.

2. Home Office policy – ‘Photography and Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000’ (photos of police officers etc.)

This states: “An officer making an arrest under section 58A must reasonably suspect that the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.  An example might be gathering information about the person’s house, car, routes to work and other movements.”

It continues:

It is a statutory defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for eliciting, publishing or communicating the relevant information.

Important: Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse.

Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.

3. Metropolitan Police Service policy on s.58A Terrorism Act 2000.

This includes the following:

* It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests because there would not normally be grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist.
* An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
* There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Assistant Commissioner John Yates’ Guidance – 14 December 2009
General Points

* Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either Terrorism Act power.
* Officers are also reminded that under these powers they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails.
* Where it is clear that the person being searched under Sections 43 or 44 is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.
* If an officer’s rationale for effecting a stop is that the person is taking photographs as a means of hostile reconnaissance, then it should be borne in mind that this should be under the Section 43 power. Officers should not default to the Section 44 power in such instances simply because the person is within one of the designated areas.

So, you may wish to ask an officer who tries to view your images or stop you taking pictures whether he is doing so because he thinks you are involved in ‘hostile reconnaissance’. If the answer is ‘no’, then the policies suggest he should not target you simply because you are a photographer. If the answer is ‘yes’ then he should have reasonable grounds to suspect that you are in possession of articles likely to be useful to a terrorist and you could ask upon what basis he has this suspicion. The reply might be “because you are taking pictures”, in which case, you might refer him to the above policies which state that you should not be prevented from taking pictures simply because you are in an ‘authorised area’ under the Terrorism Act 2000.
As a journalist, are my photographs afforded any special protection?

Section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) states that journalistic material is subject to the rules of Special Procedure Material.

This section also applies to material acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation or for the purpose of any paid or unpaid office where it is held subject to an express or implied undertaking to hold it in confidence.

Generally, once your images are recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order. However, see above regarding s.51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

In terrorist cases, e.g. where police contact starts with a search under section 43 Terrorism Act 2000, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may issue a search warrant (without court order) if there exists a “great emergency” and “immediate action is necessary.” This only applies to terrorist cases, not investigations of other criminal offences.

In many cases therefore, the production or seizure of images will require a court order. This should only be granted in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to that investigation; and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest for the material to be disclosed, having regard to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation, and the circumstances under which you had the material in your possession.

Do I have to give an officer my name and address details if I am not under arrest?

Section 50 Police Reform Act was enacted to deal with persons acting in an anti-social manner. It states that if a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.

Part 2 of Section 50 says that any person who:

(a) fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or
(b) gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection, is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine.

A constable in uniform may arrest an individual for failure to provide name and address details if there is reason to believe that person is acting in an anti-social manner.

It would be difficult for the police to justify the belief that the mere taking of photographs is “anti-social”, but this question has not yet been tested in the courts.
Is there any law that stops me from taking pictures of government buildings?

Section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1911 states that it is a criminal offence to take a photograph of a “prohibited place”, which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be directly or indirectly “useful to an enemy”, for a purpose which is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state.

Prohibited places include:

* All HM Defence establishments;
* Places declared by Order of the Secretary of State to be prohibited places (i.e Nuclear facilities and property belonging to, or used for, the purposes of the Atomic Energy Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority.

This section should not prohibit the taking of photographs of buildings such as the Houses of Parliament, i.e. those that are already within the public domain.

Are there any other guidelines or leaflets available that I can carry with me to show officers?

Yes. Guidelines for MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews were produced in 2006. A leaflet is available from the Metropolitan Police or through the National Union of Journalists (NUJ).

Guidance can be found at: Metropolitan Police: Photography Advice
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO)
Media Guidelines (Nationally adopted in April 2007)

* Members of the media have a duty to report from the scene of many of the incidents we have to deal with. We should actively help them carry out their responsibilities provided they do not interfere with ours.
* Where it is necessary to put cordons in place, it is much better to provide the media with a good vantage point from which they can operate rather than to exclude them, otherwise they may try to get around the cordons and interfere with police operations. Providing an area for members of the media does not exclude them from operating from other areas to which the general public has access.
* Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record.
* Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.
* We cannot give or deny permission to members of the media to enter private premises whether the premises are directly involved in the police operation or not. This is a matter between the person who owns or is in control of the premises and the members of the media.

