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

[jagmad at riseup.net]

I cannot help being amazed at reports on the Newswire which certain people
seem to be completely unaware of. Who among the admin actually reads the
Newswire on a daily basis?

Taking just SOCPA as one example, police have frequently used their own
videos as evidence in court, example:

"...the last prosecution witness was acting sergeant riley, but from some
of his answers, one might have thought this unfortunate policeman was
appearing for the defence! it started well enough, with a look at a video
from the 16th may this year. riley was visiting brian's site at 7am in
order to check if the conditions were being met. he showed on video..."

Plus several examples of IMC video being used as defence evidence on
BEHALF of campaigners. I myself have been asked for a copy of my video as
defence evidence by a very well known Parliament Square campaigner.

Erring on the side of caution? Give me a break!

Doug.


On Wed, September 5, 2007 6:45 am, guidoreports at riseup.net wrote:
> 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