| EPUK News |
Get photography news updates direct to your Facebook page or Twitter feed. 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.
• By weekly email
| This week EPUK discussed ... |
Copyright infringements by MPs, taxation of interest on Payment Protection Insurance payouts, compulsory self-billing, the PLUS registry, finding a good copyright lawyer and ‘Stolen photographs: what to do?’ – Simon Crofts’ excellent article published right here on the EPUK web site.
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
|
|
Npower injunction judge: It was never meant to be used against professional photographersCorrespondence obtained by EPUK reveals that Justice Calvert-Smith, who granted the injunction used by npower against news photographers, never intended it to be used against the press. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
8 March 2007
|
In a written reply sent on behalf of Justice Calvert-Smith, he clarifies that the position of the court was that “although there may be occasions when photographing people might amount to harassment, it was certainly not the court’s intention to outlaw activities which do not amount to harassment.” In a further turnaround, solicitors acting for npower have stated that it was never their intention to stop legitimate reporting of the protests surrounding npower’s controversial ash dumping at Radley Lakes, Oxfordshire. However, EPUK understands that just three weeks ago, the same solicitors emailed the editor of the Oxford Mail advising him that the injunction would directly affect both what photographs could be taken and published by his own photographers.
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Comments on this article:
Hi. A couple of intresting snippets. I understand that Npower did not have permission from the Forestry Commission to kill all the trees and the County Council have admitted that they only granted planning permission because they were frightened of being sued if they refused it. Ironically, they had every basis in law in which to refuse it previously but would most definitely lay themselves open to legal action now if they withdrew it. Corruption and incompetance on the part of Oxfordshire CC is the reason why matters have got this far. Luckily the press have got proper wind of the situation and Npower are seriously on the back foot. We may yet beat the vile bastards. Comment #2 posted by Bob Eeles at 10 March, 10:45 PM While Judge Calvert-Smith has unequivocally stated that the injunction is not intended to prevent journalism npower’s lawyers have decided that they need to reinterpret that in the most obnoxiously arrogant way possible. Lawson- Cruttenden, the lawyers seen so revealingly in our Law as an Ass movie, have today written: “RWE Npower is prepared to agree that it will not seek to enforce Clause 5.2 of the Injunction against Accredited Media. For the purposes of this Protocol ‘Accredited’ will mean: - media possessing a valid card demonstrating membership of the National Union of Journalists or - media possessing a business card demonstrating affiliation to an official media organisation verifiable by telephone call. This is provided the Accredited Media comply with the numbered conditions below. 1 Accredited Media to inform RWE Npower In advance of attendance at Radley Lakes (5$ defined In the Injunction), The prior notification should be given to RWE Npower’s press telephone (0845 020 2607). 2 On arrival at Radley Lakes, appropriate accreditation should be produced to the nominated RWE Npower representatives at Sandles House who are responsible far verifying such accreditation, A telephone number to enable identity to be verified should also be provided to the nominated RWE Npower representative(s) Following compliance with I and 2 above, Accredited Media will be allowed to Accredited Media shall not trespass on the site of Radisy Lakes or The Sandles 5 In the event of Accredited Media capturing photographic and/or video images of employees, agents or contractors of RW npower that may, on their own or as part of a series of published images, lead to the disclosure of their identities, these images shall not be published in any form. All other clauses in the injunction (including for the avoidance of doubt Clause 8.3) shall remain in full force and effect. RWE Npower, through its employees, agents and contractors will continue to monitor potential breaches of the Injunction.” Clearly npower feel that they, and only they, can decide which of their objectionable practices may be covered by the press. And where is the NUJ in all this? Good question. David Hoffman Comment #3 posted by David Hoffman at 12 March, 06:34 PM having just seen on channel 4 News what is happening at Radley lakes Comment #4 posted by Ian Holt at 20 March, 07:48 PM NPower now think they can make the Law as well as Break it. Cutting down trees without a Forestry Commission Licence, harrassing wildlife, destroying nesting habitats, trying to scare off protesters with their Injunction. Then, when they realise the mess they have got themselves into, they decide they didn’t mean to include Journalists and Professional Photographers in the injunction, but they did. Only The High Court can vary the injunction, upon application. It is not within NPowers remit to do so. Perhaps they are the ones who are now in Contempt of Court and should be prosecuted! Npower have shown themselves to be what they really are. Corporate Bullies with no conscience. I hope everyone has been to the Govt Website petitions.pm.gov.uk/SaveRadleyLakes to vote. Comment #5 posted by Lakesaver at 23 March, 10:51 PM Add your comments here:
|
||||||
| 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 © Scotland 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. |
|
|
A point that has been missed here is that the lone protestor camped outside Sandles until Feb 14 was being far more harassed by the security guards than they could ever have been by him. He alleged that the guards had threatened to pee in his water while he was asleep, and that they had referred to him as an ‘animal’ that should not be fed.
The big difference was that he did not have access to smart-arse lawyers, high court judges and a private police force. The asymmetry in the law as was applied in this instance is staggering.
Following his detention and arrest, that protestor nearly ended up dead, and sustained very serious injury likely to result in permanent disablement. That is the price he paid simply for wanting to save what he believed to be a piece of natural landscape worth protecting.
Comment #1 posted by Hans Offarlakes at 9 March, 12:11 AM