navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
UK's most popular Renewable Energy Forum May 25, 2012, 02:13:41 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: UPDATE ON DECC APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT | Yingli Green Energy's PV Module Ranks No.2 in TUV Rheinland Energy Yield Test | Navitron Solar Showers at Glastonbury for Year 5!
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Journalists on the G20 front line  (Read 493 times)
martin
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 11441



WWW
« on: April 17, 2009, 09:35:42 AM »

Media personnel trying to document the police's handling of G20 protesters were attacked and ordered away

"Who needs section 76 when you have a baton? Back in February I wrote how terror legislation had been increasingly used by this government, and brutally enforced by the police, to criminalise not only those who protest but also those who dare to give the oxygen of publicity to such dissent.

In the aftermath of the G20 protests, with the death of a man trying to get home, it is right and proper that the press shine a light beyond the headlines and get to the truth of what took place not only to Ian Tomlinson but also to the hundreds of protesters who now know what a police baton or for that matter the back of a heavy protected police hand feels like.

At the same time it is important to note that many media workers, at some risk, went to work over these two days to document what was taking place. With the wholesale cutting of picture rates and jobs in the media due to the recession, the internet, mismanagement or in my view a mixture of all three, it was no surprise to me that press photographers and reporters were under huge pressure not only to come up with important and stunning pictures and footage but also to make sure this content got sold.

Terence Bunch, a photographer I have known for a number of years, came up with some stunning pictures. In this film, published by the Guardian, you can see a police charge towards a group of photographers, during which one hits the ground very hard – that was Terry. He told me: "I found myself pushed violently from behind and thrown to the floor with some force, and then unable to get up due to a wrist injury while a large police rank ran over me causing more injuries to my left leg. It was only the intervention of another photographer who was already behind this rank coming to my aid that allowed me to get out and on to hospital."

Jason N Parkinson, a journalist I have worked on lots of protests with, who shot the above film footage and gave it to the Guardian, told me he had concussion for three days after being repeatedly batoned across the head by the police. He said that this was despite wearing a professional helmet with press across the front and back. In the incident with Bunch, Parkinson told me he was repeatedly batoned , then a police medic used the end of his baton in a double-handed jabbing motion into his right kidney. Parkinson said this was so hard he collapsed afterwards until he could breathe again.

David Hoffman, who has been documenting dissent on the streets of Britain for more than 30 years, was attacked by the police as well. You can see this for yourself in this excellent film by Ollie Wainwright (Hoffman is the chap with the white hair). The police officer in full riot gear goes for Hoffman – his crime? Taking a picture.

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?

Also, you have to ask why so many media workers ended up in hospital. The only thing I can think of is, fewer cameras equals fewer independent witnesses"

link to video - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/15/g20-protests-police-press
Logged

Unpaid volunteer administrator and moderator (not employed by Navitron) - Views expressed are my own - curmudgeonly babyboomer! - http://www.farmco.co.uk
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4565



« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2009, 02:30:27 PM »

Section 14 of the public order act does not seem to give any authority to the police to remove journalists unless they can be described as 'taking part' which would be stretching the law a bit too much.

There doesn't seem to have been many good still photographs from the event, perhaps the photographers were too inhibited to do their normal job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986
Logged
Amy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3662


Karma Queen !


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2009, 03:14:58 PM »

I would hope then, that there is something in the constitution which shows the penalties for mis appropriating the laws and i want to see heads on sticks and names on tombstones, starting with brown, smith and all chief constables
Logged

Thank God for Charles Darwin. Another voice of sanity in this God forsaken world.
www.amy-artimis.blogspot.com/
dhaslam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4565



« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 04:02:20 PM »

It just gets worse and worse.  The second Tomlinson postmortem, requested by the family, gives a different result.   
Logged
MR GUS
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2285


Officially "Awesome" because Frotter said so!


« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 06:07:37 PM »

Section 14 of the public order act does not seem to give any authority to the police to remove journalists unless they can be described as 'taking part' which would be stretching the law a bit too much.

There doesn't seem to have been many good still photographs from the event, perhaps the photographers were too inhibited to do their normal job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Order_Act_1986

Nice find, perhaps journo's ought to laminate that one & present it to any policeman at demo's etc.
How do you become a member of the press? ..in simple terms, would freelance be enough?
Logged

Austroflamm stove & lot's of Lowe alpine fleeces, & a tiny pen15 ..if we're comparing solar set ups!

Noli Timere Messorem
Amy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3662


Karma Queen !


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 06:14:42 PM »

If thousands of protesters were also press registered, the police would have a massive problem.

As Scargill once boasted to maggie, ......you will need football stadiums to lock us all up
Logged

Thank God for Charles Darwin. Another voice of sanity in this God forsaken world.
www.amy-artimis.blogspot.com/
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!