Many of the alleged incidents relate to actions by the protester referred to as “B1”, who is believed to be Anthony “The Ant” Bailey. Bailey sustained multiple fractures of the arm while in custody after being arrested on the site earlier this week. The police have stated that the injuries were self-inflicted.

Protester B1 is alleged to have kept a log of vehicles entering and leaving the compound, and to have photographed car registration plates with a camera phone.

We have edited down the statements, and only included a sample of extracts which relate to either photography or alleged threats against security guards.

“Press restriction necessary for worker safety”

By granting an injunction that imposes an outright ban on photography of Npower personnel and contractors, the court appear to have accepted that the restriction of press photography is necessary for the protection of npower workers. However, none of the incidents described in the witness statements appear to have any relevance or applicability to press photography.

The elastic wording of the injunction means that anyone who has been made aware of it automatically becomes injuncted. Whether by design or by accident, it is a device designed, delivered and employed to virally obstruct and restrict press coverage.

Whatever npower’s motives in seeking the injunction, they have now created a blanket interference with legitimate press interest on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

At the same time, one protester told EPUK: “We all feel our civil
liberties have been infringed by being photographed and filmed by men in balaclavas.”

Draconian ban

A more reasonable injunction would merely prohibit publication of photos that might lead to identification, but that isn’t what NPower have sought nor obtained, and nor would such an injunction be necessary. Privacy in sensitive situations is hardly a new situation for the news and picture desks, who are quite accustomed to robustly protecting anonymity of sources or subjects where necessary.

The allegations made in the witness statements clearly show that npower understand that there are just a small handful of individuals against whom the indictment need be directed.

In seeking a more draconian ban, npower has laid itself open to accusations that it has a darker motive in seeking to prohibit
scrutiny of its controversial activities at the site, which are clearly damaging its public image. The irony remains that its decision has attracted criticism, rather than deflecting it.

The witness statements

“Witness A” – Head of security team, former soldier

Witness A alleges that he and a colleague were on a “security patrol” walking behind a group of seven people, several of whom he recognised as those who had been evicted from a squat on the site.

“[Evictee E1] brought a large professional SLR camera to her eye. She used it to take photographs of my face…and of my colleague [witness B]”

“Another evictee, B3…laughed and said they were going to publish these pictures on the internet and in the papers. [He] then said they were going to find out where we lived because we had been too violent [during the eviction]

“This incident made me feel threatened, not just for me but for my family as well”

Witness B, security guard, former soldier

B confirmed the statement made by witness A, and said it made him “distressed and worried”

He also alleged that he overheard two telephone conversations made by the squatter known as B1 on different days:

“In the [first] conversation he was describing how he had been logging vehicles and people coming out of the site…[and] that it would be useful to get a video camera [down here] to record the people coming in and out”

Four days later, he overhead the second call: “He stated that they were not going to leave peaceably, and were going to set booby traps such as glass and razor blades set in concrete”. This made witness B “afraid”.