A sign of things to come, or will that be it for now? One can only hope this is the a case of companies settling into the recession to weather out the storm .
25/03/2009
08/03/2009
Intending to move away from the subject, but...
I stumbled across a video on the Guardian website.
Here
Somehow the Guardian have managed to get hold of a police video taken during a climate camp demonstration in August last year. The police seem to spend a lot of time concentrating on the journalists present.
What exactly is wrong with the media covering a demonstration or event? The two officers concerned seem to have a problem with "press officers" being present and capturing the event. As they filmed an ITV film crew making their way out of the field the demonstration was taking place in they remarked:
"a lot of press officers aren't there? They think they can just wander in and out of the field."
Going further to say (still filming the ITV crew):
"I trust them less than the protesters."
All food for thought, why do the police have such a bee in their bonnet?
Here
Somehow the Guardian have managed to get hold of a police video taken during a climate camp demonstration in August last year. The police seem to spend a lot of time concentrating on the journalists present.
What exactly is wrong with the media covering a demonstration or event? The two officers concerned seem to have a problem with "press officers" being present and capturing the event. As they filmed an ITV film crew making their way out of the field the demonstration was taking place in they remarked:
"a lot of press officers aren't there? They think they can just wander in and out of the field."
Going further to say (still filming the ITV crew):
"I trust them less than the protesters."
All food for thought, why do the police have such a bee in their bonnet?
Counter Terrorism Act 2008
You would think that any piece of legislation created by the government to protect the public from a terrorist act would be a) well thought out and b) fit for purpose... Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case with Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008.
In the UK the problem already exists where the police (and over zealous Police Community Support Officers and security guards) seem to believe that taking photographs in public areas is against the law and carried out only by people with intent to do harm. With various amateur and professional photographers detained, pictures deleted and films confiscated due to misinterpretation of various anti-terrorist laws.
Some examples can be found on the Wardman Wire; including:
Jess Hurd a photojournalist accused of carrying out a "hostile reconnaissance" and detained for 45 minutes by police as she covered a gypsy wedding in Essex (audio of the police can be found here with more info here and here).
Justin Tallis a freelance photojournalist who had the misfortune to take a picture of a policeman at the BBC/Gaza demonstration.
Steve Carroll an amateur photographer who's negatives were taken by the police thanks to the hideous crime of taking pictures of people in a public place.
These incidents serve to illustrate that giving the police such wide ranging powers; freedom of speech and freedom of the press are both two majorly important aspects that set western society apart from dictatorships and oppressive states, but we seem to be moving backward these days.
One glaring fact hits me in the face, as an ex-soldier (for my sins) and someone who once upon a time was employed to take surveillance photographs without being seen, if I were trying to grab images for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism, I would certainly not be doing it disguised as a card carrying member of the press pack, at a gypsy wedding in Essex or by being seen to take street photography in Hull.
Is there an ulterior motive to the way the Police are acting, or is it a case of them seeing terrorists everywhere? Obviously it could all just be a case of crossed wires and a few police officers cocking things up, but somehow I doubt it.
How things will unfold from here onwards is yet to be seen...
In the UK the problem already exists where the police (and over zealous Police Community Support Officers and security guards) seem to believe that taking photographs in public areas is against the law and carried out only by people with intent to do harm. With various amateur and professional photographers detained, pictures deleted and films confiscated due to misinterpretation of various anti-terrorist laws.
Some examples can be found on the Wardman Wire; including:
Jess Hurd a photojournalist accused of carrying out a "hostile reconnaissance" and detained for 45 minutes by police as she covered a gypsy wedding in Essex (audio of the police can be found here with more info here and here).
Justin Tallis a freelance photojournalist who had the misfortune to take a picture of a policeman at the BBC/Gaza demonstration.
Steve Carroll an amateur photographer who's negatives were taken by the police thanks to the hideous crime of taking pictures of people in a public place.
These incidents serve to illustrate that giving the police such wide ranging powers; freedom of speech and freedom of the press are both two majorly important aspects that set western society apart from dictatorships and oppressive states, but we seem to be moving backward these days.
One glaring fact hits me in the face, as an ex-soldier (for my sins) and someone who once upon a time was employed to take surveillance photographs without being seen, if I were trying to grab images for the purpose of committing an act of terrorism, I would certainly not be doing it disguised as a card carrying member of the press pack, at a gypsy wedding in Essex or by being seen to take street photography in Hull.
Is there an ulterior motive to the way the Police are acting, or is it a case of them seeing terrorists everywhere? Obviously it could all just be a case of crossed wires and a few police officers cocking things up, but somehow I doubt it.
How things will unfold from here onwards is yet to be seen...
First Post
In a way this blog is a purely selfish affair, if anyone else reads it... well that's just a side effect.
My choice to stay anonymous is in essence because I believe you have one chance to make an impression; to have one's first impression ruined by a candid thought would be extremely bad. Even though chances are nothing I say here will be anything out of the ordinary.
Anyway, should you chance across this blog somehow, hope you enjoy!
My choice to stay anonymous is in essence because I believe you have one chance to make an impression; to have one's first impression ruined by a candid thought would be extremely bad. Even though chances are nothing I say here will be anything out of the ordinary.
Anyway, should you chance across this blog somehow, hope you enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
