“Home Affairs Committee – Eighth Report – Policing of the G20 Protests” – publications.parliament.uk

“MPs condemn ‘dismissive’ police treatment of journalists” – Press Gazette.

This is what the lawmakers had to say about the use of Section 14 of the Public Order Act – to disperse journalists at a protest to mark the death of Ian Tomlinson – a newspaper vendor – who had died the day before on an anti-G20 protest.

“We heard from Jeremy Dear that Section 14 was used in an apparently pre-meditated fashion to remove journalists from an area, rather than as a response to “serious public disorder”. We will return to general questions on the use of Section 14 later, but if, as Jeremy Dear alleged, it was used in this fashion then it would clearly be a misuse of powers granted to the police. The fact that the police have in both cases apologised does not excuse the fact that forcing members of the press to leave an area without justification sends out completely the wrong signal of the police’s intentions and does not help the police build strong relationships with the media. For this reason alone the misuse of Section 14 must be addressed.”

This is what I wrote in The Guardian in April on the use of Section 14:

“The day after Tomlinson’s death we had a City of London police inspector, backup by a group of territorial support group officers, ordering the media to leave the area as police “kettle” protesters who had congregated to mark his death. The police officer ordered 20 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 (pdf).

“This film, also published by the Guardian, shows the journalists (including me) having a “conversation” with the inspector. At one point he tells me to “shut up” when I question him about his actions. You have to ask yourself why section 14 was used 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? And why all of this was done under the threat of arrest?”

So why did the police want a group of journalists moved away from a protest for 30 minutes and 200 yards up the road? And why was all of this done under the threat of arrest?

These questions still need to be answered.

“UK: Journalists on the front line” – blog.marcvallee.co.uk

“Video: G20 Police use public order act on the media.” – blog.marcvallee.co.uk

“G20 Police use public order act on the media.” – blog.marcvallee.co.uk

“Journalists on the G20 front line” – The Guardian.

Here is a link to a Comment is free post I wrote for The Guardian yesterday on journalists and the G2O protests. Plus the National Union of Journalists is considering legal action over the treatment of photographers and journalists by the police.

Also, here is some good news, Kent police have apologised to my friend and colleague Jess Hurd, who was stopped and searched four times while covering last year’s climate camp. I was stopped and searched with Jess two of the times. You can see this for yourself below in Jason N. Parkinson’s film Covering Climate Camp.

Plus, take a look at The Guardian investigation into police surveillance of journalists and protesters that I worked on with Paul Lewis to get a better context of the events surrounding the policing of the climate camp.

“Revealed: police databank on thousands of protesters” – The Guardian.

“Caught on film and stored on database: how police keep tabs on activists” – The Guardian.

“Under surveillance: police target environmental protesters and journalists” – The Guardian.

“Police surveillance: ‘They’re focusing on the press more than the protesters’” – The Guardian.

“Video: G20 police threaten photographers with arrest” – The Guardian.

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.

Link : Click here to view more images.

Clients : Images are available for rights managed editorial licensing. High resolution images are available on request.

“Police apologise for obstructing photographers at G20 protest” – The Guardian.

“We were wrong, says the Met” – British Journal of Photography.

“Metropolitan Police apologises to photographers for use of Public Order Act” – British Journal of Photography.

“Press associations weighing options after G20 police abuses” – British Journal of Photography.

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.

Here is the full text of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986:

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.