Dear Sir

The National Union of Journalists, London Photographers’ Branch notes with great concern the proposed introduction of new byelaws covering Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square. We are specifically concerned with the restrictions on press photography in these areas without prior written consent:

“Acts within the Square for which written permission is required: take photographs or film or make any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate.”

This is wholly unacceptable to our members and we are protesting in the strongest terms against this infringement on our right to photograph in a public place.

We are also alarmed by the prospect of fines, “forfeiture of any item seized under bylaw” and giving security guards/heritage wardens the power to demand names and addresses. The production of a UKPCA press card should be sufficient to establish a journalists identity.

These GLA proposals are impractical and if enforced will have a massive impact on news gathering and press freedom. We urge you to consider our objections.

Yours Faithfully

Jess Hurd (London Photographers’ Branch Chair)

Tomorrow morning, Tuesday 13 December 2011, I will head to Chelmsford Crown Court to oppose a production order application by Essex Police to seize all my footage from the Dale Farm eviction.

The production order, calling for all footage shot on 19 and 20 October, is also being served upon other news outlets.

I am resisting the order with the full support on the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and legal support from Bindmans Solicitors. The handing over of material, either published or unpublished goes against the NUJ Code of Conduct.

I strongly believe a journalist should protect her/his confidential sources and material gathered in the course of her/his work. If I am forced to comply with the production order I am being forced into breaching my own union’s ethical code, but also to be forced into being an unwilling agent of the state, handing over material that will surely be used as intelligence.

I also believe it will have serious consequences on my ability, and the ability of those in my profession, to report future events. We are already seeing a growing trend of intimation and violence against members of the press reporting on the frontline. This is based on a wide mistrust of the media, which has been accelerated by the increase in the use of production orders we have seen since the student protests of 2010.

NUJ general secretary Michelle Stanistreet said: “Journalists play a critical role in informing the public and the police should not be trying to hands their hands on journalistic material. Media workers are engaged in professional activity which is independent of the police and they should never be seen as collectors of information for the state. It is an attack on press freedom and turns every photographer, videographer and journalist into a potential target.”

The impact of this continuing trend of production order use will have dire consequences on press freedom in this country, to the extent that eventually we may not be able to report some events at all. The courts have recognised the vital role of the media as the public watchdog. With the press unable to operate a fundamental pillar of our democracy slips away.

The irony is that the restrictions on the press to operate freely will not come from the authorities – as we have seen with the misuse of anti-terror and other restrictive laws – it will come from the mistrust of the media by the public, believing that footage shot and images taken could be seized by the police. In effect the public may also unwittingly impact on press freedom.

I have operated in countries like Egypt, Mexico and Russia, where the press are under physical control of the state, and I have experienced first-hand the tactics deployed to stop the press reporting, from beatings in the street, journalist material seized and destroyed or used to apprehend protestors, to simply having a police sniper trying to put a bullet in the head of the camera operator first, in order to eliminate any witnesses to the atrocities they intend to commit. Is that the route we want to head towards here in the UK?

We need to be totally independent of the state, in order to get to the truth behind incredibly dangerous and sensitive situations. If no one was able to analyse the recent UK riots, or talk to the people on the ground as events took place, then we would only have the government response as to why they happened, ending in the government dictating the official line.

We need a strong and united campaign of awareness across our media organisations to resist this attack on press freedom.

The proceedings at Chelmsford will commence at 10am tomorrow morning. If we are able, judge willing, we will be tweeting from the court. For updates please follow @NUJPhoto #productionorder.

]]> http://londonphotographers.org/2011/12/why-im-resisting-the-dale-farm-production-order/feed/ 11 http://londonphotographers.org/2011/12/2646/ http://londonphotographers.org/2011/12/2646/#comments Fri, 09 Dec 2011 16:52:05 +0000 Jess Hurd http://londonphotographers.org/?p=2646

Police officers block Jules's camera, dislodging a lens hood, during the incident. photo Jules Mattsson

The London Photographers’ Branch congratulates its member Jules Mattsson in winning his case against the actions of the Met police when he was covering an Armed Forces Day parade in Romford last year. Jules kept calm, recorded the incident and argued for his rights in an intimidating encounter with the police. During the encounter he was abused, assaulted and threatened under the Terrorism Act and falsely imprisoned. Jules was 15 at the time and a student but had the support of branch officials at the scene and the national union in successfully pursuing justice with the help of leading civil rights solicitor and friend of the NUJ, Chez Cotton.

NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff said:

“This was very poor and unlawful behaviour by a senior police officer, trying to intimidate a young NUJ photographer. It is not acceptable conduct, has no place in the police force and is hardly likely to gain respect for the police amongst the youth of the UK. The police have now recognised this, apologised and compensated our member. The NUJ will continue to hold the police to account to ensure that the vital rights of journalists, enshrined in law, are upheld, to enable reporting and photographing to continue, as part of the democratic framework of our society.”

Read the full Bindmans statement:

Met Commissioner compensates journalist arrested for taking photographs in public place and told to stop “running round acting silly, being stupid and gay”

Film & TV student Lewis Stainer in front of the protest camp. photo © Alan Lodge

From the NUJ Nottingham Branch:

Today, the NUJ has written to Nottinghamshire’s chief constable Julia Hodson calling for the apology to be made in person to 20-year-old Lewis Stainer, a student at New College in Nottingham.

Last Friday he was given back his film after it was seized on Monday 21st November by the police for evidential reasons.  Lewis had been filming in the old Market Square for his course project when police made four arrests at the Occupy Nottingham camp. Subsequently two people were charged with offences.

National officials of the NUJ have also decided today to give Lewis Stainer legal support while the union’s legal officers carry out a full investigation into the incident. Lewis who’s studying a BTEC in TV and Film says he wants an apology as well as compensation for the stress and  inconvenience he experienced in having his coursework seized.

The union is increasingly unhappy at the number of problems involving photographers across the country.

Diana Peasey, chair of the Nottingham NUJ branch said ‘we know photographers are under increasing pressure here. They’re often told they can’t photograph crime scenes or face having their camera or material seized by police under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is done all too frequently.’

‘We have our own Police and Media guidelines which the NUJ negotiated with the Nottinghamshire police. Section 7 says specifically:

‘Police officers do not have the authority to prevent a person taking a photograph or to confiscate cameras or film and such conduct could result in criminal, civil, or disciplinary act.’

Ms Peasey said “It is clear that the PACE legislation is overriding the Media guidelines and we need to toughen them up to ensure that the police understand they cannot intimidate photographers and journalists at crime scenes or major incidents.”

Meanwhile, Nottinghamshire Constabulary’s Complaints and Misconduct unit is also looking into the incident.

Diana Peasey, chair, Nottingham NUJ branch.

Material ‘acquired or created for the purposes of journalism’ is Special Procedure and protected from seizure in this way under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The London Photographers Branch is strongly against the use of journalistic material as evidence.

Members approached by the police for your material you should contact the NUJ immediately. During office hours you can contact the NUJ Legal Department on 020 7843 3721. If you urgently need help you call the 24hr NUJ emergency legal helpline on 0800 5877530.

Additional coverage: BBC, ITV, Indymedia, Further on Indymedia, HTFP

LPB Posts on Seizure of Material:

Journalists not Evidence Gatherers

We Are Press Not Police Intelligence

Protecting Journalistic Material

An NUJ members only event with Bindmans Solicitors

Date: Thursday 17 November 2011 Venue: 275 Gray’s Inn Road, London Time: 5.20 pm to 7.10 pm

Introduction

This free seminar organised by Bindmans LLP and the NUJ will explore the issues surrounding ‘a free press’ and the protection afforded to journalists in relation to the criminal justice system. It will offer practical guidance on police powers and investigations. Martin Rackstraw and Chez Cotton will discuss the relevant criminal law and civil law. The seminar will examine:

• Relevant legislation and recent changes
• Police powers of arrest and detention and search and seizure
• The investigation process, including police interviews under caution
• Civil claims against the police

Agenda

5.20 Registration, tea and coffee 5.35 Introduction from the chair, Najma Rasul 5.40 Criminal law presentation, Martin Rackstraw 6.00 Civil law presentation, Chez Cotton 6.20 Q and A 6.40 Buffet and continuation of discussions 7.10 Close

Who should attend?

The legal issues covered will be particularly relevant to photojournalists and political journalists, but any journalist who is in contact with the police will find the seminar helpful.