How can I tell if a police officer could be subject to a complaint?

The Police (conduct) Regulations 2008 provide standards of behaviour expected of all police officers:

Authority, Respect and Courtesy:

* Police officers act with self-control and tolerance, treating members of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
* Police officers do not abuse their powers or authority and respect the rights of all individuals.

Equality and Diversity:

* Police officers act with fairness and impartiality. They do not discriminate unlawfully or unfairly.

Use of Force:

* Police officers only use force to the extent that it is necessary, proportionate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Orders and Instructions:

* Police officers only give and carry out lawful orders and instructions.
* Police officers abide by police regulations, force policies and lawful orders.

Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct:

* Police officers report, challenge or take action against the conduct of colleagues which has fallen below the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

What powers do the police have to seize pictures on private property?

Section 19 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

The powers of seizure under s.19 PACE are exercisable by a constable who is lawfully on the premises. These powers are as follows:

S19.(3) The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that it is evidence in relation to an offence which he is investigating or any other offence; and

(b) that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

(6) No power of seizure conferred on a constable under any enactment (including an enactment contained in an Act passed after this Act) is to be taken to authorise the seizure of an item which the constable exercising the power has reasonable grounds for believing to be subject to legal privilege.
Can the police order me to move away from a demonstration?

Section 14 Public Order Act – Imposing conditions on public assemblies

S14.(1) If the senior police officer, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any public assembly is being held or is intended to be held, reasonably believes that—

(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community, or

(b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do,

He may give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in the assembly such conditions as to the place at which the assembly may be (or continue to be) held, its maximum duration, or the maximum number of persons who may constitute it, as appear to him necessary to prevent such disorder, damage, disruption or intimidation.

This law is intended to assist in policing demonstrations and assemblies, and there is little evidence to suggest that it was designed, or should be used by police officers against photographers who are peacefully taking pictures of such an event.
If I refuse to move, can I be arrested?

Section 89 Police Act 1996 deals with assaulting or obstructing a police officer. Part 2 of the section states that any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

For the purposes of this section “obstruct” means prevent the officer from carrying out his duties or to make it more difficult for him to do so.

NB- you can only be guilty of an offence if the officer is acting lawfully to begin with.
Do PCSO’s (Police Community Support Officers) have similar powers to those of Police Officers in relation to stops and searches of photographers?

No. PCSOs have much more limited powers. PCSO’s have the power to:

* direct traffic and pedestrians;
* confiscate alcohol and tobacco from persons under 16;
* enter premises to save life and prevent damage to property;
* remove abandoned vehicles;
* issue fixed penalty notices;
* demand a name and address from a person under s.50 Police Reform Act;
* seize vehicles used to cause alarm;
* search property in matters related to terrorism (with a constable) and seize drugs.

They do not have a power of arrest, however they can require someone to remain with them until a constable arrives in specific circumstances.

Any final tips?

As a photographer or photojournalist dealing with the police, you should be assertive but polite.

You should ask questions such as upon what basis are you asking me to be searched/to stop filming etc.

You should make a detailed note immediately after an interaction as to what you said and what was said by the officer in reply before, during or after a search.

You should rely upon the policies cited above and carry them with you.

If necessary, remind officers of the police codes of conduct. Warn the officer that (s)he will be the subject of a formal police complaint in the event of an unlawful search or arrest. (This could result in a regulation 9 notice being issued against the officer and the officer being interviewed under criminal caution).

>>>

The information in this guide is of a general nature and should not be relied on in place of legal advice appropriate to your circumstance.

Shamik Dutta was a speaker at the Photographers and the Police Seminar held at the AoP on April 14th 2010. Shamik works for the law firm Fisher Meredith in London.

4 – 5 weeks later ……. I think my computer is fixed at last. [until the next time].

The story so far ……. Computer had been protected by Kaspersky Anti-virus 2009 software last year.  Then in mid April, I splashed out on renewal, I splashed out on ‘Kaspersky Internet Security 2010’.

It installed fine.  BUT then I thought I would ‘scan my discs’. It found 4 items, that it said should be deleted, and then rebooted. I did, but then on the 5th ocassion it wanted to delete a file and then reboot. It failed to do so saying msls51.dll was missing.

