Skip to content or view screen version

Mainstream media hand over unbroadcast riot footage to cops

fitwatcher | 22.09.2011 16:02 | August Riots | Repression


Due to a court order taken out by the cops, the BBC, ITN and Sky News have handed over unbroadcast video footage to officers investigating the nights of looting and rioting that exploded in major English cities for several nights in August. This is apparently entirely legal - footage doesn't have to be broadcast for the cops to reprimand it.

Consider every corp media lens a FIT lens. No access for the big cameras unless you want it going straight to the cop surveillance dept.

fitwatcher

Comments

Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments

Corp media

22.09.2011 16:42

And they wonder why they get their cameras smashed.

Anarchist


Bad move...

22.09.2011 18:00

This is going to make every media person and especially those with cameras a major target in any future unrest.

No wonder they are reluctant to hand it over and will only do so with a court order. What happened to journalists protecting their sources? Rioters were certainly a source for their stories here.

anon


Don't forget the so-called 'independent media activists' either

22.09.2011 18:23

Although I'm not sure why they describe themselves as activists - they don't really do much for social change apart from 'documenting' activism.

Beware though, anyone claiming to be kosher cos they aren't 'corporate media'. They can easily infiltrate and 'document' your activities. Don't trust anyone prepared to photograph or document your actions. Keep your ego at bay too, and resist documenting yourselves and putting it on social networking sites or even here.

See you on the streets and fuck Web 2.0!

logic


help us to help you

22.09.2011 19:27

Even your best mates camera can be ceased by the filth! So the sensible thing to do is invest in a plain black hoodie, black jeans and black boots and ware them as a part of your normal every day life, in solidarity and practical support with those who wish to remain anonymous to the state.

Anarchist photographer


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

rioting scum

22.09.2011 21:12

no one likes you - so fuck off with what you want.

notice how nobody over 40 is a rioters. Maybe even 30.
Its because all the old skool rioters grew up and got a job and family

you're be the same. So quit it and just got on with your life and stop being like angry children

angsty


Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

good stuff

23.09.2011 09:32

>> And they wonder why they get their cameras smashed.
And then you wonder why the police want to arrest you?

>> This is going to make every media person and especially those with cameras a major target in any future unrest.
At least we now know the ground rules then. If i'm a target, then you are now also a target.

>> No wonder they are reluctant to hand it over and will only do so with a court order. What happened to journalists protecting their sources? Rioters were certainly a source for their stories here.
They are 'relunctant' simple because there is nothing for them to gain in doing so. Hence - why should they? There is no incentive.

>> Don't forget the so-called 'independent media activists' either
If you make them a target, then they will make you a target.

>> Although I'm not sure why they describe themselves as activists - they don't really do much for social change apart from 'documenting' activism.
Neither do you. Your effeciency in making social change is almost 0%

>> Beware though, anyone claiming to be kosher cos they aren't 'corporate media'. They can easily infiltrate and 'document' your activities. Don't trust anyone prepared to photograph or document your actions. Keep your ego at bay too, and resist documenting yourselves and putting it on social networking sites or even here.

Will never happen. People do this dress in black and smash shit up purely for ego reasons because it is cool to dress like a ninja. Doubt you'll see these knobs helping an old lady do her shopping or actually something useful and constructive.

>> See you on the streets and fuck Web 2.0!
Doubt it. Web2.0 is way bigger than you.

>> Even your best mates camera can be ceased by the filth! So the sensible thing to do is invest in a plain black hoodie, black jeans and black boots and ware them as a part of your normal every day life, in solidarity and practical support with those who wish to remain anonymous to the state.
Yeah, like that will ever get you a job. The unemployable telling the providers what they can and cant do! lol... dumb

anarchist


agreed

23.09.2011 11:15

Yes we should all have our fingertips chopped off and all DNA surgically removed too, in solidarity with Dr Heiser from the Human Centipede.

fw


Disinformation and disruption.

23.09.2011 13:43

"Beware though, anyone claiming to be kosher cos they aren't 'corporate media'. They can easily infiltrate and 'document' your activities. Don't trust anyone prepared to photograph or document your actions. Keep your ego at bay too, and resist documenting yourselves and putting it on social networking sites or even here."

