| EPUK Weekly News |
Once a week we put together a roundup of the week's photography, media and copyright news. It's free and you don't have to meet the usual EPUK membership criteria to sign up. We don't give your details to anyone else, and you can unsubscribe anytime.
| This week EPUK discussed ... |
The Bristol Film Office and their photography permits; The Independent publishing pictures without permission; the shift and day rates paid by the Dailies
… and …
why PR firms hire photographers just for show.
The above advertisers have not been endorsed by EPUK.
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
|
The npower statements that persuaded a court to ban photography at Radley LakesFollowing the controversial serving of an injunction of press photographer and EPUK member Adrian Arbib, we can now reveal the evidence used by npower to persuade a court to ban all photography of its employees and contractors at Radley Lakes, Oxfordshire. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
22 February 2007
|
The sworn affidavits, which mostly come from security guards working for contractor Shercurity, detail incidents which occurred after the forced eviction of squatters from the house which now forms part of the security compound at Oxfordshire beauty spot Radley Lakes. The site was purchased by npower several years ago for the dumping of ash from a nearby power station, and is home to otters and kingfishers. Local residents have applied for town green status, and are angry that npower is continuing to dump ash and chop down trees at the site pending the outcome of this application. While not all of the statements were made anonymously, the terms of the injunction mean EPUK cannot publish the names of those witnesses who gave their name on their evidence to the court. The witnesses themselves did not appear in court, and so were not cross examined about their testimony. However, all witnesses have sworn that their statements are truthful and accurate. Speculation on possible future tacticsThe evidence was presented in court by npower to support its application for an interim injunction, which will now run until April 17th. EPUK understands that the National Union of Journalists is considering objecting to the injunction at this hearing. The crucial elements of the statements, upon which the injunction appears to be granted, deal not with harassment that has already happened, but upon speculation upon the harassment that could possibily happen in the future. For example, the security guards appear not to be disconcerted by the actual photography itself, but that photographs of them could be placed on a website. Equally, other the part of the injunction which prohibits the carrying of hammers, nails and D-locks, appears to be based on the statement of a Chief Superintendent which discusses in more general terms tactics which have been employed by protesters at other demonstrations. The allegationsThe most serious incident alleges that a camper van driven by a known protester struck a security guard on the leg, although the statement goes on to add that there was no bruising on the leg the following day. Another affidavit by another security guard details how the alleged driver deny that the incident occurred. Other incidents listed in the affidavit allege that Shercurity staff were photographed variously on mobile phones, disposable cameras, and what are described as “professional SLR cameras”. The statements allege that security guards and contractors have been photographed by protesters, and that on two occasions, it it alleged that a female protester told security staff that their photographs would appear on a website. “Threats to identify guards on websites”An article published yesterday on the Amateur Photographer website quoted a npower spokesperson as stating that photographs of car registration plates had already been published on several websites, and this publication had led to the identification of npower workers and contractors. When EPUK contacted npower to confirm this, we were told that the allegation was not true and had been published due to a “misunderstanding”. The relevant article has now been changed to state that no such publication has occurred. On Wednesday, Npower told EPUK that it was not aware of any photographs or videos currently displayed on websites which identified its employees or contractors. For many of the incidents related, there appear to have been no laws broken. One incident described how one of the protesters refused to move his tent from the side of the road to let past a lorry delivering equipment to the compound. When the police arrived, they confirmed that the protester was breaking no law and was entitled both to be there, and to refuse to move. |
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
| Site design and CMS integration © Edinburgh photographer Nick McGowan-Lowe. Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy here. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors. |
|
|