Humanism, atheism and other freedoms

A UK professional photographers’ group has hit back at the Metropolitan Police’s fear-mongering campaign against photographers. But at least the ‘togs have a sense of humour.

In classic Orwellian fashion, the Met’s ad campaign (which I wrote about in Pump up the paranoia) incites the general public to watch itself. It promotes suspicion and fear. Its headline, “Thousands of people take photographs every day. What if one of them seems odd?” seems calculated to appeal to that fraction of society that likes to appoint itself the guardian and judge of the rest.

It continues: “Terrorists use surveillance to help plan attacks, taking photographs and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone doing that, we need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take.” And it ends: “Terrorism. If you suspect it, report it.” The likely result of the paranoia this kind of campaign generates is the suppression of the press. News photographers already have a hard time doing their job without every gullible nerk thinking there’s an RPG inside that long lens.

But photographers and terrorists are not the only groups capable of dubious behaviour.

[photopress:EPUK_poster.jpg,full,alignright]The Editorial Photographers UK (EPUK) group maintains a website with information and news for photographers as well as a private mailing list. It’s an invaluable resource for documentary and reportage shooters, providing advice, guidance and support, often in a more timely and effective way than any formal industry body.

Now. in association with the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers Association, it has responded to the Met’s shameful behaviour. Its own poster design (available on t-shirts and mugs here) mimics the Police’s posters, but with rather more wit.

“Thousands of coppers stop photographers every day,” it says, with forgiveable hyperbole, “What if one of them seems odd?”

Then, with a reference to the Police’s frequent abuse of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, it says: “Police twist the laws to help prevent protest, stopping people and threatening arrest under vague all encompassing terrorism laws. If you see a copper behaving oppressively we need to know. Let experienced journalists decide what action to take.”

STATE CONTROL. IF YOU SUSPECT IT, REPORT IT.

An anti-terrorism campaign by London’s police forces is exploiting the public’s paranoia in the hope of catching would-be terrorists in the act. It will also have the effect of making life even harder for press photographers. But maybe the erosion of press freedom might be seen as a bonus by the Metropolitan Police.

(more…)

The police state creeps up on us, step by stealthy step. Every law, every restriction, is invoked for our safety and convenience. But a totalitarian state feeds on laws, twisting them to its own ends.

(more…)

The Metropolitan Police has been found guilty of a health & safety violation. It doesn’t seem all that sorry, though.

When Metropolitan Police officers murdered Jean Charles de Menezes in July 2005, they were in breach of health and safety regulations, a court has decided.

It’s surprising anyone needed a court case to decide that — the slaying of an innocent man wouldn’t strike many sane people as good practice in the workplace. All the same, the Met Police pleaded not guilty. Now it’s having to pay a £175,000 fine and £385,000 costs for its failings.

Sir Ian Blair, the Met’s Commissioner, reiterated that he’s not resigning over the affair. He did offer the family and friends of de Menezes another apology, but it rings somewhat hollow.

The problem is that authorities like the Police often have grossly skewed values when it comes to their own behaviour. It’s a given that police forces will always take whatever powers they can grab, because they always perceive their work to be so important that it overrides any other considerations — such as freedom of speech and other civil liberties. That’s why we have to be so cautious about granting new police powers: after all, society is not run for the benefit of the police — it is their function to serve us.

At the same time as making the apology, Blair also made excuses.

“As far as we know, this is the first time that such legislation has been applied to fast moving police operations where the public are in danger,” he said.

This is a trick often used in the co-called ‘War on Terror’. What danger was he referring to, exactly? As we lose our freedoms and walk slowly but surely towards a police state, it is to the sound of the powers that be wailing of the threat to those same liberties from terrorists. It’s all for our own good, apparently. But where is this threat?

Terrorism is real and must be fought. But what we suffer from most is the threat of terrorism, and the greatest damage being wrought on our society is coming from those who claim to protect us.

“The difficulties shown in this trial were those of an organisation struggling, on a single day, to get to grips with a simply extraordinary situation – its greatest operational challenge in a generation,” added Blair.

What situation? A plumber going to work? The mighty Met Police can’t deal with that? A man catching a Tube train is the “greatest operational challenge in a generation”?

The Met Police screwed up and its incompetence resulted in the murder of an innocent man. Blair and his organisation should have the decency and honesty to admit that, not hide behind these self-aggrandising lies.