What a performance, it turned out to be a bit of a trojan thinggy, but not a very good one…. since even I understand that they want all to work, so they can steal your bits 🙁 rather than be a weapon to disable you!

Weeks later and after very much help from Kaspersky support, a man spent SIX HOURS yesterday doing stuff remotely on my machine. All seems to float now. This is the first day since this surgery. Have switched on and of a number of times now and all [most] seems ok. What I don’t know about computers would fill the Grand Canyon. Normal service will shortly be resumed.

Labour saving devices ….. Pah!!

Tash’s web re-organisations ….. I have had to close the GreenNet site down [ http://tash.gn.apc.org ].  It been up there for 15 years!  but I can’t afford the bill anymore. Shame, but there it is. Before Xmas, I  have bought the domain http://alanlodge.co.uk and will point it to the ‘older works’ one day / when I can. [currently work in progress].

Also ….. I now have http://digitaljournalist.eu which points to a links page of Tash’s ‘collected works’ largely containing most of my more recent works. Blog, Facebook,  YouTube, Mobile, Indymedia etc etc ….. and now also http://foto8.eu is the direct link to my Flickr photo site.  So, all in all, there is lots to see …….  please don’t get lost. enjoy!!

http://digitaljournalist.eu

http://alanlodge.co.uk

http://foto8.eu

When the police act they should be carrying out a lawful duty, so ask them what they are doing and why?  Make a note of what was said, when, by whom, as soon afterwards as possible.

Stop & Search
You do NOT have to give your name or address under ANY search power or if stopped for questions- SO DON’T!
The police only have the power to arrest you for not giving your name and address when asked, if:
• you are a driver of vehicle on the road (and date of birth) or if involved in accident or road traffic offence whether in a car, on a bike or as a pedestrian
• you are suspected of anti-social behaviour (reasonable grounds to suspect have caused, or are likely to, cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons – can include police but higher threshold) under s50 of Police Reform Act 2002
• the police wish to summons you for an offence or issue a fixed penalty notice (arrest under s25 PACE).

BEFORE ANY search you should be told:
• officer’s name and/or police station
• entitled to a copy of the search form (police can decline to give on the spot if not practicable to do so)
• object of the proposed search (i.e. the legal power being used and what they are looking for)
• grounds to suspect you (not for s60 or s44)
NB. Police can fingerprint you before arrest if suspect you of an offence and can’t establish your name and address or think you have given a false one (s61 PACE). Names of all officers engaged in the search go
on the form (PACE code).
Stops for questioning – should be receipted: ask

On being stopped & searched
• You do not have to give your name and address under ANY search power or if stopped for questions
– SO DON’T! (there are limited exceptions – see above)
• You do not have to explain why you are there.
• The police can only give you a pat down, remove outer clothes (coat, jacket, gloves), search your bags, and have you empty pockets, or go to a private space.
• You are not required to be actively compliant. You can ‘go limp’ as passive resistance if you wish.
The police can use reasonable force to search.
• If not given, consider asking the reason for the search – the legal power, what they are looking for, and what grounds they have to suspect you (not required for s60 or s44).
• Make a note of name, number and police force of the officers searching, what you were told before the search, the reasons given for searching you, how long you had to wait to be searched, the start/end time of the search and (immediately after the search) more detailed notes including the scene before the search. Keep the search record.
• You do not have to comply with attempts to photo or record you. The police have no power to collect DNA data during a search.
• Seizure of property: no need to give name/address, ask for the evidence bag to be numbered and written on search form. Items found during a search that could be taken under different search power can be seized.

Search powers
Police need reasonable grounds to suspect you to search under:
• s1 PACE, search for articles for burglary/theft, stolen goods, offensive weapons, bladed articles, items may be used for criminal damage. Items can be seized. Police not entitled to read or record personal info.
• s43 Terrorism Act 2000, police need reasonable grounds to suspect you are a terrorist and can search and seize anything as evidence you are a terrorist, including from computers, cameras, personal papers.
• If senior officer approves the following powers in a specific area for a period, police don’t need grounds to suspect you – they are blanket search powers:
• s60 Criminal Justice Act, to search for offensive weapons and dangerous instruments. The police are
not entitled to read and record personal info. If s60 order is in place (or s60AA), police can require you to remove any item reasonably believe used wholly or mainly for purpose of concealing identify or to seize any item reasonably believe you intend to wear wholly or mainly for that purpose. Can arrest you if you refuse.
• s44 Terrorism Act 2000, search as for s43 above (in force on railways and underground and London all the time). Can require to take shoes and hat off in public.

