[Imc-uk-features] 'censorship' and insensitive handling of footage

[guidoreports at riseup.net]

I have to agee with ftp here. Assuming the Police are getting everything
they need on film is crediting them with just too much competance. Even
Neil the fit-goblin admits that he does not know how to use his camera.
The main purpose of the Fit cameras is to intimidate, their evidence is
very seldomly used in court.

More importantly can you imagine anything that could make IMC UK look more
stupid than our material being used to convict someone? If its a legal
matter then erring on the side of caution is paramount. Not constantly
throwing a legally sensitive subject onto a public list would be a good
start too...

regards

G.






> Quoting jagmad at riseup.net:
>
>
>> As for incriminating material, what could be more incriminating that two
>> police videographers present before, during, and after I was filming?
>> Not
>> only did they get the two demonstrators but they also got me, not that
>> anyone seems to care about the safety and concerns of contributers on
>> this
>> particular IMC.
>>
>> Doug.
>>
>
> You think ben is "getting on his high horse, and you aint? Your
> multi-storey
> horse has been the sticking point throughout.
>
> Richard Parry, a solicitor represented 2 defendants in the Womble 7 trial
> - at
> the nick he told them that they might as well give a full comment
> interview as
> the incident was bound to be caught on camera.
>
> When it came to trial it turns out that the CCTV had been turned away, and
> Richard's clients were the only ones convicted - on the strength of their
> own
> solicitor suggested statements. He aint done a lot of protest trials
> since.....
>
> As someone who was there when you shot that video, I am pretty sure the
> other
> FIT camera did NOT capture what you put up.
>
> Quoting ben:
>
>>I do feel that it is the responsibility of videographers and of indymedia
>>admin to respect the concerns of those doing actions and being caught
>>on video."
>
> Yes, this is the reason I agreed to being filmed "for Indymedia" when you
> asked.
> The biggest benefit of your threat not to post videos to our wire, appears
> to
> be that it will save other activists from thinking that they are being
> filmed
> by an imcista who is sensitive to how their footage is used.
>
> The fact that you (Doug) still don't have an inkling of why that footage
> was
> taken down pending a discussion in legal is of great concern to me.
>
> ftp
>
>
>
>
> --
> Indymedia United Kollektives editorial: features and wire moderation
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-uk-features
>