11May/100
FIT at London Mayday 2010
There was one FIT photographer at Mayday 2010 in London - Neil Williams, plus minders, who took my photo shortly after the march left Clerkenwell Green. The FIT teams seemed to be deliberately keeping their distance from the marchers (a couple of thousand of them at least), but keeping a close eye on the 'autonomous bloc' as it marched to Trafalgar Square.
The people going to the Election Meltdown party at Parliament Square peeled off from the main march at Trafalgar Square and continued to Parliament Square without incident.
Once the party in the Square had started, the FIT again kept their distance, watching partygoers from over the road - hard to tell from that distance if they WERE FIT, they had those yellow and blue 'public order' jackets, earpieces and were generally frantically scribbling notes. Some were talking into voice recorders. They directed Neil to take pictures, mostly of people conferring. It looked to me as if one group of three FIT officers at one point were pointing out people in the Square to a flatcap yellow jacket officer, as if it were some kind of FIT training exercise.
As the party wore on, I noticed that a very senior copper - he had one of those caps with a metal lining on the brim - was watching us from a balcony of the Houses of Parliament together with a yellow and blue 'public order' jacket cop, and one - possibly two - photographers, hard to tell from such a distance.
The remarkably chilled watch at a distance policy may have been down to the Mayday party becoming a tourist attraction - the Executioner who'd come to do mock executions of politicians in effigy was having his picture taken with tourists.
6May/108
Police all out to gather intelligence on EDL and Counter Demo.
Their key objective for the day was 'to gather intelligence', said the Thames Valley FIT officer who was busy photographing a small crowd of people who had gathered to oppose the EDL in Market Square, Aylesbury. Earlier evidence gathering teams had been hovering, photographing and filming the stop and search operation that was focused on Vale Park, the location of the main anti-edl demo. This is an established and efficient way of getting the names, addresses and photos of the young, radical looking people who turn up.
The EDL fared much the same. As they got off the buses one by one, the FIT got perfect head and shoulders shots of each of them. There were no shortage of police cameras. Thames Valley had drafted in FIT from various other forces, including Greater Manchester, Northamptonshire and the West Midlands.
As always on these occasions, the intelligence gathering was co-ordinated by the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), this time by Ian Skivens (above right), a Met cop on secondment to the NPOIU. The NPOIU is a private company run by ACPO, which collects, collates and analyses intelligence on 'domestic extremism'. Skivens spent his time at Aylesbury in the company of a Thames Valley FIT cop, 3465 (above left) who was sporting a digital stills camera with a very long lens.
Photos from Aylesbury, whether they are of EDL or from the counter demo, will find their way to Scotland Yard for NPOIU analysis. The images and data will be 'weeded' for intelligence value and put on a database, or more probably, a number of different databases. This intelligence is then available for any police force, agency, or other 'appropriate' body to use.
Some people will say, the EDL, rascist thugs, they deserve it. But the powers the police use against one side - the EDL - will also be used against the 'other side', anti-fascists, Muslim communities and local people. You don't need to have done anything unlawful to end up on a police file. And in the anti-terrorism hysteria of our times, it is probably the Muslim communities who have most to fear from inclusion on an extremism database.
On the streets of Aylesbury the biggest enemies to freedom and tolerance were probably the ones with the yellow and blue coats.
1Feb/104
FIT at Stop the War
>
An estimated 600 police were on duty last Friday to police the Stop the War protest outside the QEII conference centre where Blair was giving evidence to the Iraq war inquiry. They probably outnumbered the protesters.
The demonstration had been stopped from assembling on the green of the QEII centre as they'd planned, and was instead coralled, without resistance, into Storey's gate and other side roads. There the policing relaxed, and as the day wore on, the ring of police and protesters around the conference centre began to resemble a giant square dance, unlikely to erupt into anything more threatening than an impromptu do-si-do.
The FIT, on the other hand, were keen to keep up their usual brand of intimidation and harassment. Photographer Neal Williams (pictured), along with his FIT minder, hovered behind the lines of TSG, every few minutes firing his camera flashgun in the faces of those picked out as 'potential trouble-makers'.
And the Hammersmith and Fulham cop (FH70), pictured top left, entered enthusiastically into the spirit of things, ordering three stop and searches, and at least one arrest for breach of the peace. He was a little too keen, perhaps, to impress his friends in the public order unit.
Pictures: Sgt FH70; Public Order police from Scotland Yard's CO11, CO5090 and Chief Inspector; Neal Williams, FIT photographer.
21Aug/090
>How 'charming' will the Met be at this year's climate camp?
>
As the open letter from climate camp to the Met clearly states, the police do not have a happy record when it comes to climate camp. There have been blanket stop and searches, long periods of containment, and endlessly invasive surveillance. FIT have had a prominent role, and a carte blanche to do what they want, accumulating personal data from stop and search, and obtaining photographic images of everyone attending. At Kingsnorth last year even journalists were hassled, followed and filmed, while FITwatchers were violently arrested and held for four days in prison for taking photos of police officers and asking for their numbers.