Being arrested
If you are arrested, you are entitled to:
• Be told what you have been arrested for.
• Not to give your name, address or DOB, but this will delay your release. However, your photo, prints and DNA can be taken without your consent.
• REMAIN SILENT – We strongly recommend you answer ‘no comment’ to all questions and during interviews, for your own benefit and that of others. From the moment you are stopped, everything you
say is evidence – there is no such thing as a ‘friendly chat’. The police are trained to get information out of you, so stay strong. Do not sign any statements.
• Have one phone call made on your behalf informing someone of your arrest. We recommend that you ask the custody sergeant to contact Arrestee Support. Tell the police you authorise them to talk to Arrestee Support about you and your welfare.
• A translator if English is not your first language.
• Vegan or vegetarian food.
• Request a copy of PACE codes to read (then you will know all your rights in custody). Do ask.
• A medical examination if you feel unwell or hurt. (Inform the custody officer if you are on medication.)
• TO ACCESS FREE LEGAL ADVICE – If you are arrested for a non-imprisonable offence for which the police do not intend to interview you, you can either speak on the telephone to a solicitor of your choice (for which they may charge) or you will be given the opportunity to get free advice from a legal adviser at a call centre known as CDS Direct (these advisers are probably less good at advising activists). If you are arrested for or a more serious offence, or one for which you are to be
interviewed, you will be able to access a solicitor of your choice for free, provided that they can be contacted within two hours. If not, you will be given a duty solicitor. It may be better to ‘no comment’ until release and then get good quality legal advice tailored to activists. The police may tell you that it will be quicker without legal advice – we strongly recommend that you always ask for legal advice and use our recommended solicitors.

Bindmans solicitors: 020 7833 4433 from 9am to 6pm, then via pager on 07659 136 205

Arrestee Support ________________________

If you saw/experienced inappropriate police behaviour:
• Note the officers’ numbers, find other witnesses
• Make a detailed note of what happened as soon as you can. Include the time and date you made it.
• Consider complaining about the police officer. If you have a serious injury, consult a solicitor first.
www.ipcc.gov.uk
• Consider writing to your MP www.writetothem.com
• Tell everyone you know!

The Conservatives have today announced new plans to tackle widespread public concern about the exploitation of the planning system. A new policy blueprint will pledge to address the small minority of travellers who occupy illegal or unauthorised sites.

As an ‘older’ guy, i’m sooo disappointed with folks saying that the tory’s can’t be any worse, and lets give them a chance. FOR FUCKS SAKE! don’t people read / know any history, they totally mucked up my life with squatting and travelling, with the public order act 1986, [after the beanfield and stoneyX etc]. Then chapter 2 with the criminal justice act 1994. We all knew they hadn’t finished yet. Now if they get in,here comes chapter 3. What are we / you going to do about it?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/02/446259.html

This will effect far more than just travellers and squatters, people who go and play football on school fields, skateboarders/bmxers/etc using industrial parks after hours, setting up ramps in empty buildings or building jumps on woodland/fields.
Basically anyone using space that is not their own.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/localgovernment/2010/02/conservatives-pledge-to-tackle-trespass.html

Virgin Trains welcomes photographers in its stations

Virgin Trains has started a campaign to inform photographers about their rights, and duties, when taking pictures in its stations

Speaking to BJP, Ken Gibbs of Virgin Trains’ press office says that the poster campaign – Keep Us in the Picture – has been designed to welcome photography enthusiasts while reminding them of the company’s basic rules. It was first launched in October 2009.

The poster reads: ‘Virgin Trains welcomes rail enthusiasts and passengers who wish to take still or video images at our stations. We ask that you do not interfere with the flow of passengers and respect the wishes of both passengers and staff not to be photographed.’

It adds that ‘if you are filming for extended periods and/or using bulky equipment you should make yourself known to our station staff so that the reasons for filming are clear. Flash photography is not permitted at any time and the use of tripods should be avoided wherever possible. If you wish to use a tripod you should locate and speak wit hte Station Team Leader to ensure that you are in a safe area.’

