Date set for photographer 'obstruction' trial for snapping armed police
Tash [alan lodge] | 26.05.2006 20:31 | Indymedia | Repression
On Saturday 18th March, photographer and Indymedia contributor Alan Lodge - or Tash - was arrested after taking photos of armed police in public. Tash continued to deny the charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer at Nottingham Magistrates Court on Tuesday the 23rd May. A trial date has now been set for the 17th October
![The Journalist Article [June 06 issue]](/images/2006/05/341476.jpg)
The Journalist Article [June 06 issue]
Date set for photographer 'obstruction' trial for snapping police
On Saturday 18th March, photographer and Indymedia contributor Alan Lodge - or Tash - was arrested after taking photos of armed police in public. Tash continued to deny the charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer at Nottingham Magistrates Court on Tuesday the 23rd May. Defending solicitor Paul Dhami told the court: "The officers took exception to his presence, and one took it upon himself to physically impede Tash and then arrested him." The arrest came only weeks after Nottingham police issued guidelines to their officers reminding them to respect journalists' rights. A trial date has now been set for the 17th October.
News Release - 23 May 2006
A trial date has been set for a Nottingham photographer, who is accused of obstructing a police officer while doing his job.
Alan Lodge - a freelance photographer and NUJ member - appeared before Nottingham Magistrates today for a pre-trial review.
Paul Dhami, of Thompson's Solicitors, outlined the facts of the case to the bench. "Mister Lodge was taking photographs of a police armed response unit on Alfred Street, Nottingham, on Saturday 18th March. He was arrested firstly for assault, then de-arrested. He was then arrested and de-arrested for breach of the peace, before finally being arrested and later charged with obstruction."
The defence centres around new Media Guidelines, agreed between the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police - Steve Green - and the NUJ, earlier this year. During the incident, Mister Lodge's equipment and memory card were confiscated. Yet the guidelines clearly state that police officers have no right to seize such equipment simply because somebody is taking photographs.
Mister Dhami told the court that he would be frequently referring to the guidelines during the trial, and that he intended to question the arresting officer about why the guideline were ignored.
The Court set a trial date for 17th October before Nottingham Magistrates and adjourned the case. Mister Lodge was given unconditional bail.
*****
These are the guidelines, previousdly agreed, referred to above.......
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE
GUIDELINES FOR THE POLICE AND MEDIA AT INCIDENTS
*****
1. The media has a legitimate role to play in informing the public and they will attend the scene of incidents. The presence of a photographer or reporter at an incident does not of itself constitute any unlawful obstruction or interference.
2. Journalists need to collect information about an incident as quickly as possible. Some of this information may seem irrelevant, unimportant or improper to an officer. However, as long as the journalist does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, the police officer should not impede the reporter. Journalists who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender.
3. A crime scene remains closed to the media whilst evidence is being gathered and detailed forensic examinations take place. The reasons for denial of access should be explained to the journalist and access granted as soon as possible with permission from the Senior Investigating Officer.
4. Journalists have the right to photograph and report events that occur on public property. The police may invite journalists on to private property where an event of public interest has occurred and they have the permission of the owner. They should enter peacefully and not cause any physical damage or attempt to alter any details for photographic purposes. The rights of an owner of private property should be respected and may lead to journalists being asked to leave. If the owner of the property does not give permission then any attempt to gain access would be trespass.
5. Any journalist should be able to show relevant media identification if asked. At the scene of an incident this identification should be visible at all times.
6. Police officers should not restrict journalists from taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the journalist's purpose. It is not a police officer's role to be the arbiter of good taste and decency. It is an editor's role to decide what to use.
7. Police officers do not have the authority to prevent a person taking a photograph or to confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or disciplinary action.
8. In the event of a distressed or bereaved individual making a specific request for the media to leave them in peace the officer should pass this information on to the journalist. However, this is advice on which journalists and their editors must base their own decisions. If the situation becomes an identifiable Breach of the Peace then journalists, as any other citizen, have a duty to disperse if asked to do so.