So let me get this right.

A statist entity, the BBC, hand over footage it has collected of rioting by demand from a statist entity, the courts, at the behest of a statist entity, the police, and this means, according to you, that all journalists including the independent media, are now targets.

I would imagine that the BBC, the courts and the police, collectively, are very pleased with your comments. In fact I would imagine they consider your comments 'job done'.

I am an independent journalist and consider that anybody that attempts to undermine my work to be an agent of the state, and by default, worthy of documentation. Especially those who define their logic by using words like 'kosher'.

But of course, this is all academic. Those who aim to disrupt and sow disinformation only do so because they have no legitimacy. Dishonesty is the credo of those who have no power.

Independent Journalist.


Ahaaa.

23.09.2011 14:24

"Although I'm not sure why they describe themselves as activists - they don't really do much for social change apart from 'documenting' activism."

That's a bit like saying you don't understand why somebody might call themselves a paramedic, because all they do is drive an ambulance.

I know Indymedia gets exposed to a lot of disruption by the police but jeeeees, this one sounds like he's on work experience from police college!!!!!!

indy-snapper


Independent journalists

23.09.2011 16:43

There are many independent journalists, with no sense of security culture, who act as if their footage is more important than whether someone will go to prison as a result of it. It's really arrogant and it's really not on.

Kia


@Independent Journalist

23.09.2011 17:09

How do we distinguish you from a BBC camera person though?

And what if you get stopped by the police and your camera confiscated as "evidence"?

Or if they come to your house and take your hard drive for "evidence". Are all your images stored encrypted? Are you prepared to go to jail for refusing to hand over the key? Would you hand over images if you got a court order?

Sorry, but like it or not, if the courts are going to compel journalists to hand over their footage, ALL journalists photographing people breaking the law or in the vicinity of lawbreaking will become a target. Even if you are extremely careful and your ideology is the best thing since sliced bread.

The morality of this is irrelevant, people will do it out of basic self-defence against being incriminated.

anon


morality is the issue

23.09.2011 19:43

hi, a few issues I thought I could assist on:

"There are many independent journalists, with no sense of security culture, who act as if their footage is more important than whether someone will go to prison as a result of it. It's really arrogant and it's really not on."
-- It depends if they are doing something illegal. I mean, if you got someone smashing up a shop and that footage helps to id them, isn't that a good thing?


"How do we distinguish you from a BBC camera person though?"
-- i think all the BBC employees will have ID and would show them if required.


"And what if you get stopped by the police and your camera confiscated as "evidence"? "
-- I don't think this has happened. But I'm sure you'd get the camera back.

"Or if they come to your house and take your hard drive for "evidence". Are all your images stored encrypted? Are you prepared to go to jail for refusing to hand over the key? Would you hand over images if you got a court order?"
-- I think most people would. It would be illegal not to.

"Sorry, but like it or not, if the courts are going to compel journalists to hand over their footage, ALL journalists photographing people breaking the law or in the vicinity of lawbreaking will become a target. Even if you are extremely careful and your ideology is the best thing since sliced bread. "
-- I would imagine that after a few attacks, the reporters would get wise and assist in the getting the attackers caught where possible.


"The morality of this is irrelevant, people will do it out of basic self-defence against being incriminated."
-- It really comes down to a self-defence on defending ourselves against property damage. If a hooded youth starts smashing up my bike, then I have the moral right to defend myself and my property. If they don't want to be incriminated, then don't attack people!

tyrone


Hmmmm.

23.09.2011 19:47

"There are many independent journalists, with no sense of security culture, who act as if their footage is more important than whether someone will go to prison as a result of it. It's really arrogant and it's really not on."

Having been an independent journalist for 12 years in this country and abroad. Believe me, my security culture is certainly far superior than yours. Its been honed to perfection.

"Sorry, but like it or not, if the courts are going to compel journalists to hand over their footage, ALL journalists photographing people breaking the law or in the vicinity of lawbreaking will become a target. Even if you are extremely careful and your ideology is the best thing since sliced bread."