Gibbs tells BJP that the posters were designed after Virgin Trains was forced to deal with ‘some incidents’ at its stations. ‘In the UK we have a lot of rail enthusiasts, and some think they have carte blanche,’ he says. ‘What we wanted to say was “yes, we welcome you, you can pursue your hobby, but be aware of where you are”. We need to keep these photographers and our passengers safe.’

He adds: ‘We don’t to put people off photography, on the contrary, we welcome photographers. But if they are going to be using bulky equipment or if they want access to certain parts of our stations, they should make themselves known to us so we can look after them.’

Photographer Gordon Shoosmith, who contacted BJP about Virgin Trains’ campaign, has welcomed the move. ‘If similar posters to this one – seen on Oxenholme railway station – were put up around the country specially London, photographers would be able to point it out to over zealot officers that we are not breaking any laws by using our cameras,’ he says.

Update: Since the launch fo the campaign in October 2009, First Capital Connect has also started showing similar signs in its rail stations in and around London, BJP has been made aware.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=872997

There’s been a big bust-up in the biscuit tin!

A bandit called rocky who was crackers hit a penguin over the head with a club, tied him to a wagon wheel with a blue riband, kidnapped a trophy and made his breakaway in a taxi.

The police say rocky was last seen just after eight by a viscount from maryland hobnobbing a gi…nger nut.

Unfortunately they have not got a crumb of evidence!
The jammie dodger got away!

Well ,,,,, of course, am getting old, and I must try and keep up. On watching the first episode of the BBC4 series on modern Britain called the ‘History of Now’, I realised that some styles of electonic music, to add a little more sommat to it, might be described as needing ‘to put a donk on it’!!

“..what you wanna do wi dat right?
– You wanna put a bangin’ donk on it…”

I know, I know …. couple of years behind everyone else, but i try yaknow.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Put%20a%20Donk%20on%20it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMvj1piK58

Soundtrack to some bangin’  chavs I expect, but i think this video from the Blackout Crew is hilarious. I know it’s supposed to be.

Might sound a bit like a High Court Judge, having evidence explained to him …. “I believe they are a popular beat combo malud …….”

Hahahahahahahaaaa!

Oh, by the way all ….. Happy New Year!

NUJ Code of Conduct [I do this ….. i hope others do also]

A journalist
1 At all times upholds and defends the principle of media freedom, the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed
2 Strives to ensure that information disseminated is honestly conveyed, accurate and fair
3 Does her/his utmost to correct harmful inaccuracies
4 Differentiates between fact and opinion
5 Obtains material by honest, straightforward and open means, with the exception of investigations that are both overwhelmingly in the public interest and which involve evidence that cannot be obtained by straightforward means
6 Does nothing to intrude into anybody’s private life, grief or distress unless justified by overriding consideration of the public interest
7 Protects the identity of sources who supply information in confidence and material gathered in the course of her/his work
8 Resists threats or any other inducements to influence, distort or suppress information
9 Takes no unfair personal advantage of information gained in the course of her/his duties before the information is public knowledge
10 Produces no material likely to lead to hatred or discrimination on the grounds of a person’s age, gender, race, colour, creed, legal status, disability, marital status, or sexual orientation
11 Does not by way of statement, voice or appearance endorse by advertisement any commercial product or service save for the promotion of her/his own work or of the medium by which she/he is employed
12 Avoids plagiarism.

The NUJ believes a journalist has the right to refuse an assignment or be identified as the author of editorial that would break the letter or spirit of the code. The NUJ will fully support any journalist disciplined for asserting her/ his right to act according to the code.

Account of a watercolour painter, going through the same troubles as photographers, with inadequate policing.

I was stopped and searched twice near London City airport – for watercolouring! I was not even facing the airport. I was painting the Tate and Lyle sugar factory opposite. They said they saw me on a camera and thought that “no one would want to paint a factory”. I explained that LS Lowry did loads. Then they said I could be an anarchist and I was carrying “suspicious paraphernalia” – this being a flask of coffee and an iPod. Oh, and a box of watercolours.

Once they had all my gear out, rummaged through what identity documentation I had and double-checked it on a few radios, they were satisfied I was just “weird” and left me to it. Until the next week, when I went back to finish off the picture and had to go through the same rigmarole all over again.