Your next steps

Places are limited for this free seminar and will be allocated on a first-come-first-served basis so you are advised to reserve your place now. Please complete the booking form:

Police Powers seminar invitation.qxd

An EDL supporter grabs the camera of a photographer during the Tower Hamlets protest: © Jules Mattsson

On Saturday, 3rd September supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) travelled from around the country to a ‘static’ demonstration on the edge of Tower Hamlets in East London.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and London Photographers’ Branch (LPB) has received numerous reports of harassment, threats, physical assaults, racist abuse, bottles and fireworks being thrown and photographers being punched and kicked. One journalist was subjected to a sexual assault and another NUJ member suffered minor burns and required medical attention after an EDL supporter used a flammable accelerant to set him on fire.

Branch Secretary Jason N. Parkinson said: “LPB condemns the attacks on journalists by supporters of the English Defence League (EDL) during Saturday’s protest.

“These attacks are just the latest in a long history of violence, threats and even fatwas issued on the press and there is only one reason behind them all – to intimidate and deter the media exposing the violent and racist behaviour of the far right.

“An attack on the press is an attack on press freedom and on our democracy.”

NUJ offers support and assistance to members following attacks during EDL protest

7th August 2011. Police Evidence Gathering Team in Tottenham during disorder. © Jules Mattsson/LNP

The disorder that swept England recently has calmed, leaving untold destruction, injury and a number of deaths in it’s wake. Lens-based journalists are often in the frontline of these situations to report, receiving aggression from all sides.

Already a number of photographers have been injured and mugged while covering disturbances, radio cars burnt and TV networks have had to pull their crews out of entire areas. The risk to media workers in this sort of situation is massive, especially to those who have to work with visible equipment.

The unpublished material we create in the process of news gathering must not be used as evidence by the police, as that not only means our presence is changing the outcome of a situation significantly, but also puts our collective safety at severe risk.

For this reason, journalistic unpublished material is protected under the 1984 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and requires a special court order to be obtained for seizure, which can be fought. Recent statements by MP’s and prime minster David Cameron in the house of commons, suggesting that the media have a ‘responsibility’ to hand over our material is putting us in serious danger.

The NUJ has released a statement condemning this in the strongest terms, and many journalists are angered by his comments. This branch committee is very concerned by the impact that his words will have on the risks faces by lens based journalists, and urges our members to exercise caution in these situations and to resist any attempts to seize their material for evidential uses.

We will fight to protect our members from this sort of attack on safe & ethical reporting, NUJ members can access 24 hour emergency legal assistance by calling 0800 5877530, and we urge any members facing seizure of material to contact us.

We express our solidarity and best wishes to those journalists injured during recent events, and hope for their quick recovery.

Other related articles:

We Are Press Not Police Intelligence

Protecting Journalistic Material

On Friday 15 July LPB and other photography groups attended a meeting with the Home Office and senior police officers from counter terrorism to discuss guidance for security guards and how effective communication could be established between security industry and photographers.

The meeting followed a previous meeting in May 2011 which realised the following action plan:

•  circulate the statutory code of practice for s47a remedial order
•  set up meeting with police practitioners to discuss training given to security guards
•  to determine who is responsible for providing guidance to Olympic security guards, ensuring that it reflects concerns raised about photographers
•  liaise with wider Home Office colleagues about how messages on photography could be provided to and circulated by Security Industry Authority

Throughout this meeting the concerns and issues that were raised by image-makers were taken seriously, and I believe given due consideration by the delegates. There was universal recognition that there is a risk in challenging photographers, and I believe there is a commitment by the Home Office and the police practitioners to address these issues. If we are to progress these issues and effect any change in the policing methods of security guards, it is vital that photographers are involved in the training and briefing of security personnel.

I believed that all delegates recognised that our involvement in the training process will be positive and useful.

The meeting was opened by Rob Hunt (Office for Security & Counter-Terrorism, Home Office), addressing concerns photographers have regarding counter-terrorism measures, as they seemed to bear most of the negative aspects of this law. This government recognised that the balance between counter-terrorism and civil liberties had become skewed, and the government is trying to seek a better balance. However there are still legitimate security issues about hostile reconnaissance as an integral part of attack planning, and for this reason the ability to stop-and-search, after reasonable suspicion has been established, is still necessary. Hunt addressed the concerns raised about s47a in the PHNAT pamphlet (these concerns have also been published on LPB site), noting that the threshold is much higher, and s47a is a substantive change over s44. According to Hunt, no authorizations for s47a have yet been in place. Hunt assured the delegates that there is no provision for stop-and-search without reasonable suspicion under s47a. The threshold is much higher, as a police officer requires reasonable suspicion that a terrorist attack is in preparation.

Hunt did concede that s43 may be used more frequently, but this would be monitored as a significant increase in usage of s43 would be of concern to the Home Office.

Against this background, the threat level has been downgraded, largely due to the fact that the public are more attuned to what the police need. Public awareness of terrorism is now very high.

A significant issue facing photographers now is the deployment of private security guards, acting on behalf of building owners, often citing redundant sections of the Terrorism Act to deter photographers from photographing. Training of security guards exists under Project Griffin, which is expanding and updated frequently. Project Griffin is an initiative coordinating resources of the police, emergency services, local authorities, business and the private sector security industry. Part of training of security under Project Griffin in recognising attack planning is the use of photography for hostile reconnaissance. This element is downplayed by the police during the training, and other elements such as enquiring about evacuation procedures, exit strategies, staff & vehicle movements are also mentioned. However since photography is the only visibly manifest element, it is the one that is targeted most significantly by security guards. It is worth noting that neither Security Industry Authority nor British Security Industry Association provide no specific hostile reconnaissance training. Part of the problem is that police can only give guidance, not directives and regulations to security companies. Police feedback to security personnel on their ‘policing’, though there is some doubt as to how robust this feedback is.

Some security personnel still operate under older training regimes that have not taken into account repeal of s44. Not all security companies invest in training and the transient nature of security industry employees makes up-to-date training difficult. Despite this the security industry is keen to take on more advice and become more professional.

While the public are scrutinised by security personnel and cameras, it is vital to remember that the public have every right to photograph in a public place, and that security guards have no powers whatsoever.

With that in mind, The London Street Photography Festival hosted a debate on ‘Why Does Street Photography Make Us Paranoid’ at Housmans Bookshop on 20 July. This was preceded by the film Stand Your Ground, in which six photographers were assigned to photograph buildings in the City of London from public spaces. All were challenged by security guards who tried to prevent photography of their buildings, maintaining that permission was needed. On three occasions the police arrived, who determined very quickly (and with good humour, civility and politeness), that the photographers were within their rights to photograph the buildings. The contrast between professional, trained law enforcers and the security personnel was revealing.

The debate, highlights which can be seen here, produced straight-forward answers from police and security, and a determination to work together and try to resolve this impasse between security and photographers. We must be aware of the increasing privatization of public space, which has provided a demand for private security guards. Given that private security has become a part of our public life, then our engagement with them as citizens should not be on the basis that we are suspicious (if we are taking photographs), nor worthy of any unwarranted interrogation and harassment.

© Grant Smith 2011

The NUJ website reported NUJ Irish secretary Séamus Dooley said: “Niall Carson was injured while doing his job. It is vital that journalists should be allowed to carry out their duties without fear of attack from any quarter.  This incident is part of a sinister assault on the people of Northern Ireland. The riots of the past two days represent a wider attack on the community, who have a right to live in peace. Our thoughts are with all those who have suffered as a result of the riots over the past 48 hours”.

NUJ general secretary-elect  Michelle Stanistreet said: “This shooting is a sharp reminder of the dangers faced by media workers in conflict situations. Journalists and their employers must be mindful of the safety implications of covering conflict situations, while there is also a responsibility on the police to ensure that the media are allowed to carry out their duties in the public interest”.

]]> http://londonphotographers.org/2011/06/solidarity-message-for-injured-belfast-journalist/feed/ 0 http://londonphotographers.org/2011/05/phnat-pamphlet-launch-party/ http://londonphotographers.org/2011/05/phnat-pamphlet-launch-party/#comments Wed, 25 May 2011 20:36:54 +0000 Jess Hurd http://londonphotographers.org/?p=1899

Over the last few months PHNAT have been working on a pamphlet that celebrates the history of the I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! campaign. It’s launch party will be at the AoP Gallery at 7pm on the 14th June with free refreshments kindly sponsored by ING Media.

The pamphlet entitled, I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! – A brief History is fully illustrated over 20-pages, written by the campaign’s founders and organisers and will be available for free at the event. It will also be available to download online after the event or you can request a free copy by sending a double stamped self-addressed envelope to Photographer Not a Terrorist, 308-312 Gray’s Inn Rd, London WC1X 8DP.

The National Union of Journalists and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom have funded the production of the pamphlet, the London Photographers’ Branch and British Press Photographers’ Association have supported the pamphlet.

There’s going to be a callout for images to be shown at the party soon, watch the PHNAT site!

All welcome!