Police release film of suspects' 'terror targets'

Police release film of suspects' 'terror targets'

I have been keeping out of the debate on Police stopping photographers under the Terrorism act section 43 and 44 partly because there are already others out there doing a great job, and to be honest, here in sleepy Nottingham it isn’t actually a major problem, as most of the police around the East Midlands seem to have other things on their mind.

However, having said that, I have just been reading some of the reporting on the ‘so-called’ hostile reconnaissance video, supposedly taken by an Algerian ‘terror’ suspect.


If the BBC reporting is to be trusted, and similar reports were made in the British Journal of Photography, although one has to note that the initial report by the BJP has been heavily cleaned up of any quotes from police officers, some of which were outrageous, then the police have a pretty strange use of logic!

The original report by the BJP prompted me to write to the editor Simon Bainbridge the following missive:

Dear Sir,

"The City of London Police released video footage taken using a camera phone by an Algerian man in 'hostile reconnaissance' to justify stopping photographers"

What an illuminating statement from the City of London Police reported by BJP today (15th December).

By what logic exactly does the fact that:

"his camera phone had more than 90 minutes of video footage of tube stations, CCTV cameras and sensitive locations around London."

Justify the topping of photographers? Presumably as this arrested person was using a camera-phone when he was doing all this 'filming', the justification is not for stopping photographers at all, but for stopping people using camera-phones? That would include perhaps 25% of the adult population?

If the inference is that this person was conducting covert surveillance, then he did it using an innocent looking camera-phone such as many normal, average members of the public use on a regular basis throughout the day. Using this same logic surely it is very unlikely that Professional (or amateur) photographers carrying thousands of pounds worth of expensive and very obvious Japanese neck jewelry, and staying in one place long enough to be spotted, stopped and questioned by police should be the target of any terrorist stop and search.

Indeed by the very logic of Superintendent Chris Greany of the City of London Police, the police should instead be pouncing on anyone daring to use a camera phone.

Just how stupid do our police want us to think they are?


Kind regards



Pete Jenkins


Sky News have the same basic line as the BBC


If this is the best the police can do to justify harassing ordinary amateur and professional photographers then frankly it looks pathetic. Hostile reconnaissance? Really? If this was a terrorist cell in action and the proof we are told was there then why was the full weight iof the law brought down upon these people?

We are told according to the BBC:

“The police said the CPS had decided there was sufficient evidence to bring terrorism charges, but it was not in the public interest because they would have received the same sentence as for fraud.”

Not in the public interest?

And there’s more:

“Police believe the men may have been a fundraising and research arm of an al Qaeda-linked group in North Africa.”

Yet despite this:

“Two men were subsequently convicted of a huge mobile phone and luxury goods fraud scam and deported after serving prison sentences.”

Not convicted for anything to do with terrorism then? So in fact they have not been found guilty of anything to do with terrorism, so the whole terrorism angle is simply supposition by the police (so we are told)?

And what makes all this worse; this awful stream of images and the subsequent inferences are being used to justify, not as one would expect, the stopping and checking of people using mobile phones as video cameras conducting, (so we are told), hostile reconnasince, but instead as the most feeble justification yet for stopping ordinary professional and amateur photographers and videographers out on the street, hiding nothing.

It is a complete joke. The police simply have to get a grip. How can we seriously can we take our forces of Law and Order when they seem to continually hassle people simply for taking photographs?

Pete Jenkins
www.petejenkins.co.uk
www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/

Member of: The National Union of Journalists

Todays Guardian Protest

Photographers are very proud of their contribution to their industry, not least of these, those who contribute to the Guardian and Observer newspapers (Guardian News Media).

Outside the Guardian today were a number of contributors to the Guardian. Noticeable in his support of his colleagues was former Observer Sports Photographer and multiple award winner Eamonn McCabe, who went on to become the Picture Editor of the Guardian, and cartoonist Steve Bell.




The protest at the Guardian today by photographers was one that makes me very sad. That the Guardian and Observer of all newspapers should be imposing a rights grab on their most treasured contributors (their contract photographers), not to mention anyone unfortunate enough to receive a commission from the Guardian or Observer from today, is a huge disappointment.


“On 28 July, Chris Elliott, managing editor at Guardian News & Media (GNM), wrote to freelance and contract photographers to inform them that the company would cease paying reuse fees.” See British Journal of Photography

The petition against this action, now at over 900 names gives an indication of how photographers feel, and this number is rising steadily every day.

Speakers at the rally during the protest included John Toner the NUJs Freelance Organiser, so often championing the rights of NUJ Photographer Members, Jeremy Dear, General Secretary of the NUJ, also very vocal in supporting his photographer members, Steve Bell the Guardians excellent cartoonist, supporter of his photographer colleagues, and member of the Guardian NUJ Chapel committee, and Pete Jenkins, deputy chair of the Unions Photographers Sub Committee and Freelance photographer whose first contributions to the Guardian (and Observer) were more than twenty-five years ago.





More than thirty photographers and their supporters were there to condemn GNMs unfriendly proclamation.





The NUJ report is here.

I was privaleged to be allowed to say a few words to my colleagues, and they went something like this:

“I have been a newspaper photographer all my working life, cut me and I bleed ink, that kind of thing.

I had my first picture in the Guardian more than twenty-five years ago, and I have had maybe hundreds of images used, commissioned, live and on spec since then. I have been proud to supply the Guardian as most photographers are.

But I have seen changes. Over the years fewer photographers are used, rates become stagnated, there is a higher reliance on PA for regional work, and now there are fewer photographers, fewer stringers, fewer on contract and fewer images used.

The Berliner saw a dramatic change in the Guardians use of photography, fewer images needed to fill smaller pages, and smaller images used.

This latest move shocks me. That Guardian News Mediahas so little regard for its suppliers, its photographers, also makes me sad, and I am disappointed that they should treat us in this way.

I have few images published in the Guardian (or Observer) these days, but that doesn’t affect how I feel.”


How interesting to read about the Scott Trust set up in 1935 to ensure the continuation of the Manchester Guardian.


The core purpose of the Scott Trust is:

· To secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to its liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner.
· All other activities should be consistent with the central objective. The Company which the Trust owns should: be managed to ensure profits are available to further the central objective; not invest in activities which conflict with the values and principles of the Trust.
· The values and principles of the Trust should be upheld throughout the Group. The Trust declares a subsidiary interest in promoting the causes of freedom in the press and liberal journalism, both in Britain and elsewhere.


Photographers around the UK, and indeed around the world, will be wondering how this rights grab move by the GNM management fits in with the core purpose of the Trust. I wonder what John Scott would think were he alive today?


Pete Jenkins
www.petejenkins.co.uk
www.onlinepictureproof.com/petejenkins
www.photographerspro.eu/pete_jenkins/


Member of: The National Union of Journalists