I have painted in Ukraine, Russia, Vietnam and plenty of other “controlled” states, and have never been questioned about watercolour anarchism.

NEWS RELEASE
From Press Bureau at New Scotland Yard – last updated Mon 14/12/09 16:31 Telephone: 020 7230 2171
http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/bur14/page3.htm

Statement by Assistant Commissioner John Yates

John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, has today reminded all MPS officers and staff that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.

The message, which has been circulated to all Borough Commanders and published on the MPS intranet, reinforces guidance previously issued around powers relating to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Guidance on the issue will continue to be included in briefings to all operational officers and staff.

Mr Yates said: “People have complained that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. These stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of TACT. The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious.

“Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that:

. there is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
. there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff
. the act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop.

“Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped.

“An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters. You will find below what I hope is clear and unequivocal guidance on what you can and cannot do in respect of these sections. This complements and reinforces previous guidance that has been issued. You are reminded that in any instance where you do have reasonable suspicion then you should use your powers under Section 43 TACT 2000 and account for it in the normal way.

“These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense. We risk losing public support when they are used in circumstances that most reasonable people would consider inappropriate.”

++++

The guidance:

Section 43 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 43 is a stop and search power which can be used if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may be a terrorist.

Any police officer can:

– Stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

– View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by the person searched to discover whether the images constitute evidence they are involved in terrorism.

– Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist, including any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

The power, in itself, does not permit a vehicle to be stopped and searched.

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 44 is a stop and search power which can be used by virtue of a person being in a designated area.

Where an authority is in place, police officers in uniform, or PCSOs IF ACCOMPANIED by a police officer can:

– Stop and search any person; reasonable grounds to suspect an individual is a terrorist are not required. (PCSOs cannot search the person themselves, only their property.)

– View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are connected with terrorism.

– Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

General points

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either power. Equally, officers are also reminded that under these powers they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails.

Where it is clear that the person being searched under Sections 43 or 44 is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

If an officer’s rationale for effecting a stop is that the person is taking photographs as a means of hostile reconnaissance, then it should be borne in mind that this should be under the Section 43 power. Officers should not default to the Section 44 power in such instances simply because the person is within one of the designated areas

http://www.met.police.uk/pressbureau/bur14/page3.htm

Some links to just the last couple days of photography restriction stories. We are collecting hundreds now.

What value are the chief constable’s words? – BJP 9 December 2009
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871763

‘I’m a photographer not a terrorist’ badge leaves police unconvinced – The Wire 9 December 2009
http://blogs.pressgazette.co.uk/wire/5872

Photographer ‘arrested’ with Leica M6 in London suburb – Amateur Photographer 10 December 2009
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographer_arrested_with_leica_m6_in_london_suburb_news_292842.html

MP pushes for debate over photographer stops – The Independent 10 December 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mp-pushes-for-debate-over-photographer-stops-1837946.html

Police crackdown on City photographers – Amateur Photographer 11 December 2009
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/police_crackdown_on_city_photographers_news_292881.html?aff=rss

Fish and chip photographer arrest ‘unlawful’, say police chiefs – Amateur Photographer 11 December 2009
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/fish_and_chip_photographer_arrest_complaint_upheld_news_292896.html?aff=rss

Police snapper silliness reaches new heights – The Register 11 December 2009
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/11/police_quiz_itn_reporter

Police: Photographers should carry identification – Amateur Photographer 11 December 2009
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/police_photographers_should_carry_identification_news_292902.html

S44 abuse of photographers raised in Parliament – photorights.org 11 December 2009
http://www.photorights.org/forum/s44-abuse-of-photographers-raised-in-parliament

From Snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect – Guardian 11 December 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect

A few photographs add up to a minor terror alert – Guardian 11 December 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws

We’re photographers, not terrorists, Marc Vallée – Guardian 11 December 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/11/photographers-section-44-terrorism-act

Well respected photojournalist pursues complaint to the IPCC after being stopped whilst
working by police who tell her we can do anything under the terrorism act – Bindmans 11 December 2009
http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672

The picture that could land you in jail:
How police in Big Brother Britain treat you like a terrorist for taking holiday snaps –
Daily Mail 12 December 2009
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235241/The-picture-land-jail-How-police-Big-Brother-Britain-treat-like-terrorist-taking-holiday-snaps.html