9. Journalists should not park their vehicles in a way that will obstruct other traffic or hamper emergency vehicles or officers carrying out their lawful duty.
These guidelines have been sanctioned by Chief Constable Steve Green and the National Union of Journalists.
*****
Collected links about it all:
Photographer is arrested taking pictures of police
Press Gazette
Thursday, 6 April 2006
By Dominic Ponsford
http://uk.pressgazette.co.uk/article/060406/photographer_is_arrested_taking_pictures_of_police
Met sets new press guidelines
British Journal of Photography
Date: 5 April 2006
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=323654
Press V the police: case adjourned
British Journal of Photography
Date: 10 May 2006
Defend the Nottingham One!
NUJ Freelance May 2006
http://media.gn.apc.org/fl/0605tash.html?i=flindex&d=2006_05
NUJ backs photographer in press freedom case
National Union of Journalists
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1260
Journalists and police draw up new crime scene guidelines
Hold the Front Page
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2006/02feb/060220pol.shtml
My terrorism act - Guardian [Friday April 28, 2006]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1763728,00.html
Date set for photographer police 'obstruction' trial
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1346
Photographer faces trial for snapping police - Press Gazette
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/?t=article&l=photographer_alan_lodge_trial_police_nuj_journalist
EP-UK Trial set for Nottingham photographer
http://www.epuk.org/news/2006/05/lodgetrialset.html
*****
Nottingham photographer arrested by armed officers
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/03/336778.html
Indymedia photographer arrested by armed officers [feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/03/337223.html
World Press Freedom Day 3 May
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/05/339644.html
>>>>
The story has developed further, because now the MET Police, City of London Police and the British Transport Police, have all followed the model of the work done by us, here in Nottinghamshire
EPUK - News - New Police Guidelines agreed
http://www.epuk.org/news/2006/03/guidelines2.html
NUJ Freelance - NUJ Met police guidelines
http://www.londonfreelance.org/photo/guidelines.html
NUJ Freelance Apr06 - Police agree on 'media duty'
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0604met.html
NUJ Freelance May06 Doing our job [with Brian Paddick, Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the MET]
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0605hoc.html
Metropolitan Police policy on relations with the media
http://www.met.police.uk/media
*****
The following guidelines have been agreed - so far - by the Metropolitan Police, City of London Police and British Transport Police.
Guidelines for Metropolitan Police Service staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews
I believe - and many of you believe - that a key factor in the way we work is how we treat one another and the members of the public with whom we come into contact. - Ian Blair, Commissioner
We will build trust by listening and responding. Be accessible and approachable. Build relationships. Encourage others to challenge and get involved.' - Met statement Our values
Members of the media are not only members of the public; they can influence the way the Metropolitan Police Service is portrayed. It is important that we build good relationships with them, even when the circumstances are difficult. They have a duty to report many of those things that we have to deal with - crime, demonstrations, accidents, major events and incidents. This guide is designed to help you take the appropriate action when you have to deal with members of the media.
1. Members of the media have a duty to report from the scene of many of the incidents we have to deal with. We should actively help them carry out their responsibilities provided they do not interfere with ours.
2. Where it is necessary to put cordons in place, it is much better to provide the media with a good vantage point from which they can operate rather than to exclude them, otherwise they may try to get around the cordons and interfere with police operations. Providing an area for members of the media does not exclude them from operating from other areas to which the general public have access.
3. Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.
4. If someone who is distressed or bereaved asks for police to intervene to prevent members of the media filming or photographing them, we may pass on their request but we have no power to prevent or restrict media activity. If they are trespassing on private property, the person who owns or controls the premises may eject them and may ask for your help in preventing a breach of the peace while they do so. The media have their own rules of conduct and complaints procedures if members of the public object.
5. To help you identify genuine members of the media, they carry identification, which they will produce to you on request. An example of the UK Press Card is shown [on the paper guidelines].
6. Members of the media do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places.
7. To enter private property while accompanying police, the media must obtain permission, which must be recorded, from the person who owns or is in control the premises. We cannot give or deny permission to members of the media to enter private premises whether the premises are directly involved in the police operation or not. This is a matter between the person who owns or is in control the premises and the members of the media.
8. Giving members of the media access to incident scenes is a matter for the Senior Investigating Officer. The gathering of evidence and forensic retrieval make access unlikely in the early stages and this should be explained to members of the media. Requests for access should be passed to the Senior Investigating Officer who should allow access in appropriate cases as soon as practicable.
9. Advice and assistance in dealing with members of the media is available 24 hours a day via the Press Bureau at New Scotland Yard.
See the story announcing them
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0604met.html
the subsequent London Freelance Branch debate at the House of Commons.
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0605hoc.html
*****
Thus, if the wheels have come off in Notts, at the first test, we wonder about the sincerity of police, in thier wider adoption.
The story [can only] continue.
____________________________________________
ALAN LODGE
Photographer - Media: One Eye on the Road. Nottingham. UK
Email:
tash@gn.apc.org
Web: http://tash.gn.apc.org
WAP phone http://wappy.to/tash
My Blog http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com
BroadBand http://tash.dns2go.com
Member of the National Union of Journalists [No: 014345]
____________________________________________
"It is not enough to curse the darkness.
It is also necessary to light a lamp!!"
____________________________________________
OS Grid Ref: SK 575414 - Lat/Lon: 52:58:03N, 1:08:38W
On Saturday 18th March, photographer and Indymedia contributor Alan Lodge - or Tash - was arrested after taking photos of armed police in public. Tash continued to deny the charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer at Nottingham Magistrates Court on Tuesday the 23rd May. Defending solicitor Paul Dhami told the court: "The officers took exception to his presence, and one took it upon himself to physically impede Tash and then arrested him." The arrest came only weeks after Nottingham police issued guidelines to their officers reminding them to respect journalists' rights. A trial date has now been set for the 17th October.
News Release - 23 May 2006
A trial date has been set for a Nottingham photographer, who is accused of obstructing a police officer while doing his job.
Alan Lodge - a freelance photographer and NUJ member - appeared before Nottingham Magistrates today for a pre-trial review.
Paul Dhami, of Thompson's Solicitors, outlined the facts of the case to the bench. "Mister Lodge was taking photographs of a police armed response unit on Alfred Street, Nottingham, on Saturday 18th March. He was arrested firstly for assault, then de-arrested. He was then arrested and de-arrested for breach of the peace, before finally being arrested and later charged with obstruction."
The defence centres around new Media Guidelines, agreed between the Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police - Steve Green - and the NUJ, earlier this year. During the incident, Mister Lodge's equipment and memory card were confiscated. Yet the guidelines clearly state that police officers have no right to seize such equipment simply because somebody is taking photographs.
Mister Dhami told the court that he would be frequently referring to the guidelines during the trial, and that he intended to question the arresting officer about why the guideline were ignored.
The Court set a trial date for 17th October before Nottingham Magistrates and adjourned the case. Mister Lodge was given unconditional bail.
*****
These are the guidelines, previousdly agreed, referred to above.......
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE
GUIDELINES FOR THE POLICE AND MEDIA AT INCIDENTS
*****
1. The media has a legitimate role to play in informing the public and they will attend the scene of incidents. The presence of a photographer or reporter at an incident does not of itself constitute any unlawful obstruction or interference.
2. Journalists need to collect information about an incident as quickly as possible. Some of this information may seem irrelevant, unimportant or improper to an officer. However, as long as the journalist does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, the police officer should not impede the reporter. Journalists who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender.
3. A crime scene remains closed to the media whilst evidence is being gathered and detailed forensic examinations take place. The reasons for denial of access should be explained to the journalist and access granted as soon as possible with permission from the Senior Investigating Officer.
4. Journalists have the right to photograph and report events that occur on public property. The police may invite journalists on to private property where an event of public interest has occurred and they have the permission of the owner. They should enter peacefully and not cause any physical damage or attempt to alter any details for photographic purposes. The rights of an owner of private property should be respected and may lead to journalists being asked to leave. If the owner of the property does not give permission then any attempt to gain access would be trespass.
5. Any journalist should be able to show relevant media identification if asked. At the scene of an incident this identification should be visible at all times.
6. Police officers should not restrict journalists from taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the journalist's purpose. It is not a police officer's role to be the arbiter of good taste and decency. It is an editor's role to decide what to use.
7. Police officers do not have the authority to prevent a person taking a photograph or to confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or disciplinary action.
8. In the event of a distressed or bereaved individual making a specific request for the media to leave them in peace the officer should pass this information on to the journalist. However, this is advice on which journalists and their editors must base their own decisions. If the situation becomes an identifiable Breach of the Peace then journalists, as any other citizen, have a duty to disperse if asked to do so.
9. Journalists should not park their vehicles in a way that will obstruct other traffic or hamper emergency vehicles or officers carrying out their lawful duty.
These guidelines have been sanctioned by Chief Constable Steve Green and the National Union of Journalists.
*****
Collected links about it all:
Photographer is arrested taking pictures of police
Press Gazette
Thursday, 6 April 2006
By Dominic Ponsford
http://uk.pressgazette.co.uk/article/060406/photographer_is_arrested_taking_pictures_of_police Met sets new press guidelines
British Journal of Photography
Date: 5 April 2006
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=323654 Press V the police: case adjourned
British Journal of Photography
Date: 10 May 2006
Defend the Nottingham One!
NUJ Freelance May 2006
http://media.gn.apc.org/fl/0605tash.html?i=flindex&d=2006_05 NUJ backs photographer in press freedom case
National Union of Journalists
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1260 Journalists and police draw up new crime scene guidelines
Hold the Front Page
http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/news/2006/02feb/060220pol.shtml My terrorism act - Guardian [Friday April 28, 2006]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,,1763728,00.html Date set for photographer police 'obstruction' trial
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=1346 Photographer faces trial for snapping police - Press Gazette
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/?t=article&l=photographer_alan_lodge_trial_police_nuj_journalist EP-UK Trial set for Nottingham photographer
http://www.epuk.org/news/2006/05/lodgetrialset.html *****
Nottingham photographer arrested by armed officers
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/03/336778.html Indymedia photographer arrested by armed officers [feature]
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/03/337223.html World Press Freedom Day 3 May
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/nottinghamshire/2006/05/339644.html >>>>
The story has developed further, because now the MET Police, City of London Police and the British Transport Police, have all followed the model of the work done by us, here in Nottinghamshire
EPUK - News - New Police Guidelines agreed
http://www.epuk.org/news/2006/03/guidelines2.html NUJ Freelance - NUJ Met police guidelines
http://www.londonfreelance.org/photo/guidelines.html NUJ Freelance Apr06 - Police agree on 'media duty'
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0604met.html NUJ Freelance May06 Doing our job [with Brian Paddick, Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the MET]
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0605hoc.html Metropolitan Police policy on relations with the media
http://www.met.police.uk/media *****
The following guidelines have been agreed - so far - by the Metropolitan Police, City of London Police and British Transport Police.
Guidelines for Metropolitan Police Service staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews
I believe - and many of you believe - that a key factor in the way we work is how we treat one another and the members of the public with whom we come into contact. - Ian Blair, Commissioner
We will build trust by listening and responding. Be accessible and approachable. Build relationships. Encourage others to challenge and get involved.' - Met statement Our values
Members of the media are not only members of the public; they can influence the way the Metropolitan Police Service is portrayed. It is important that we build good relationships with them, even when the circumstances are difficult. They have a duty to report many of those things that we have to deal with - crime, demonstrations, accidents, major events and incidents. This guide is designed to help you take the appropriate action when you have to deal with members of the media.
1. Members of the media have a duty to report from the scene of many of the incidents we have to deal with. We should actively help them carry out their responsibilities provided they do not interfere with ours.
2. Where it is necessary to put cordons in place, it is much better to provide the media with a good vantage point from which they can operate rather than to exclude them, otherwise they may try to get around the cordons and interfere with police operations. Providing an area for members of the media does not exclude them from operating from other areas to which the general public have access.
3. Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for their editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police. Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.
4. If someone who is distressed or bereaved asks for police to intervene to prevent members of the media filming or photographing them, we may pass on their request but we have no power to prevent or restrict media activity. If they are trespassing on private property, the person who owns or controls the premises may eject them and may ask for your help in preventing a breach of the peace while they do so. The media have their own rules of conduct and complaints procedures if members of the public object.
5. To help you identify genuine members of the media, they carry identification, which they will produce to you on request. An example of the UK Press Card is shown [on the paper guidelines].
6. Members of the media do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places.
7. To enter private property while accompanying police, the media must obtain permission, which must be recorded, from the person who owns or is in control the premises. We cannot give or deny permission to members of the media to enter private premises whether the premises are directly involved in the police operation or not. This is a matter between the person who owns or is in control the premises and the members of the media.
8. Giving members of the media access to incident scenes is a matter for the Senior Investigating Officer. The gathering of evidence and forensic retrieval make access unlikely in the early stages and this should be explained to members of the media. Requests for access should be passed to the Senior Investigating Officer who should allow access in appropriate cases as soon as practicable.
9. Advice and assistance in dealing with members of the media is available 24 hours a day via the Press Bureau at New Scotland Yard.
See the story announcing them
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0604met.html the subsequent London Freelance Branch debate at the House of Commons.
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0605hoc.html *****
Thus, if the wheels have come off in Notts, at the first test, we wonder about the sincerity of police, in thier wider adoption.
The story [can only] continue.
____________________________________________
ALAN LODGE
Photographer - Media: One Eye on the Road. Nottingham. UK
Email:
tash@gn.apc.org Web:
http://tash.gn.apc.org WAP phone
http://wappy.to/tash My Blog
http://tash_lodge.blogspot.com BroadBand
http://tash.dns2go.com Member of the National Union of Journalists [No: 014345]
____________________________________________
"It is not enough to curse the darkness.
It is also necessary to light a lamp!!"
____________________________________________
OS Grid Ref: SK 575414 - Lat/Lon: 52:58:03N, 1:08:38W
Tash [alan lodge]
e-mail:
tash@indymedia.org
Homepage:
http://tash.gn.apc.org
Comments
Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments
Make a documentary about Blair's camera ban for Internet distribution
27.05.2006 01:46
Even though Blair spies on the UK populace with more cameras than any other place on planet Earth, for a normal citizen to attempt to use a camera at ANY moment Blair doesn't approve is an invitation to Blair's uniformed thugs to hand out a 'kicking'.
Here's a question. Did the people of Germany fail to reign in their monster Hitler, and his nazi goons, by not protesting enough in court every time the nazis stuck the 'boot-in' ('legal' or physical). It is a STUPID question, for once Hitler owned the courts, and ALL security services, these forces were NEVER going to work on behalf of the ordinary person, regardless of how many written laws Hitler was offending.
In the UK, Blair's New Reich control ever aspect of the legal system, from thug on the beat all the way to thug in the Lords. Playing 'Oliver Twist' with 'the Beagle' is going to provide no more lasting success than it did with that fictional child.
Blair's uniformed thugs know there is no likely punishment for any crime they may be involved in, so long as it carried out in the name of their master. This now includes rape, torture, and murder, although acts as extreme as these, as yet, still require a large amount of discretion (not for long). Taking out those that attempt to use cameras is child's play in comparison.
When Hitler's uniformed thugs took out one of their master's potential enemies, they would (in Germany, if not in the occupied territories) mouth some legal sounding excuse to the nazi magistrate, so that they could have their friends in other lands boast about Hitler's adherance to the rules of law. Israeli butchers, likewise, are always careful to state the legal reasons that allowed them to pump dozens of rounds of automatic gunfire into the chest of a 7-year-old girl (of non-'master-race' extraction, of course) so that the Israeli judge can smirkingly declare, "no case to answer".
In other words, the presence of so-called police, the existence of written laws, and the availability of a court-system NEVER EVER EVER PROVIDES JUSTICE WHEN A MONSTER LIKE HITLER OR BLAIR IS IN POWER.
Justice is not a fact of nature, or an automatic by-product of the visible mechanisms of law. Justice is that thing we have when the people of a land have enough power AND responsibility to create the circumstances that allow the application of a fair and moral system of rules equally to everyone, for the good of everyone that accepts the benefit of such a system (ie., not the criminals).
What we have in the UK is naked raw power. It does not matter that occassionally, when it doesn't matter to Blair one way or the other, his courts are allowed to pretend a version of justice. The self-same thing went on in Hitler's Germany until the day of his death. What matters is whether justice exists when we NEED to depend on it. The answer to this question is NO, JUSTICE DOES ***NOT*** EXIST WE WE NEED TO DEPEND ON IT.
There is no worthwhile battle that can be won in the UK courts against Blair. It is about time that people woke up to this fact (go read some history books, people, and see how these things work).
Of course, one CAN work to show that justice has died, and do this by exposing the criminal acts of Blair's uniformed thugs, and the courts that protect them. However, who listens to such evidence?
I said it to the Animal Rights article, and I'll say it here. Look at the success of 'Loose Change'. Take every brutal scummy act of the UK police force, and turn the footage and commentary into an easy to view documentary. Don't fuzz out the faces of the uniformed thugs, they are legally responsible for anything they do in uniform. Let the world KNOW that Blair spies on us with the most extensive network of cameras in the world, but when we attempt to openly use our cameras, Blair's fist comes crashing down.
The best way to get footage is to anticipate the thugs, and have a second camera record the state thugs' response to the legal actions of the first cameraperson.
REMEMBER, a documentary speaks a thousand written articles, especially when those articles go on as long as the article above (or indeed, as long as the comments *I* write). Video has exploded on the Net in these last few months. Today, you don't have to be a fat idiot stooge (go check the background of his 'agent') to make documentaries that will be seen by hundreds of thousands, and maybe millions.
Blair can yet be hurt, but NEVER in his courts. There is a good reason that the past is replete with biting satirical cartoons, and brave outspoken pamphlets. Today's equivalent is NOT a written article or picture on the net, for such a thing is usually too passive, or lost in the noise. NO, video is today's equivalent to the propaganda produced by successful political activists of the past.
BTW, a documentary is NOT a piece of raw footage, no matter how interesting to those of us that care about an event. Editing, presentation, and voice-overs DO matter.
twilight
Why was my comment given the 'Ministry of Truth' treatment?
27.05.2006 18:43
Now YOU tell people to believe in the system, even as you pretend to criticise it. The greatest crime I can commit is to point out to people that the system you defend is already lost, and that the readers need to work afresh to recreate evrything they once cherished.
Documentaries like 'Loose Change' do change the world (insofar as the ordinary person can strike back at a time when all seems lost). The Internet gives activists access to propaganda tools that may actually be MORE powerful than those employed by Blair, if only people would use the tools they have access to.
So I say "The legal system in its entirety is lost to you", and I say "start using the Net to distribute your own well made Propaganda material exposing this fact" and you, the CAREFULLY placed gatekeepers of Indymedia UK go ballistic. Now you have a problem, though. You gatekeep Indymedia when you can, but too many of the others are genuine, aren't they. Well, never mind, you have access to some 'big brains' (snigger) who will happily go through my words, and try to give you a plausible excuse.
Your 'highlighted story' mechanism is starting to show its downside, isn't it. Make a story 'official' and all kinds of consequences flow. Would the BBC or ITN allow viewers such as myself to comment on their propaganda in a form immediately available to all their viewers? I think not. Would Murdoch? And here you are, desperate to give yourselves the same advantages, but hamstrung by the pretence of what Indymedia UK is about. (Best shown by comments from your REAL supporters saying things like 'can we stop the Blair bashing and get back to our true agenda').
I was struck by a site comment on 'Whatreallyhappened' speaking directly to the US agents tasked daily to read his words, and track his choices of stories and links. He spoke hopefully that perhaps those agents could choose to understand for themselves the disaster that would befall the US if the 'patriots' failed, and the warmongers got their way. Of course, YOU know that is naive in the extreme. Only some servants are blind. Others have a greater enthusiasm for their masters plan than even the master himself (especially whenthe masters true intentions are well beyond the understanding of the servant).
The censor, of course, is easily proven to be the most evil person encountered by ordinary people, when ordinary people have the misfortune to live in a time when they have no choice but to fight in every way merely to stay alive. Powerful people suffer no censorship, even though THEIR words reach not tens, or hundreds, but MILLIONS or HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS. It might seem ironic that the more powerful one becomes, the more humans one can talk to with one action, with no censorship at all.
Meanwhile, Indymedia UK, pretending to be a place where individual activists can attempt to spread the message, imposes a level of censorship SPECIFICALLY designed to identify and suppress voices that would threaten the establishment in any real way.
You are getting more and more careless though. Your pretended reasons for censoring are broken all the time, with racist posts, and posts clearly advocating violence, from some of your regulars (which, of course, is why you let them through). Mind you, the 'agent provocateur' method is exploding in the UK and the US, and you DO so like to think you are doing your bit, don't you.
But a person who says "anticipate the violence of the state, and thus lawfully trigger this violence, so that it can be filmed and shown to people across the world" states an idea that has you screaming THIS IS THE ONE THING WE ***CANNOT*** ALLOW TO BE PROMOTED HERE. Effective 'legal' action against Blair using the tools that Blair uses against us (the 'us' that excludes 'you' of course).
Of course, when you sell the censorship of my words to those that work within the organisation, but don't have YOUR affiliation, you are talking with people whose last instinct is to censor other powerful voices on the same side. That requires a bit of psychology, doesn't it. But you know that some people have very 'fragile' egos, and a little bit of 'clash of the alphas' can persuade people that know better to give in to your 'siren' words.
To those of you within Indymedia that are genuine (and I have no reason to think that you aren't the majority) consider this: I earlier pointed out that those within the anti-war movement that carefully work to get themselves into positions of 'authority' and then use that 'authority' to make rules for the rest, banning things like graphic images of Blair's WAR CRIMES, reveal themselves to be Blair's agents. It does not matter what arguments they put forward for their policies. Their job is to infiltrate, control, and direct action to be as ineffective as possible.
The same happens with censorship here. Those that argue that words such as mine are dangerous, subversive, divisive, or whatever other psyop crap they have been trained to say, reveal themselves for what they are. Their job is to ensure that Indymedia UK is a HONEYPOT, DISTRACTION, or SAFE SPONGE to harmlessly soak up political energy that might otherwise think, organise, and fight Blair with an evolving stategy that becomes ever more powerful and effective.
Because this is the UK, their biggest weapon is the fragile nature of the egos of those that would fight to make the UK a decent country again. Ironically, they will point out that certain people have 'affiliation' to Israel, and that these 'sensitive' souls require that all passion and emotion are sucked out of stories covering Israeli atrocities, lest they feel that people are being 'racist' toward them (we call this a 'guilt trip' tactic). However, better is the old 'look, he's speaking LOUDER than you, and you don't want that now, do you'.
The price of failure when it comes to defeating Blair is the highest imaginable. When the legal system smashes a person who thought they were fighting reasonably on the side of justice, that person becomes nothing more than a fallen comrade, and no amount of fine words from those that haven't suffered will remove the pain. However, those that 'appear' to lead will simply encourage another (never themselves) to volunteer to be the next 'cannon fodder'.
There are ways to win, people, but they do not include throwing yourselves under the hooves of the cavalry, or into the blades of a mincing machine. Those that encourage you to do this, telling you that they will give you a hero's funeral, are not your friends, or even people that follow the same cause as you.
twilight
Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments