Photographing protests in the UK: a guide

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographing-protests.html. See also
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

Please pass around.
ta and good luck.

Scratch that - good news

Like a muppet, I just lamented that there was not much happening. Then I got the Sunday Times and saw some really good news on the front page: Brown to allow Iraq protests!

After corking movie Taking Liberties, the Lone Mass Demonstrations, the Illegal Carol Services, Milan and Maya's attempts to read out the names of the Iraq dead by the Cenotaph, and many other determined attempts to point out that the SOCPA laws which prevented peaceful assembly to protest spontaneously outside the seat of democracy were rubbish and insulting to the voters of this country, we seem to have got somewhere at last.

Although it seems C4 viewers Most Inspiring Political Figure of 2007, Brian Haw and his peace camp is still looked upon askance and it seems that nervous nellies in the Commons need to barricade themselves in lest someone waves a placard too menacingly and goes off on one. ( They should try using public transport like the rest of us if they want a daily scare about who's fizzing with anger so much that they are in danger of self-detonating). Anyway, we read that...

''The restored right to protest outside parliament will be combined with plans to bolster the protection of the Palace of Westminster and key ministries and government buildings along Whitehall. The Sunday Times has seen a memo from Sir Richard Mottram, chairman of the joint intelligence committee, outlining plans to erect barriers, walls, balustrades and bollards around Parliament Square.

Brown believes the right of the public to protest and demonstrate is crucial to democracy, although he is said to be aware of MPs’ concerns that previous noisy demonstrations in Parliament Square have caused an eyesore and distracted workers in nearby buildings. ''

There are also interesting rumours about an inquiry into Iraq, and I am hopeful, after Brown's criticisms of the ISC whose 7/7 report was full of errors and holes, that we might be getting closer to an independent inquiry into 7/7 as well.

If so I will be absolutely overjoyed. I am crossing my fingers about Mr. Brown and am getting quite excited about what he might change for the better. It is very good to have some hope instead of endless cynical anger bordering on despair after all the disappointments of the Blair administration.

C4 and conspiracy theories

I just checked the blog traffic and found a bunch of people coming over from C4 news, not sure how they got here as I can't actually see a link. Hello to you all, anyway. I was out 'til late yesterday , and I forgot to video C4 news last night so I missed it. A researcher from C4 news did call me yesterday afternoon about the report, and ask if I could help - and Darshna Soni, who did the report, talked to me a couple of times about it, once when we met up at the Old Bailey during the Crevice trial ending, and last week. I gave C4 Nafeez Ahmed's details instead, yesterday afternoon, and said he would be a good person to have on the programme.

But I just watched and Nafeez wasn't on, which is a shame. I didn't want to be on, firstly because I am not a Muslim and the programme is about Muslims' views, secondly because it was not directly about the need for an independent inquiry, which is what I specifically campaign about, when asked, with other people directly involved in 7/7, and thirdly because if I worry that I had been on, I would have been deluged with yet more long emails from presumably well-meaning people trying to convert me to their conspiracy theories, which I am totally sick and tired of hearing about, after a year of it. And contrary to a few people's accusations, no, I don't rush off and agree to do every single media approach, and I don't especially like being the one in the spotlight just because I have a blog that's easy to find when you type in keywords. Especially when it brings me unwelcome attention, and when it takes up lots of my free time.

(Re. the various alternative theories about 7/7: I have looked at them all. Yes, all of them. In detail. For over a year. I simply do not find them credible. They are not congruent with the evidence of my own experience, and more importantly, they contradict the evidence I have heard from the police, other credible sources and from many other survivors and eye-witnesses. I am not a fan of the Blair administration, even though I have voted Labour all my life. Yes, I am calling for a 7/7 inquiry, with others affected. But I am not going to go into why I do not believe the conspiracy theories here, again, as that is a red rag to some people's bull.)

You can watch the C4 report here, (and find lots of links to conspiracy theory sites where you can chat about beliefs that the four mass-murderers, MSK, Tanweer, Hussein and Lindsay were all as innocent as new-born lambs, and the Government planted the bombs, with the people who run the websites, if you like that sort of thing. I don't. I used to find it upsetting. Now I find it wearying)

The report covered the prevalence of conspiracy theories and the rising levels of distrust within 'the Muslim community' concerning 7/7 and the Government's anti-terror policies, the breakdown in trust between communities and the Government. A survey of 500 Muslims ( not a massive sample size but reasonable) provided the basis for the report, with Darshna travelling round the UK to talk to some Muslims. Three quarters don't seem to be buying the conspiracy theories, but a worrying 24% do. And as always, it's the minority who get focused on.

It has becoming increasingly clear to me over the last two years that the frequent media hysteria about Muslims, the language used to talk about terrorism, and the disproportionate amount of airtime given to fringe extremists is fanning the flames of paranoia and mistrust and making things worse for us all. I write about this subject often, on this, my personal blog, and I raise my voice in protest, like many other bloggers. I say, again and again, that we should protect civil liberties, that we should avoid stigmatising many because of the actions of a few, that we should not pass hasty draconian laws and that we should treat terrorism as criminal activity, not make 7/7 a special case that necessitates shredding the constitution and causing people to live fearfully. That way anger, alienation, and more violence lies.

I say that a proper inquiry into 7/7 would help to heal these divisions and damp down the wild speculation in which conspiracy theories thrive. And I do not see anything healthy about the growth of the conspiracy theories. How can you work together to solve a problem if you will not even admit that it exists?

It is also obvious to me that the Blair foreign policy has raised the temperature and fuelled the anger (and indeed Blair was warned of this likely consequence before the Iraq invasion in a buried report, Young Muslims and Extremism).

I believe that we need to work together, to heal the divisions and mistrust that are running deep. That means fighting back against the spreading virus of denial and paranoia, which only disempowers people and makes them feel like helpless angry victims. Trying instead to make communication and policies fairer, clearer, more just and transparent and accountable. Looking for common ground. Remembering the majority of people are not convinced by conspiracy theories - that they only want to live and work peaceably together as neighbours and get on with their ordinary lives. But that is not an exciting news story.

I think having an inquiry into 7/7 would be a good way to kickstart the process of healing by opening the debate about why and how home-grown terrorism came at us out of our midst, and I also think that more widely-debated and more ethical foreign policies, trade policies, social and domestic policies would mean less violence and crime. Less hateful hysteria given column inches and airtime, less of the macho politics of fear would help too.

There are no quick fixes. There is a lot to do to make things better, and we can all help to make common cause for peace and justice, or just a quiet life. But I do not see why focusing on our divisions and fears will make us stronger. I would rather look at what draws us together. I would rather walk to my local shops, where almost all the shops are Muslim owned, walk past the women in headscarves and veils, the men gossipping outside the coffee shops, past the Mosque where hundreds worship every Friday, and smile at people, because we are all neighbours, and not be angry, or afraid.

UPDATE: Blood and Treasure , and Radical Muslim on the subject

Brown on terrorism

'Because we believe in the civil liberties of the individual, we must also strengthen accountability to parliament and independent bodies overseeing the police, not subjecting people to arbitary treatment. The world has changed, so we need tougher security. We must recognise there is a group of people we must isolate who are determined to attack. Our security must be strengthened, but we must also strengthen the accountability of our institutions.''
- Gordon Brown

Well, that sounds quite good - tough, yet caring, firm but fair. But what does it actually mean? Is our new PM-to-be ambidextrous in his approach? Right hand, a clunking great fist on terror, left hand, tenderly smoothing our anxious brows, which frown unhappily with increasing concern over the erosion of ancient liberties, and the whirlwind of legislation passed in the aftermath of 'the war on terror'?
Or is it just more New Labour window dressing whilst further freedoms disappear in the name of security?

Brown's speech is being widely reported as being 'tough on terrorism' in today's headlines; the timing is, of course, politically expedient. It is a thumbed nose to Peter Hain, running for deputy Labour leader, and a display of teeth at the Labour left. It is also pouring salt into the wounds of the Tories, struggling for over a month now with the fallout over grammar schools, and Cameron now being called ''delusional'' and ''an absolute prat'' by Council leaders. A new Sunday Telegraph poll has Mr Brown seen as ''more experienced, strong and competent'', and he is marginally favoured to be prime minister. Making hay of the disarray, Brown is hardly likely to do anything that could be interpreted as being ''soft on terrorism'', but it is interesting that this speech does nod to civil liberties and checks and balances: he has clearly learned from the opprobrium being heaped on his outgoing nemesis, Blair.

The charges against the Blair government vary: that they indulge in ''macho posturing'' with regard to law and order (Hain) and they use the politics of fear to exert control and avoid criticism, particularly of foreign policy, that the current PM's style of Government is unaccountable, authoritarian in tendency, and reliant on spin and media management to cover up its flaws.

There is growing public muttering against 'house arrest' and new police 'stop and question' powers, widespread disbelief at an outgoing PM who says that three suspects escaping control orders are ''a symptom of a society which put civil liberties before fighting terror.'' Writing in the Sunday Times last week, the prime minister described this as "misguided and wrong" and said prioritising a terror suspect's right to traditional civil liberties was "a dangerous misjudgement", (!) - and there is further concern at the latest antics from out-going tough-guy Reid

(For heaven's sake. Sometimes I wonder if Reid and Blair have swivel-eyed chats that go like this:

''It's okay to treat terrorists differently to normal humans, they have, y'know, different DNA. Like crabs''
''Yeah, terrorists aren't like us. They're vermin. Lock them up without charge, without trial. Torture them. Or get someone else to do it for us. That will show them not to attack our freedoms'')

So Brown's tough on terror speech where he does go on quite a bit about civil liberties is in stark contrast to the chest-thumping rhetoric that has been coming out of the Home Office for the last year, and the martyred 'look, because I said so and I just know I'm right' dramatics coming out of Number 10 for longer. What has Brown got for us then?

Intercept evidence used in trials. This might help those trapped in the no-man's land of house arrest without enough evidence to bring them to trial. The Security Services, however, aren't keen. The police are in favour. I go with the police. Show the evidence.It's a fundemental part of what we do: we don't lock people up or detain people without it. Not for more than 28 days, which is quite long enough and far longer than most places.

Making terrorism an aggravating factor in sentencing, giving judges greater powers to punish terrorism within the framework of the existing criminal law.I don't see the point of this at all: we already have perfectly-solid laws against conspiracy to commit murder and cause explosions/mayhem, etc. (Dhiren Barot got 40 years for plotting acts of terrorism after all.) The point about terrorism is that it is criminal. Why make it special and different? It makes it dangerously glamorous. Murder is murder. Fraud, extortion, kidnapping...we've already got them taped, legally. I do wish Labour would get over this knee-jerk legislation habit. Particularly since the current Anti-terrorism laws have repeatedly been used to harass and threaten peaceful protesters. Have Judges actually requested these powers? Nope, not as far as I can see. So what is the point of it and where are we going with this? Not somewhere I want to end up.

Allow the police to continue to interrogate terror suspects even after they have been charged with a criminal offence. Nooooo. Arrest subject, provide lawyer whilst questioning them. Produce enough evidence to charge, or release. Once charged, provide representation and await fair trial, whilst continuing to treat suspect humanely. This stunt is completely contradictory to the the principle of habeas corpus. (''Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?''). And it sounds like an attempt to get ''90 days'' in via the back door to me...

Oh, hang on, belt and braces. Increase the number of days a terror suspect can be held without charge from 28 days to 90 days. Grrr. I have already banged on about this and I have not seen any evidence to change my mind about why this is dangerous, and insufferable to freedom-loving citizens.

Increasing the security budget, which has already doubled to more than £2bn a year after 11 September 2001, in the forthcoming spending review when a single security budget will be unveiled. Well, as long as we know what it is being used for...but do we?

Give MPs and peers greater powers to scrutinise the work of the security and intelligence services, allowing them to cross-examine the heads of MI5 and MI6 in public. Accountability and transparency, I am in favour of. But I am also worried about whether it is a way of avoiding an inquiry into 7/7, which I and others are campaigning for. Last month, representatives of the survivors and relatives of 7/7 handed in a letter asking for an inquiry into 7/7 to the Home Office. We heard nothing back and so we chased last week. We got a fax back at the end of last week, and it was not exactly greeted with rapture by the group. I will blog more about that after the weekend, when all the group have had a chance to air their thoughts privately, and after we have had further discussions with Oury Clark, our lawyers.

After the Crevice trial revealed M15 had lead 7/7 bomber MSK in their sights, and let him go again, Blair said that the ISC, (the Intelligence and Security Committee) would re-examine the evidence that came to light (after the Crevice trial of terrorists planning to attack targets like Bluewater and the Ministry of Sound). This was his response to calls in the House, and by us, for an independent inquiry into 7/7, which was chaired by someone outside of Government and the Security Services, with the power to compel evidence and cross examine witnesseses and make recommendations.

But the ISC is not independent. It is comprised of hand-picked MPS who answer to the PM. It didn't ask the right questions. It missed out of lots of things and exonerated the Security Services and its report read as if it had been spoon-fed whole paragraphs by M15 itself. It was, and is, a pathetic substitute for a proper inquiry. And everyone saw that after the Crevice trial ended. So...

Brown will now give Parliament a greater role in overseeing the intelligence services. He will place the Parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, which reports to the Prime Minister, on a similar basis as parliamentary select committees, which are acccountable to MPs.

It's a start. But it's not what we're asking for, is it?

If 21st century terrorism is such a terrible thing, so different to the threat of Nazi invasion or Russian nuclear strikes or IRA terrorism, so terrible that we can shred the constitution over it in a mad rush, and decide it's okay to hold British citizens without charge under house arrest, or in police cells for up to three months, continue to question them after they have been charged, make everyone carry ID cards, and submit to questioning in the streets by police about what they are up to, and strengthen sentencing powers by popping the word 'terrorism' into the charge sheet, then why can't we have an inquiry into 7/7?

I have some high hopes for Mr Brown, but that speech concerns me. It's all very well to go round the country ''listening'', but I hope that he doesn't let me, and others down, by delivering more of the liberty-restricting over-reaction of his predecessors, instead of looking at why we face this threat.

Those who prize security over liberty deserve neither, after all. Nor do they get either for the most part. Fingers crossed.

UPDATE: Obsolete on the subject. Iain Dale on Brown-spin.

Taking Liberties

A while back I was asked to be in a film about the erosion of civil liberties in the UK that has happened since 1997. Civil liberties in the aftermath of terrorism is a subject close to my heart, and one I regularly bang on and on about in this blog, so I said, yes, of course I'd be honoured to help.

Last night I saw the film Taking Liberties on the big screen for the first time, ( it was the cast and crew screening) and it was excellent. Funny, moving, infuritating, and best of all, it gives people things to do at the end of it. The film , which is released on June 8th, tells the stories of dozens of ordinary people. Grandmothers, teenagers, war veterans, writers, chefs, comedians, protesters, ordinary people from across the political spectrum - all caught up in the storm. There are contributions from Tony Benn, Henry Porter, Boris Johnson, Shami Chakrabarti, Walter Wolfgang, and many more.

Many of the featured stories leave you shaking your head in disbelief. But it's all frighteningly true, and the point is that these people's stories could be anyone's stories. Taking Liberties makes it clear how desperately important this issue of balancing our freedom with managing our fear is, for all of us. The right not to be detained without trial, the right to peaceful protest, the right to privacy, to trial by jury, the right not to be tortured, and many other crucial rights that we have all taken for granted for years are being whittled away, and if we don't protest, and stop it, it will soon be too late. And we will wake up to find we have set the apparatus in place for a very different Britain under a very different type of leader.

And we will have betrayed our country, ourselves, and our grandchildren.

The film is an indictment of the outgoing great showman Blair, and his disastrous adventures with the neo-con US administration. It shows the damage done to the fabric of what we still idly boast of as our free and fair society, by the juggernaut of the stupidly-conceived War on Terror.

But it is also a terrible indictment of us, the people who let all this happen under their noses, that we have been content to live so selfishly, so heedlessly, letting our own elected Government take away the rights which our grandparents' generation died for, without a whisper, without a word.

Film's out June 8th. Please, put the date in your diaries now, because if enough people go and see it on the opening weekend, then it will get further bookings all over the country, and it is important that people know about this film and have a chance to see it. If you liked Bowling for Columbine, or Farenheit 9/11, or An Inconvenient Truth, then you should see this movie.

YouTube trailer here

Look, please, go see it, and bring a mate. I'll be going again on the opening weekend (and will let you know where/when if anyone fancies it, and the pub afterwards, if you email me.)

Cinema listings are here with more listings being added all the time.

You can also buy the book, Taking Liberties, which is out now, and which is very good indeed.

UPDATE: Telegraph, and bloggers

Bloggerheads, Netherworld, Bread and Circuses, TheNextWave.

More soon. Have to go and write a speech for the POLIS public media forum at the LSE tonight, sign off book cover and as it is now past 3pm, eat some lunch.

A request for help

Recieved from a blogging friend and passed on in case any of my readers can help...

''Apologies for a somewhat unsolicited email, but I was wondering if you might be able to help somebody I've recently come into contact with or if you personally can't help, you might be able to forward this onto somebody else who might be in a better position

As part of the day job, I'm a journalist for a local radio station. On Friday I was contacted by a man called David Godfrey - his grandson, Rifleman Daniel Coffey, was recently killed on duty in Iraq, and David spoke out against the occupation of Iraq.

Speaking to David was a very emotional experience - a couple of times during our conversation he broke down in tears and it was clear that not only had Daniel's death left a great hole in his life but he was angry - angry at why Daniel was in Iraq in the first place. After he hung up, I had to take a walk outside for 5 minutes to compose myself, which I've never had to do before despite covering some nasty and upsetting stuff.

David, it seems, wants to put his anger and grief to some kind of purpose. He said he wanted to organise a series of rallies across the country, and wanted to get the backing of celebrities, MPs, singers, actors, bands, the whole lot. The eventual aim was twofold: to send a message to the government about Iraq and to raise money that would help the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq directly in some form or another. He has background in campaigning and fundraising - he lost another grandson to a rare illness and has done a lot raising money and awareness in that field. This is obviously a bigger task, and his first step was to get the local media on board, and also plunder any contacts they might have for people who can help.

But I can't for the life of me see the station I work for getting involved in anything as politically charged as this, and my contact book is not exactly awash with celebrities and others whose support he's after. Which is why I'm emailing. As a young, fairly lowly journalist on the bottom rung of the ladder in rural Devon there's only so much I could do if I were able to. I've no idea if any of you would be able to help, or have a better stocked address book than me, but as bloggers I respect and admire, not just for your writing, but also your activism, I thought there was no harm in asking, and even if its not something you'd feel like you wanted to commit to, you might be able to forward it onto somebody who could help David. So that's it, really. Again, apologies for firing off an unsolicited email out of the blue, and putting a dampener on a Sunday evening/Mon morning, but if you are able to help David, even if its just pointing him in the right direction and towards the right people, I'm sure it'd be greatly appreciated. His email is [please email me at rachelnorthlondon {AT} gmail DOT COM to get David's email/contact details - RN ]-

Like I say, its very rare that I'm affected by speaking to somebody, but after nearly an hour on the phone with David, I really did feel like I should do something, because the station definitely won't.

Thanks for listening''

If you want to help or have any ideas, please get in touch with me in the first instance.

Many thanks

Rachel

Action stations - 24 Feb Stop the War March

Damn it, I was going to cry off the march against the war because I have so much work to do, and too little time, but it is too important and I can't live with myself if I don't do things I believe in, so I am going. There's always excuses. Editing can wait, wedding invitations can wait, I'll just have to go flat out tomorrow and Monday.

I need to indulge my innate leftie simmering anti-Americanism. That's a joke. I am marching because I want to send a clear signal that I am opposed to bombing yet more people and I object to my taxes being wasted on purchasing huge Trident bombs which could kill even more people, if deployed, which they won't be, so why not build some hospitals instead? Or prisons. Or schools. Simple, hmmm?

Whilst we're at it, what's with the 18 DS Left = anti-American canards? I assume that is the point of this ad, because it isn't clear at all. It is in fact, daft, patronising, pointlessly insulting, and it is a straw man and thus a waste of time. Although apparently it got on Fox News. Woopie-doo. I've been on Fox News. I subverted the live breakfast show on July 7th 2006 by saying no I wasn't terrified of Muslims, in fact, I liked living in London because it was so buzzy and vibrant and there were loads of different nationalities and faiths living together. And London had dealt with terrorism and bombs for over a hundred years, so we just got on with it. That foxed the rent-a-rant blonde presenter. No wonder my taxi home mysteriously disappeared.

I honestly can't see any positives about putting out sneery little 'attack ads'. This is not 'politics for adults'. This is the politics of the playground.

Over to a succinct Hamster.

1. I am opposed to the foreign policies of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.
2. I am not opposed to the existence of the United Kingdom.

There's a difference, you see. I strongly suspect I'm not the only person on the left who realises this

Anyway, I am off to text back Davide and see who else is going to join me in shuffling for peace. 12pm kick off, Speakers Corner. Fancy it? I'll bring the hipflask and the paracetamol.

UPDATE: Piccies via my mobile, at Blairwatch!
BBC report , another BBC report, more BBC reportage, Independent
My feet hurt.

UPDATE UPDATE: Davide has blogged it with speeches and photos - over at Netherworld

Stop The War Protest Feb 24th

I'll try and be there. See Davide for details. Let me know via email or comments if you are going and you want to meet up. It's always nice to march and chat. I'll bring my battered hipflask...