This year it will all be different, we are told. The Met will be smiley and chatty, happy to communicate and negotiate with protesters. There'll be no heads busted or shields shoved in people's faces, no kettling, no night flights from the helicopter, no verbal abuse from police officers and no unlawful stop and searches.
The Met have promised a a "'community-style' policing operation that will limit the use of surveillance units and stop-and-searches wherever possible." according to the Guardian. Which sounds good. But what exactly does 'wherever possible' mean? And how much will surveillance be 'limited'?
According to the legal team, the police have said that "searches and FIT will not be over used as a tactic but FIT will be present as the Camp forms and people arrive and for the swoop." Presumably, once everyone has arrived, and they have taken the pics and identified this years prime 'targets', the FIT will be content to take a less prominent role anyway. As was documented in the report of policing on Kingsnorth, they have their covert surveillance operatives to take over then anyway.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, perhaps?
5Jun/090
>On the buses
>
This photo was sent to us by a demonstrator on the Mayday protests in Brighton. It shows two Sussex police evidence gatherers escaping the attention of the Mayday marchers by filming from the top deck of a bus.
FIT and evidence gatherers at the Brighton demo were given an exceptionally hard time. Evidence gatherers were pushed out of the crowd as it assembled near Brighton pier, and their cameras were the focus of constant attention from that point onwards. Photographers crowded them, demonstrators squirted water at them, FITwatchers blocked them. So presumably, these two took it upon themselves to escape from all that and hide on the top deck of a bus where no-one would notice them.
There is just one problem with that decision – it quite possibly meant that their filming of the march from this point was unlawful.
Their problem is RIPA, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This defines covert surveillance as follows:
FIT and evidence gatherers at the Brighton demo were given an exceptionally hard time. Evidence gatherers were pushed out of the crowd as it assembled near Brighton pier, and their cameras were the focus of constant attention from that point onwards. Photographers crowded them, demonstrators squirted water at them, FITwatchers blocked them. So presumably, these two took it upon themselves to escape from all that and hide on the top deck of a bus where no-one would notice them.
There is just one problem with that decision – it quite possibly meant that their filming of the march from this point was unlawful.
Their problem is RIPA, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This defines covert surveillance as follows:
9) For the purposes of this section—
(a) surveillance is covert if, and only if, it is carried out in a manner that is calculated to ensure that persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place;
(a) surveillance is covert if, and only if, it is carried out in a manner that is calculated to ensure that persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place;
Just like hiding out of sight in a bus with a video camera, then?
This type of surveillance is perfectly lawful if the police have justified it and obtained the appropriate authorisation. It is, apparently, quite an onerous process. According to an ACPO review it takes on average five hours to fill in the forms for an authorisation. Somehow I suspect that these two just didn’t bother to do that.
Normal FIT surveillance escapes all this because it is OVERT rather than COVERT. This means, according to the Met, “officers should clearly identify themselves as police officers and not hide the fact that they are filming”*.
COVERT filming, as defined by RIPA, carried out without authorisation, is of questionable legality. I am sure Sussex police, concerned as they are to prevent breaches of the law, will now conduct a thorough enquiry, discipline those involved and destroy the footage taken. Of course.
This type of surveillance is perfectly lawful if the police have justified it and obtained the appropriate authorisation. It is, apparently, quite an onerous process. According to an ACPO review it takes on average five hours to fill in the forms for an authorisation. Somehow I suspect that these two just didn’t bother to do that.
Normal FIT surveillance escapes all this because it is OVERT rather than COVERT. This means, according to the Met, “officers should clearly identify themselves as police officers and not hide the fact that they are filming”*.
COVERT filming, as defined by RIPA, carried out without authorisation, is of questionable legality. I am sure Sussex police, concerned as they are to prevent breaches of the law, will now conduct a thorough enquiry, discipline those involved and destroy the footage taken. Of course.
*Met police Use of Overt Filming / Photography Policy Statement, taken from Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009]EWCA Civ 414 §13
Follow Us!
Donate to Fitwatch
Hosted by tachanka.org
Recent Posts
- Why we need dissenting voices to ruin the state show.
- PLO block hits the streets at Sussex
- Vauxhall Squat Raids
- New Years Eve Prisoner Solidarity Demo
- Plain clothes cop at Fridays demo
Links
- Campaign Against Criminalising Communities
- Corporate Watch
- Glasgow Defence Campaign
- Green and Black Cross
- HSBC Defence Campaign
- Legal Defence and Monitoring Group
- Netcu watch
- Network for Police Monitoring
- Newham Monitoring Project
- Police State UK
- Random Blowe
- Standing up to surveillance conference
- Statewatch
Archives
Categories
Twitter Feed
- No public Twitter messages.