I've been compelled on many occasions over the years by the police to do one thing or another, and on every occasion its all come to nought.

"The morality of this is irrelevant, people will do it out of basic self-defence against being incriminated."

I think people will make up their own minds on this. Your wasting your time!

Independent Journalist.


hold on a minute

24.09.2011 07:38

Independent Journalist, if you are really the superhuman of security that you claim to be then my full respect to you. However you are but one person, and the vast majority of indi journos will happily stick incriminating photography up on the web if it's an aesthetically good photo or if it helps the general campaign message at the expense of the campaigners' liberty. And they do all this without the permission of those they're incriminating.

To be honest, in such a massive surveillance state and with your image clocked by the state a ludicrous number of times every day, and with new technology being introduced to allow a computer to identify you by your face, even if I'm NOT doing something incriminating I don't want some stranger taking and uploading pictures of me. Say you take an entirely non-incriminating pic of someone and 10 minutes later they do something that could put them in prison for a long time. You've documented that person's clothes, proximity, everything.

Examples always help:

 http://photo.climatecamp.org.uk/rbscamp/five/source/rbs_sunday_invasion_6447.html

That photo went up with full climate camp media exposure within minutes of the event. As you can see, even with everyone attempting to mask up and dress identically, in the heat of the moment identities are revealed and that photo could easily have been used evidentially to prove several people were within that police cordon. Several people were later arrested from within that cordon. I wasn't involved but had I been, I'd have been so fucking livid at the prioritising of a cool action photo being publicised over the legal protection of people sticking their necks out for a cause.

So if you really are up on the security and consider all this then fantastic. But I find that hard to believe, purely because someone that up on their security culture wouldn't react so angrily to people who are frustrated by the lack of decency most indy journos have. You've twice attempted to shout people down for being pissy that indy journos regularly incriminate the people they're supposedly trying to help. If you really were that security conscious I'd expect you to agree with the pissyness. Moreover you're commenting anonymously so it's not like you're defending your personal reputation. You're defending the rep of indy journos in general.

CS


re: Your wasting your time!

24.09.2011 11:35

@Independent Journalist
"Your wasting your time!"

Gawd, I hope you're not a print journalist, with grammar like that!

@tyrone
"It really comes down to a self-defence on defending ourselves against property damage. If a hooded youth starts smashing up my bike, then I have the moral right to defend myself and my property. If they don't want to be incriminated, then don't attack people!"

And you really think someone smashing up your bike will stop when you present them with this argument, and say, "yes, you're quite right, carry on taking photos of me"? No, they are going to try to take your camera off you and run off with it or smash it (though - pro-tip - just smashing it probably won't destroy any existing images).

THAT is what I mean by morality is irrelevant to this point. Obviously morality is important in a wider sense.

Someone whose morality is fine with rioting is almost certainly going to be alright with attacking nosy journalists taking photos of them. I'm not sure how I can explain this point in any simpler terms. I'm making no comment about whether this is right or wrong, just that it will happen.

anon


think it through

25.09.2011 23:24

>> And you really think someone smashing up your bike will stop when you present them with this argument, and say, "yes, you're quite right, carry on taking photos of me"? No, they are going to try to take your camera off you and run off with it or smash it (though - pro-tip - just smashing it probably won't destroy any existing images).

And this will mean that photographers will hate these people and go out of their way to take photos and identify these scum. If someone smashed my £2000 of kit, i'd smash their face in and then claim back on insurance.

>> THAT is what I mean by morality is irrelevant to this point. Obviously morality is important in a wider sense.
Not irrelevant as you have clearly forgotten the cause & effect. Ie.... the morality means that the smasher will get their head kicked in. Cause and effect.

>> Someone whose morality is fine with rioting is almost certainly going to be alright with attacking nosy journalists taking photos of them.
And someone who are not fine with people who smash people's property up will be alright with taking pictures of scumbags to id them.

