Category: Political Issues

Sometimes when police or security people talk to you its just a matter of being friendly, but too often it isn’t. Sometimes it’s easy to think that they are fishing for information, and I’ve often been surprised by questions from police that reveal they know more about me than I might expect – and that some have been reading this blog or my web site or know about my movements.

Although I’ve never seen a police “spotter card” for journalists like the ones that have been found and published for demonstrators, I’m fairly sure that they exist somewhere, perhaps on police station walls and that at least at one time if not now I was featured.

I don’t believe in being rude or uncooperative, but I do think there are some questions we should not answer and some distinctions the police try to make that we should as a profession refuse to admit. So many statements I’ve heard have clearly been the police trying to distinguish between “good” and “bad” journalists – the good being those who work directly for the large circulation and mainly right wing press and the bad being those who contribute to the kind of ‘leftie rags’ in which my work has been known to surface.

So for some time, my response when the police ask “Who are you working for?” has simply been to say “These days we’re pretty well all freelances” even on those too rare occasions when I am actually on commission.  It’s slightly more polite than what I’m thinking, which is that it is none of your business and letting the police decide who is a ‘goodie’ or a ‘baddie’ is going far too far towards a police state. If we have the credentials to show we are a journalist – such as an NUJ card – we should be treated as such – end of story.

So I was interested to hear the story of a well-respected and widely published photojournalist where the police seem to have acted as they should when he was harassed by security while attempting to work:

About 9.30 earlier today (29.01.10), I passed through the police line, showing my NUJ press card, without hindrance. A few minutes later, in front of the main entrance to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, a man came over to me and asked who I was and who I worked for. He was wearing a plain white identity tag around his neck with ‘press officer’ printed on it. He aggressively and repeatably asked me who I worked for. I replied that I had identified myself as a working journalist to the police and I told him to stop harassing me and who was he ‘press officer’ for. I also asked for his name.He told me that I was on private property and that it was ok for me to be a freelance but that I had to be working for someone even as a freelance, and he demanded that I leave. He took me by the arm and I told him to let go or I would ask for his arrest for assault with intent. He let go of me and demanded again that I leave. I again asked him who he worked for and his name. He told me that he was the Conference Centre press officer and that his name was Bob Honey. He again told me to leave and I told him that I was working and to stop hindering me and that who I work for is my business.He then called over a private security guard who told me to follow him. I refused and replied that he, too, should leave me alone and stop harassing me and that I identified myself to the police. The security guard then walked away.

A couple of minutes later five uniformed police came over to me, one of them a high ranking officer with braid on his hat, asked me who I was and I identified myself again by showing my NUJ press card. The only question he asked me was to verify my name. I did and this satisfied him and I continued working.

It’s good to be able to report that the police behaved correctly both when allowing the photographer to access the press area and when brought in by security to deal with the incident.  If they had any doubts about the photographer they could have checked up on the security hot line, but the card does carry a photograph.

The letter, sent to the union, continues with a request that the NUJ  make a formal complaint to the management at the QEII centre pointing out that freelancers have equal rights as staff journalists and asking them to ensure that they are treated equally. I understand this is in hand.

This is perhaps another story which makes clear why photographers need to join the union. If you are a professional working in London, then the London Photographers Branch will welcome you.

When I saw this on PDN Pulse I just could not believe it.  You need to read the comments to get the full story and there is a rather better piece on it by Olivier Laurent on the BJP blog in which he makes clear just what a slap in the face this is to all photographers – as he writes “in my opinion, this case highlights one major problem affecting the journalism world in particular: a blatant lack of respect for a photographer’s work and copyright.”

Frankly it is unbelievable that what we thought was a respectable and trustworthy organisation should behave in this way. I hope it gets to court and AFP really get taken to the cleaners, since the legal issues appear to be clear cut. But I guess AFP will be paying lawyers huge sums to muddy the waters while apparently happily stealing work from photographers

But it isn’t the only current news about photographers getting a raw deal. Guardian News & Media wrote to freelance photographer contributors on Monday telling them it was reducing rates by 10%, unilaterally breaking a long-standing agreement with the NUJ.  You can read more about the cuts in the BJP. On Tuesday the NUJ London Photographers Branch unanimously passed a motion to adopt a model letter for photographers to send to GNM. More on the story on the Journalism web site.

