SIX
MEMBERS of the National Union of Journalists have discovered that their lawful
journalistic and union activities are being monitored and recorded by the
Metropolitan Police.
They
are now taking legal action against the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and
the Home Secretary to challenge this ongoing police surveillance.
Mark Thomas |
The
NUJ members involved in the legal challenge include Jules Mattsson, Mark
Thomas, Jason Parkinson, Jess Hurd, David Hoffman and Adrian Arbib.
All
of them have worked on media reports that have exposed corporate and state
misconduct and they have each also previously pursued litigation or complaints
arising from police misconduct.
In
many of those cases the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has been forced to pay
damages, apologise and admit liability to them after their journalistic rights
were curtailed by his officers at public events.
The
surveillance was revealed as part of an ongoing campaign, which began in 2008,
during which NUJ members have been encouraged to obtain data held about them by
the authorities including the Metropolitan Police “National Domestic Extremism
and Disorder Intelligence Unit” (NDEDIU).
The
supposed purpose of the unit is to monitor and police so called “domestic
extremism”. In the course of the campaign, a number of NUJ members have
obtained data held about them and the union fears there are many more
journalists and union members being monitored.
The
NUJ has instructed Bhatt Murphy Solicitors to pursue the case. The cases raise
significant and wide-ranging concerns about: the impact on privacy, the
chilling effect on the ability of NUJ members and journalists to do their jobs,
and their ability to take part in legitimate trade union activity.
The
claim challenges the surveillance and retention of data on the basis that it is
unnecessary, disproportionate and not in accordance with the law. Journalists
and union members have no way of knowing the circumstances in which their
activities are monitored, retained, disclosed and systematically stored on
secret police “domestic extremism” databases.
Jules
Mattsson, national newspaper journalist, said: "Keeping files on
journalists feels a draconian and ridiculous waste of time and money – an
incompetent by-product of a surveillance mindset. The revelations of files on
my colleagues and I, alongside the use of wiretapping laws to spy on the media,
suggest a reckless disregard for press freedom by the police….
"In
the disclosed information from my file there isn't even a hint that I'm
suspected of any offence, nor do I have a criminal record. Instead the entries
held about me contain such obvious statements as the fact I am 'always looking
for a story' and 'has previously recorded police officers'.
"While some of what I've seen in my files
is almost amusing up to a point, it's also sinister and upsetting. It appears
that records of every time I've been a victim of crime have been transferred to
the domestic extremism unit with details of my phone number and past addresses, appearance, childhood and even a
family member's medical history recorded.”
Mark
Thomas, journalist and comedian, said:
"In my view, the police surveillance and the collation of data
on journalists point to a police
spying culture that is out of control
and without proper oversight.
"The
fact that none of the journalists are suspected of criminality but all of them
cover stories of police and corporate wrong doing hints at something more
sinister, that the police seem to be spying on those who seek to hold them to
account.
"The
inclusion of journalists on the domestic extremist data base seems to be a part
of a disturbing police spying network, from the Stephen Lawrence family
campaign to Hillsborough families, from undercover officers' relationships with
women to the role of the police in the construction blacklist.”
David
Hoffman, freelance photographer, said:
"I
have worked as a full-time professional photojournalist covering social issues
for almost forty years. Over the last 10 or 15 years my colleagues and I have
been aware of the close attention being paid to us by police surveillance
teams.
"They
have not simply been recording our presence but have been deliberately
intrusive, threatening and bullying, often filming us from close quarters and
making comments designed to intimidate us.
“We
have been followed, even when popping in to a pub to use the loo. It is hard to
see a legitimate policing justification for this calculated and oppressive
behaviour.
"When
questioned about this at an NUJ conference Public Order Commander Bob
Broadhurst denied that the police were building records on photographers and
journalists but a freedom of information (FOI) disclosure earlier this month
revealed more than 2,000 mentions of media workers in police databases.”
No comments:
Post a Comment