>> I'm not sure how I can explain this point in any simpler terms. I'm making no comment about whether this is right or wrong, just that it will happen.
Yes i agree - it will just happen. We will see phototog kicking the shit out of black clad youths.... because most of these anarchists weigh about 9.5stone and have no muscle of them.

Tyrone


Tyrone wins an award

26.09.2011 13:36

Quote Tyrone : "We will see phototog kicking the shit out of black clad youths"

You win the moron award for the most revealing statement on IMC UK for some time.

Clap clap

moron patrol


Political activism.

26.09.2011 19:27

As an Indymedia contributor, I'll always take the view that Indymedia represents a non-heirarchical mind-set that works tirelessly for an end to this highly antagonistic and troublesome competition between the mainstream politika's, and I along with many others here, will work hard to expose them and their methods.

Indymedia photographers DO NOT beat people up in the streets, we DO NOT advocate the use of violence and we DO NOT take sides on either the left or the right. We are not usually challenged on the streets accept by those who have an agenda and wish to remain hidden from view, despite claiming they represent the people and the majority view.

The comments appearing after this article have clearly been intended as a veilled threat against Indymedia contributors and for that reason I'm going to identify them as the work of militant Labour Party activists.

Judging by the comments made by union leaders after today's Labour Party conference after Ed Ball's speech, in which a Labour Party activist threatened to call for hospitals to be occupied, it seems clear that the comments following this article are the work of the Labour Party.

IMC


@Tyrone

27.09.2011 17:17

Apart from your "internet hard man" attitude, I think you're getting it. What you are saying will happen is exactly what I'm predicting, so we in fact agree!: Escalating conflict between media and rioters/protesters.

We can speculate as to who will come off worse, but I'm glad you at last see my point.

Remember a lot of rioters are hardened crims rather than the intellectual anarchists you fantasize about...

anon


choosing to be a shrimp or not

28.09.2011 11:15

"Apart from your "internet hard man" attitude, I think you're getting it. What you are saying will happen is exactly what I'm predicting, so we in fact agree!: Escalating conflict between media and rioters/protesters."
lol! whatever. Possibly. I think the difference is that the media are doing something that they are lawfully entitled to do, whereas the rioters are not.

"We can speculate as to who will come off worse, but I'm glad you at last see my point. "
Arguments appear to be around the fact that people seem to think that criminals should be allowed to tell law-abiding people what they can and can't do in public. This is of course ridiculous and cannot be tolerated.

"Remember a lot of rioters are hardened crims rather than the intellectual anarchists you fantasize about..."

Civilised society is just an agreement between people on how to behave towards one another. At anytime that can collapse and turn into a punch up or worse. I dont care how "hardened crim" people are, people have a choice of being a cowardly shrimp like that guy in the photo below, or they can stand up to the intimidation and fight back.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024001/UK-riots-2011-London-Birmingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html

My view is that it is the responsibility of every individual to look after themselves. That means many things that all fall under the category of being self sufficient. In this case it means getting down the gym and making sure you can defend yourself when someone decides to break the rules of civilised society and try to stop you doing something you are lawfully entitled to do.

Considering i've put a lot of hardwork into being able to overhead squat my own bodyweight + change, I don't see why I should run away like that shrimp in the photo handing over his clothes, when i can put up a decent fight instead.

tyrone


still failing to understand my point

28.09.2011 12:44

We're getting there, but you are still failing to understand my point.

I'm not even discussing morality or right and wrong, I'm saying nothing about whether rioting is right or wrong.

I'm purely making a factual prediction about what will be more likely to happen.

And you can "overhead squat my own bodyweight" all you want but if you are faced with a large gang of people, or someone armed with a knife or a gun, that's not going to help very much. I wouldn't criticise the person in the photo unless you know the full facts of what was going on.

I appreciate you have anarchist ideals like self-sufficiency, but "civilised society" isn't an equal agreement - it's designed by the rich for the rich - you don't often see bankers and politicians locked up for long stretches for their anti-social behaviour.

anon


oh my freakin god

29.09.2011 09:52

jesus christ tyrone are you blind? he's never said you'd be wrong to fight back, you're creating a fight out of nothing.

harry


Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments