LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 02.04.09. A City of London police inspector orders the media to leave the area as police ‘kettle” protesters outside the Bank of England on Thursday 2 April 2009 in London, England. The police officer ordered members of the media to leave the area for 30 minutes under the threat of arrest by citing Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The protesters had congregated to mark the death of a man who had died on an anti-G20 protest the day before. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2009.
As promised here is the film footage of the Section 14 incident at the G20 protest on the 2nd to mark the death of Ian Tomlinson. The footage was filmed by my good friend and colleague Jason N. Parkinson and published by The Guardian. You can hear me having a “conversation” with the inspector. He tells me to “shut up” and threatens to arrest us if we do not move. To put this all into context this incident took place an hour or so after this.
Also, I have something in The Guardian tomorrow on the Ian Tomlinson case which I have been working on with Paul Lewis, more on that tomorrow.
My friend and colleague, the veteran photographer David Hoffman, is targeted and attacked by a police officer in full riot gear, 3 minutes and 22 seconds into this excellent film by Ollie Wainwright.
David was documenting the G20 protest at the time.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 02.04.09. A City of London police inspector orders the media to leave the area as police ‘kettle” protesters outside the Bank of England on Thursday 2 April 2009 in London, England. The police officer ordered members of the media to leave the area for 30 minutes under the threat of arrest by citing Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. The protesters had congregated to mark the death of a man who had died on an anti-G20 protest the day before. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2009.
The police “apologise” for obstructing photographers (including me) on a protest outside the Bank of England on the 2 April 2009. But why did the police use Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 against a group of working journalists? Why did the police want the journalists to be moved away from the protest for 30 minutes and 200 yards up the road? Why did the police threatened to arrest the journalists? Why did a journalist get told to shut up when questioned why the Public Order Act was being used in this way? And why was the UK Press Card ignored?
Audio and film footage of this incident will be available soon.
14.—( 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.
(2) In subsection (1) “the senior police officer” means—
(a) in relation to an assembly being held, the most senior in rank of the police officers present at the scene, and
(b) in relation to an assembly intended to be held, the chief officer of police.
(3) A direction given by a chief officer of police by virtue of subsection (2)(b) shall be given in writing.
(4) A person who organises a public assembly and knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed under this section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the failure arose from circumstances beyond his control.
(5) A person who takes part in a public assembly and knowingly fails to comply with a condition imposed under this section is guilty of an offence, but it is a defence for him to prove that the failure arose from circumstances beyond his control.
(6) A person who incites another to commit an offence under subsection (5) is guilty of an offence.
(7) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (4), (5) or (6).
(8) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (4) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.
(9) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(10) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (6) is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both, notwithstanding section 45(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 16.09.08. Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists leads a delegation for a meeting at the Ukraine Embassy on the anniversary of the murder of journalist Gyorgy Gongadze London, England on Tuesday 16th September 2008. The headless body of Gongadze was found in a ditch outside Kiev in 2000. Despite the arrest of three people in connection with the killing press freedom campaigns hold the view that the people who ordered the killing have evaded justice. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.
Clients: Pictures are available for rights managed editorial licensing. High resolution images are available on request.
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 16.09.08. Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists leads a delegation for a meeting at the Ukraine Embassy on the anniversary of the murder of journalist Gyorgy Gongadze London, England on Tuesday 16th September 2008. The headless body of Gongadze was found in a ditch outside Kiev in 2000. Despite the arrest of three people in connection with the killing press freedom campaigns hold the view that the people who ordered the killing have evaded justice. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.
Cover of Stage Screen & Radio Magazine. September 2008. Published here by kind permission of the Stage Screen & Radio Magazine. (c) Stage Screen & Radio Magazine 2008.
It’s always good to get a a cover picture published, add’s to the tearsheet archive and the larger fee is always a bonus! On the day I took these pictures I was assaulted, stop & searched and filmed when filing at a local McDonalds (free WiFi) by the police. So let’s just say it’s a pretty good feeling to get this cover after a day like that. In fact Stage Screen & Radio Magazine took not only the picture for the cover but took six more pictures for a 3 page cover story inside the magazine and the article that goes with it is very good as well. It’s my understanding that the article may go up the BECTU site later this week. If so I will post the link when I have it.
KINGSNORTH, KENT, UNITED KINGDOM- 08.8.08. Police stop and search an ITV (Meridian) Broadcast Crew outside the main gate of the Camp for Climate Action Hoo, Kent, England on Friday 8th August 2008. The broadcasters had just left the climate camp when member of west Yorkshire police stopped and searched them under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. (Photo Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.
In his speech Jeremy Dear said: “This isn’t over-zealous policing this is a co-ordinated and systematic abuse of media freedom – and we must expose it, challenge it and act against those who undermine the rights of photographers, journalists and media workers”.
Along side this the NUJ has released a short film called Press Freedom “Collateral Damage” which tackles the issue of police surveillance of bona fide journalists who document political dissent.
The film, written and directed by my colleague Jason N. Parkinson, is a damming account of the Orwellian techniques and methods of the Metropolitan PoliceForward Intelligence Team’s over the last few years. The film is 9 minutes long and starts with footage of the 2006 Camp for Climate Action and ends with footage from the 2008 Camp for Climate Action. This film includes evidence of the targeting of working journalists and footage of police attacking journalist when covering protests. The film also has an interview with Jeremy Dear and photographers outside New Scotland Yard, the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police.
At this point I should declare an interest as I’m the producer of the film and one of the photographers featured in it.
PHOTOJOURNALIST Marc Vallée is interviewed outside New Scotland Yard at the Press Freedom Protest organised by the NUJ. Published here by kind permission of Jonathan Warren 2008. (c) Jonathan Warren 2008.
The FIT are a police unit that is trained to gather evidence at football matches, political protests and over the last year it has been used by officers in some parts of the country to target local youth on council estates for alleged anti-social behaviour.
Speaking after the TUC vote, Jeremy Dear, said: “Journalism is facing grave threats in an age of intolerance. Whilst on the streets dissent is being criminalized, independent journalism is being increasingly caught in the civil liberties clampdown.”
PHOTOJOURNALIST Marc Vallée lies injured on the ground after the police forcibly cleared the road during the “Sack Parliament” demonstration on the 9th October 2006 at the opening of parliament, Westminster, London. Published here by kind permission of Jess Hurd. (c) Jess Hurd/reportdigital.co.uk, 2006.
Below is the full text of the speech by Jeremy Dear.
“If you log on to the BBC’s website you can watch an excellent and dramatic picture gallery of Chinese police and soldiers physically restraining journalists and photographers, violently preventing them from working, preventing them accessing designated protest zones. Numerous stories across the media highlight China’s continuing denial of basic media freedoms.
“We welcome such abuses being highlighted, but they don’t just happen in China.
“If any of the media would like, I have a film here – a film which shows the abuses happening daily in the UK, in a society where protest is increasingly criminalized, where dissent is increasingly outlawed, where laws designed to tackle terrorism are increasingly used to undermine civil liberties.
“This film documents examples of police abusing their powers, of arbitrary arrest and detention, of photographers being physically attacked, of stop and search, of data and equipment being confiscated, of journalists and camera crews under surveillance by anti-terror teams – examples of the forces of an authoritarian government and the abuse and misuse of the law.
“The terrorising of journalists isn’t just done by shadowy men in balaclavas but also by governments and organisations who use the apparatus of the law or state authorities to suppress and distort the information they do not want the public to know and to terrorise the journalists involved through injunctions, threats to imprisonment and financial ruin.
“The use of the Terrorism Act and SOCPA increasingly criminalize not just those who protest but those deemed to be giving the oxygen of publicity to such dissent. Journalists’ material and their sources are increasingly targeted by those who wish to pull a cloak of secrecy over their actions.
“And so NUJ member Shiv Malik is woken by armed police, dragged to court, subjected to a production order and instructed to hand over his notes. His crime? He dared to interview a former member of an alleged terrorist organisation, dared to get behind the spin, to serve the public by exposing the truth – for that he is criminalized.
“Another member: Sally Murrer’s home was bugged, her computer seized by police. She was arrested, dumped in a cold cell for 24 hours, then strip searched. She faces the potential of years in jail.
“Sally’s crime? Nothing more than talking to a contact in the police force who told her about a prisoner released early who boasted of becoming a suicide bomber.
“The real crime is that the police have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on a malicious prosecution. If they win it will become a crime for journalists to report what a police officer or any other public official tells them without authorisation. If they lose it will be a victory for free reporting and independent journalism.
“And photographers covering the climate camp just a few weeks ago, including some of those sat down here, are stopped and searched three times in one day, are followed by officers from the Forward Intelligence Team, subjected to intimidation and arbitrary and intrusive surveillance. Their crime? Simply documenting the activities of environmental campaigners.
“This isn’t over-zealous policing this is a co-ordinated and systematic abuse of media freedom – and we must expose it, challenge it and act against those who undermine the rights of photographers, journalists and media workers.
“And we must do so because if whistleblowers and sources fear speaking out, if photographers and journalists cannot probe the dark corners of business, politics or human rights, the ability of the media – already under threat from concentration of ownership and cost-cutting – to hold power to account, to expose wrongdoing, to provide the information on which citizens can make informed decisions about their lives will be seriously compromised.
“The Terrorism Act and SOCPA are not sophisticated security policies – they are the blunt instruments of an intolerant government.
“As if in some Orwellian nightmare the Ministry of Freedom tells us that the price we must pay for peace and liberty at home is not just a war in Iraq – not just the billions spent on war – but, in the wake of the London bombings, is the fingerprinting of council workers and the covert surveillance of M&S workers. It is ID cards and 42-day detention. It is curbs on the right to protest, the civil contingencies act and it is the extension of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, a snoopers’ charter giving access to personal texts, emails and internet use.
“The price is too high. Less liberty does not imply greater security. It never has.
“Our movement has been at the forefront of the great struggles for human and civil rights over the past century. In this age of intolerance new struggles must be waged and we must lead that fight.
