Bollox Britain

Media and civil liberties groups have expressed alarm after the managers of an Olympic venue pledged to intercept and question anyone seen photographing or filming the site, even from public land, and defended security guards who wrongly tried to invoke terrorist laws to prevent footage being shot of the arena.

The stance taken by the O2 in Greenwich highlights wider concerns that Olympic security operations could see photographers, film crews and even members of the public harassed for entirely legal activities.

John Toner from the National Union of Journalists said he would seek an urgent meeting with managers of the O2, saying their tactics had no basis in law: I'm stunned, and what they say is utterly outrageous.

While there are strict photography rules inside Olympic venues and on many other private spaces, when standing on public land the press and public have a clear right to shoot still or moving images.

As an experiment, the Guardian attempted to shoot video footage of the O2 arena from a public road on its southern edge, only a few minutes' walk from the main entrance.

Very quickly the reporter was challenged by O2 security guards, who made a series of demands with no basis in law. They ordered that the filming stop -- We've requested you to not do it because we don't like it -- and that they be shown any existing footage. Asked on what basis they could demand this, one replied: It's under the terrorist law. We are an Olympic venue. Another added: You have, for want of a better word, breached our security by videoing it [the O2].

At one point they refused to allow the reporter to leave. One said: It's gone too far for that. Guards are entitled to challenge suspicious behaviour and call the police. However, they have no additional legal powers on public land. While such overreach is not uncommon it is often followed by a management apology.

An O2 spokesman defended the guards' approach. He said: On the basis that [the reporter was] filming areas of the O2 that are not usually of interest to the public, our security staff's approach and handling of the situation was entirely appropriate.

The civil rights campaign group Liberty said it was alarmed. Its legal officer Corinna Ferguson, said: There's no power stopping a person taking photographs on public land, let alone to arrest them or seize property, without reasonable suspicion they've committed an offence. Police officers or security guards who get this wrong could well find themselves in trouble with the law.

Offsite: And from the Independent

Surely the security guards are not acting off their own initiative. Sounds like bollox and that they are doing what they have been told to do.

24th April 2012. See article from independent.co.uk

Poorly trained and overzealous security guards are abusing the law by clamping down on public photography in the run-up to this summer's Olympics.

Amateur and professional photographers say they are being routinely harangued by aggressive guards near Olympic venues, who use the upcoming Games as an excuse to restrict public photography despite having no basis in law to do so.

G4S, the private security company which is recruiting at least 10,000 extra staff for the Games, was forced to apologise yesterday after staff stopped a group of professional photographers taking pictures of the Olympic Stadium in Stratford, east London.

The five photographers were standing on public property outside the Olympic Stadium on Saturday but were forcibly prevented from taking photos by guards who claimed it was forbidden from where they were standing. Only a week earlier, senior police officials had assured photographers that private security guards have no extra powers to clamp down on photography.

...Read the full article

Theresa May, the British Home Secretary, is planning a rights abusing immigration clampdown on tens of thousands of people who use family visas to settle in Britain, according to a leaked cabinet letter.

The letter from May to Nick Clegg, which has been seen by The Sunday Telegraph, proposes a tough new minimum income of £25,700 a year for anyone seeking to bring a spouse, partner or dependant to the UK from outside the European Union from June - almost double the current threshold of £13,700.

The minimum income would rise dramatically - up to £62,600 - if children are also brought in.

May also wants a longer probationary period of five years before spouses and partners can apply to live permanently in Britain, and a higher level of English to be required.

The proposals could cut the number of immigrants allowed in by 15,000 a year - a significant step towards the Government's aim of reducing net migration to 100,000 people each year.

However, they are expected to fought hard by Clegg and other Liberal Democrat ministers, escalating still further the tensions between the two Coalition partners that have risen dramatically since last week's controversial Budget.

In 2010, some 48,900 visas were issued under this category. The majority of those who come to settle in Britain using this method are women from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

The government is proposing a minimum price of 40p per unit of alcohol in England and Wales. It ludicrously believes this could transform the behaviour of those who cause the most problems for hospitals and police.

The drinks industry said a minimum price was misguided and would hit consumers hard.

Under the minimum price proposal, such as at the suggested 40p level, it would act as a floor and retailers would not be allowed to offer alcohol cheaper than that. While most prices would be unaffected, it could significantly alter the price of heavily-discounted ciders, super-strength lager and cheap spirits.

The impact could include:

• A £2.99 bottle of red wine, containing 9.4 units of alcohol, would become £3.76 Cheap
• strong lager at 75p a can, with three units per can, would become £1.20
• strong cider, costing 87p a can and containing four units, would £1.60
• Cheap supermarket whisky at £16.10, with 40 units of alcohol, would probably be unchanged in price

Home Secretary Theresa May said that just under one fifth of all alcohol sold would be affected by introducing a 40p minimum.

The repressive alcohol 'strategy' also seeks to give local agencies an extensive range of tools and powers such as restricting opening hours and amount of licensed premises.

It also plans to end the notion that drinking is an unqualified right by piloting sobriety schemes for those people whose offending is linked to excessive alcohol consumption, threatens the 'strategy' document.

The strategy also includes a plan for a late-night levy to make clubs and pubs help pay for policing.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the Labour Party supported the idea of a minimum unit price, subject to debate about where it should be set to ensure it worked.

Gavin Partington, interim chief executive of the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, said he thought a minimum price move would be highly likely to face a legal challenge from a drinks company.

Creating parodies goes to the heart of comedy and is one of the most effective ways to highlight social issues.

But parodies of films and music aren't allowed under UK copyright law, unless you have explicit permission of the copyright owner.

A political YouTube video that may have infringed copyright got over 90,000 views when published last year by Mother's Best Child, before being abruptly taken down thanks to the Olympics Committee.

Update: Dishing out repression

4th March 2012. See article from dailymail.co.uk

Residents of every property in Shepherdess Walk in Hackney, East London, were told by their local council to remove their satellite dishes or face eviction.

Most of the dishes have been fixed to the front of houses for more than ten years. But Hackney Borough Council says planning permission was never granted.

Only people living in listed buildings need planning permission for a satellite dish (up to about a meter diameter), but the properties under duress are in fact listed.

The council has now told housing trust Circle 33 to make their tenants take down the dishes and fit them to the rear of houses - or switch to cable.

It is believed that the residents are the victims of a bid to clean up Hackney before the start of the Olympic Games in London in June.

resident Tony Emberson said:

I got the letter with only three days to sort something out. Residents believe the council's order is part of a bid to smarten the area up ahead of the Olympics, many events of which will be staged from the Olympic Park in the neighbouring borough of Newham.

The deadline was extended to three weeks once the press got hold of the story.

Police chiefs launched a scathing attack on David Cameron's miserable plans to tackle so called binge drinking, branding them dangerous and unhelpful.

The Police Federation also warned that forces did not have enough resources to implement the Prime Minister's crackdown.

Cameron on had pledged to tackle the growing scandal of alcohol-fuelled disorders during a visit to a hospital in Newcastle. He confirmed the Government was considering plans to introduce minimum pricing for alcohol and give police more powers to tackle violence and disorder.

The crackdown includes plans for drunk tanks, cells where those deemed incapable of walking home would be sent by police to sleep it off, and booze buses, which pick up revellers and take them to cells. Other proposals include deploying more police to accident and emergency wards to prevent drunken violence.

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: The Prime Minister's suggestion of putting more police on patrol in hospitals to help deal with problems of drunken and anti-social behaviour would be laudable if the police service wasn't struggling to meet the current workload. We simply do not, and will not, have the police officers or the resources.

McKeever said plans to tackle alcohol purely from a health perspective without considering the implications on other public services were unhelpful and likely to fail.

The Metropolitan Police has won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during the G20 demonstrations.

The High Court ruling had been won by Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid.

They challenged the legality of restraint methods used against them in April 2009 when they were contained by policemen in Bishopsgate.

But the Court of Appeal has now ruled against the High Court's decision.

The High Court ruling, where policemen were said to have used unjustified force, led to a call from human rights lawyers for an immediate change to police attitudes and tactics.

Police used the kettling tactic - where demonstrators are corralled inside police cordons and prevented from leaving - against the protesters in Bishopsgate, even though they had been peaceful.

A public online consultation has been launched asking for views on the implementation of two new powers designed to spoil people's fun and depress the late night economy.

The measures, contained in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 and due to be introduced in the autumn, will empower local killjoys by:

• allowing local authorities to charge a levy for late-night licences to contribute to the cost of extra policing
• extending Early Morning Restriction Orders -- a power that will allow licensing authorities to restrict the sale of alcohol in all or part of their areas -- to any time between midnight and 6am

The consultation asks whether some types of premises should be exempted from the new measures, or eligible for a reduction in the levy, if they are judged not to be major contributors to the type alcohol-related crime and disorder that can blight neighbourhoods. Such premises could be hotels, cinemas or community venues.

Minister for Fun Prevention Lord Henley said:

Alcohol-related crime and disorder is a problem for many of our communities. These new measures give power back to local areas so they can respond to their individual needs.

But we also recognise that some types of premises that open late to serve alcohol do not contribute to late night drinking problems and should not be unduly penalised. That is why we are seeking views on whether they should be exempt or see a reduction in fees.

We are keen to hear from anyone who is affected by these new powers to help inform our plans to ensure the premises we have proposed are the right ones.

The public, licensing authorities, the licensed trade and police are all encouraged to contribute their views.

The consultation runs until 10 April 2012.