So far the Guardian‘s response to this letter have been to say that they are sorry that the photographers concerned are unwilling to accept the new rates, and agreeing to delete any of their images that may be held in the paper’s archives.

I’ve never contributed work directly to GNM, although in the past I probably occasionally sent work there, I can’t remember it being used.  I very seldom send work to newspapers now, except by request. Most get thousands of unsolicited submissions every day. Most of these never even get glanced at, with most organisations using text search robots to try to identify images that might be of interest. Many stories in all our press now get illustrated with largely generic stock imagery supplied under bulk contracts from the large agencies. You can send a better picture but the chances of it getting seen by a human are very low and of being used almost zero.

Another current story is over Bauer Media, publishers of some of the leading musical magazines among a wide range of titles, which is trying to grab “all rights” from it’s freelance contributors for Kerrang!, Mojo and Q. Once they’ve paid to publish a picture or article in a single issue they want to be able to do anything they like with it for free, and those who have failed to sign up to this agreement have been told they will no longer be commissioned. If they succeed in imposing the agreement on these publications, Bauer plan to extend it to their other titles.

What can photographers do? Join the union and try to fight the cuts – and stand up generally for the rights of photographers and other journalists. Certainly refuse to supply work to GNM at their new rates. But also to try and support new media and alternative media, even if at the moment they don’t generate income directly. As well as trying to sell images as stock through libraries and occasionally to papers and magazines I also publish regularly on Demotix, and Indymedia as well as here and on my own web sites such as My London Diary. There I can tell the stories the way I want to and get work to an audience and just occasionally it does pay off with work.

Amatuer Photographer points out that the Met has recently revised its advice to police officers on photography in public places. The new document is rather more positive, starting from the position:

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs.

and under that the first section is:

Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

The advice, which supposedly has “been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications” generally clarifies the law – Section 43, 44 and 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 and makes it clear that officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film. In particular, “where it is clear that the person being searched 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.”

The guidance also gives clear advice on who is a “genuine journalist” in the statement:

“Genuine members of the media carry identification, for instance the UK Press Card, which they will present on request.”

This seems a considerable advance from last May, when at the NUJ photographers conference Commander Broadhurst apparently seriously asked the question “can anybody apply for an NUJ card who has a camera?”

I hope that this advice to officers will help to reduce the friction there has certainly been between police and the press (and public) over photography. It might not be a bad idea to print off a few copies to hand out to police that we meet!

May Day may well prove a good test of whether good intentions (and perhaps a desire to avoid the prosecution of police for unlawful actions) at the higher levels of the force have permeated down into good sense on the ground.

There has been some attempt again this year in the Tory press to spread rumours of insurrection and mayhem about the street theatre planned for next Saturday – a May Day Carnival, again with the ‘Four Horses of the Apocalypse‘ , but this time their four marches converging on Parliament Square dragging the corpses of Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Nick Griffin to a People’s Assembly.

Last April 1 at Bank we saw what happened when the officer in charge inspired a spirit of panic through radio and TV appearances (and doubtless in police briefings)  and encouraged psyched up police hooligans to attack both press and demonstrators, using their agent provocateurs in plain clothes to incite riot.  It isn’t clear what the police hoped to gain from these tactics, clearly exposed in the press and public’s photographs and videos, but it is fairly obvious that they backfired in this instance. Perhaps it was the death of Ian Tomlinson – so clearly an innocent bystander – that really turned the tide against them.

I hope the police have learnt the lesson from April 1st, and that on May Day their response will be proportionate and calm. Let the protesters protest and the press report on that and not on another day of police atrocities.  I hope.

Yesterday I went to a public meeting organised by the London Photographer’s Branch of the NUJ about the systematic harassment of journalists, particularly  photographers, by the police.

Around seven years ago, many of us began to notice the increased us of photography by the police at demonstrations, and were disturbed by the way that it sometimes seemed to be used more as a way to harass protesters than for the stated purpose of gathering intelligence. We became even more disturbed when it became clear that photographers were clearly  being targeted and photographed time after time.

The first time I noticed it was when two officers came up to talk to me as I was photographing a demonstration outside the National Portrait Gallery. As I turned round to face them I met the flash of the photographer from the Met who had clearly been waiting for the moment.  It was the first of many such times. On one occasion in Parliament Square I stood for what seemed like several minutes with my camera in front of my face pointing it directly at a police photographer around 5 yards away who was pointing his camera with a telephoto lens directly at my face, clearly waiting for me to put the camera down so he could take yet more photographs of me, to add to the thousands already taken and doubtless on the database that the police still seem to deny having despite having been forced to admit its existence in court.

This is one area where we have now made some progress through protests and dialogue between the NUJ and others and the police and I haven’t noticed a police photographer taking my picture since we caught one out at the French embassy in July last year – and when challenged he vehemently denied having done so.

But that hasn’t stopped various unacceptable treatment. Not long ago a colleague was stopped and searched by police three times in half an hour covering a single demonstration, and others have also been searched while taking photographs where there was clearly no proper reason for the search. Advice from the Home Office has made it clear to police that they should have some real reason to suspect people are in some way connected to terrorism before using this as a pretext to carry out a search, but so far the police seem determined to ignore this advice.

All of us who photograph protest are I think worried, especially when we turn up and find we are the only journalist present (as in the case of that triple search.)  I don’t know what goes on when there are no journalists present, but having several of us around does seem to inhibit police irregularities. It’s no coincidence that when I was searched I was the only photographer present. We really shouldn’t be needing to rely on safety in numbers.

The government is currently attempting to appeal a European court ruling that the stop and search legislation is illegal, and it was good last night to hear film-maker Pennie Quinton whose appeal, supported by Liberty, achieved this decision.

You can read more about the rally on the London Photographers’ Branch web site, where you can download a full audio file of the evening. But the highlight came at the start where we watched Jason N Parkinson’s film Hostile Reconnaissance with examples of police misbehaviour towards photographers and highlights from the campaign by the NUJ, LPB and I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! which is not available on the site.

Perhaps the most salient contribution to the evening came from Prof Keith Ewing, who suggested we campaign for a Press Freedom Bill on the lines of the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act, listing the twelve points he thought this should contain:

1.    A right not to reveal sources.
2.    A right not to be required to surrender images.
3.    A right to attend public events and to move freely at these events.
4.    A right to right to take photographs in a public place.
5.    A right to photograph police officers and public officials exercising their duty.
6.    A right not to be under surveillance by police or intelligence services.
7.    A right to not have equipment confiscated.
8.    A right not to have images erased or equipment deliberately damaged.
9.    A right not to be subject to Stop & Search.
10.    A right not to be restrained by injunction.
11.    A right that police Forward Intelligence Teams only act with prior legal authority.
12.    A right to meaningful accountability of police Forward Intelligence Teams.

And clearly the most depressing comment of the evening came in a contribution from the floor, when one photographer stated that he sometimes felt sorry for the police, as he had been to one or two demonstrations and felt it was hard for the police to distinguish between “proper” photographers and others who were there with press cards.

Suggesting that in any way the police should be able to decide who is or isn’t a “proper” journalist seems to me to be inviting a police state. We have a system of press cards that has been accepted by the police and is administered by various gatekeeper organisations who control it so only those who need a card and qualify for one should have them. The Association of Chief Police Officers have agreed the scheme and the only job of the police is to honour this agreement and recognise the needs of the press and wherever possible to make it possible for us to do our job.

Of course having a press card does not remove the requirement for citizens to obey the law (any more than wearing a police uniform should not.) I’ve been to more demonstrations than most, and can only recall one occasion where someone wearing a press card has behaved in a clearly unsuitable way. Several other photographers at the event, myself included, clearly told him that he could either be a journalist or a protester but if he wanted to protest he should put the card away.  I’ve not seen him at an event since.

Of course we all have rights, including the right to photograph in public, whether or not we have a press card, but those who are accepted by the industry as members – and increasingly that will also include bloggers and others writing for the web as well as print journalists – have a special responsibility. Most but not all of the points made by Ewing should apply to all, not just journalists.I think journalists might also think rather more about putting their own house in order and pressing for more accurate reporting of protests. I was shocked at the Trafalgar Square rally to find a fellow journalist standing up in front of a BBC TV camera and state there were “three hundred” people present, when if his cameraman had panned around the square he would have found several thousand.

It was the press too, that colluded with the police in building up an atmosphere of terror in the lead up to the G20 demonstrations in the City of London last April Fools Day, inventing lies and deliberately confusing street theatre and metaphor with insurrection. And the papers have already started this kind of nonsense for this May Day in London.