Are TV camera crews just another arm of the Police?

[stockhausen]

The major broadcasters (BBC, ITN) have in recent months been ordered to hand over to the Police footage of the Tottenham and other riots, the Dale Farm evacuation and various other protests. ITN has stated that it will vigorously resist these orders. (The Grauniad)

Two views that immediately spring to mind are on the one hand that TV film crews should assist the Police in bringing to justice the perpetrators of crime and on the other hand that handing over this footage will tend to make reporters and TV camera crew appear to be an arm of the state and thus expose them to retaliation.

Personally, I feel that ITN's approach is the right one.

 

[Deific]

They're already an arm of the state. You don't think the major broadcasters in this country are routinely used as government agenda, propaganda centers?

 

[deadite66]

looks like its already happened.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/...rcing-broadcasters-to-hand-over-riot-footage/

 

[Ahleckz]

I think that with the amount of footage that TV crews film compared to the amount that the police want to see and then that the prosecution actually use is so slim it is unlikely that the media will expose them to retaliation.

The police should be able to request footage of those who are breaking the law, it is the right thing to do and if it helps convict criminals then it is a good thing.

The media, whilst not perfect, are essential in ensuring that wrongs are righted and if they have key evidence on their tapes then that should be shared with the authorities.

It would be wrong to rely on the media to provide evidence of criminal activity. However, if the media catch criminal activity on tape through their day to day activity of recording stuff then that footage should be used to assist the police in bringing criminals to justice.

If you are daft enough to commit criminal activites, and then even dafter to get yourself recorded doing them then it's your own bloody fault you're caught - not the fault of the media agencies who happened to record it.

 

[Nexus]

The News Broadcasters have already got their story and with any exclusive pictures has already drawn you to their channel. I'm sure they have hours of unedited footage of the riots, so if Police want to go through all that, I don't see what the big deal is.

 

[scorza]

The solution is to get the police to actually do their job, then they won't need to go scrounging for evidence.

 

[Vulcan]

The solution is to get the police to actually do their job, then they won't need to go scrounging for evidence.

I wasn't aware the police have a photographic memory, especially when bottles and bricks are being thrown at them. Much easier to capture it on camera and review the footage.

 

[Werewolf]

The Police have always had the ability to request, and even require any photographic or film evidence of some incidents, and from memory most of the time it's handed over without a problem (this includes footage from CCTV etc).
I suspect the footage from the TV cameras will likely be small in comparison to the amount from other sources such as CCTV and their own teams (the Police have, from memory had specialist camera units for about 20 years).

I can sort of see why the likes of ITV may be unhappy about handing the evidence over, but they are already generally a target for idiots in riots.

 

[scorza]

I wasn't aware the police have a photographic memory, especially when bottles and bricks are being thrown at them. Much easier to capture it on camera and review the footage.

I wasn't aware there was anything stopping the police from doing that. In fact, wasn't that their initial strategy for dealing with the riots - film London burning and not actually do anything to stop it.

 

[Werewolf]

The solution is to get the police to actually do their job, then they won't need to go scrounging for evidence.

Ah, so you expect the police to have dozens of Camera teams with broadcast quality equipment roaming around on their own?

The Police already have specialist camera teams, unfortunately they are unable to operate separate from support (IIRC they're normally just behind the police lines) as they are rather vulnerable to the scum who seem more than happy to go after the likes of Paramedics and Firemen, let alone anyone in anything resembling a police uniform.

 

[Ahleckz]

I wasn't aware there was anything stopping the police from doing that. In fact, wasn't that their initial strategy for dealing with the riots - film London burning and not actually do anything to stop it.

What did you want them to do? They were heavily outnumered, didn't have the resources to tackle the rioters and it was likely anything that they could do would have made the situation even worse.

As I said, numerous times, in the thread at the time any escelation of police tactics would likely result in more of a problem. They did what I suggested, increase numbers and have a greater presence, and it worked rather quickly.

It would be nice if we could have the type of presence that there ultimately was but we can't. We therefore require the help of the media in providing evidence to bring troublemakers to justice.

The police did a commendable job, as did the other emergency services in a time of great pressure, stress and civil unrest. They are now doing what they can to bring the criminals to justice. Rather than applaud them and help them in their efforts you sit there and criticse. Next you'll be saying you wouldn't give evidence in a criminal case because it's not your job. .

 

[Werewolf]

I wasn't aware there was anything stopping the police from doing that. In fact, wasn't that their initial strategy for dealing with the riots - film London burning and not actually do anything to stop it.

And your suggestion for what they could have done?

Run in with too few officers, getting them hurt/killed, or having to use "excessive force" to protect themselves.

Or get enough officers in to provide mutual support so that they could go in, with sufficient numbers that they don't need to use massive amounts of force (god help any officer who is caught in a 10 second mobile phone clip, hitting someone....), and are able to control the area and protect each others backs.

Oddly enough it takes time to get hundreds/thousands of additional officers assembled, in protective equipment to a riot when they were not expecting it.

 

[scorza]

What did you want them to do? They were heavily outnumered, didn't have the resources to tackle the rioters and it was likely anything that they could do would have made the situation even worse.

Aren't they (the Met) supposed to be a modern, intelligence led police force? If they were heavily outnumbered then that's a little bit of an intelligence failure isn't it. Their strap line is "Total Policing", I'm pretty sure that standing back watching the rioters burn and loot isn't what they had in mind when they came up with that.

The Police already have specialist camera teams, unfortunately they are unable to operate separate from support (IIRC they're normally just behind the police lines) as they are rather vulnerable to the scum who seem more than happy to go after the likes of Paramedics and Firemen, let alone anyone in anything resembling a police uniform.

What do you think will happen to ITN staff the next time there's a major riot if the rioters know the footage they are taking will end up in the hands of the police and used as evidence against them?

 

[GAC]

im guessing the same thing that was happening before this news.

one of skys guys nearly got beaten up covering a betting shop being trashed in the riots and he only had his camera phone at the time untill someone reognised who he was.

 

[LOAM]

If it removes one piece of scrotie trash off the streets where's the problem ?

 

[Werewolf]

Aren't they (the Met) supposed to be a modern, intelligence led police force? If they were heavily outnumbered then that's a little bit of an intelligence failure isn't it. Their strap line is "Total Policing", I'm pretty sure that standing back watching the rioters burn and loot isn't what they had in mind when they came up with that.



What do you think will happen to ITN staff the next time there's a major riot if the rioters know the footage they are taking will end up in the hands of the police and used as evidence against them?

It already happens.

The likes of ITN, BBC and Sky camera crews were from memory attacked in the last lot of riots, and it's not at all uncommon for the vans of news organisations to get attacked at riots, and protests (I was reading comments from someone who works for one of the outside broadcast companies that supply the vans who was basically saying all they can do in such cases is hunker down and hope for the best).

The idiots don't need any incentive to go after reporters or anyone who is associated with the government/police/any big organisation, they do it anyway a lot of the time.

It's the same reason the likes of the Ambulance service get attacked, the scum simply don't care who it is they attack, anyone who looks either "official" or like they might have some money/be doing a job (any job).

Remember these are the same idiots who think a great way to protest the "inequalities in society" is to burn down their neighbours businesses and each others houses.

My personal opinion is pretty much the police should have been allowed to use water cannon and the like if not from the word go, from the moment the idiots started setting buildings on fire, rather than the "nicely nicely" approach the governments for the past 20 years have pushed, where it seems it's better for the Police to get put in hospital and for people to be attempting to kill them (the only possible explanation for throwing large chunks of stone at someone is to seriously hurt, or kill), than to have the Police look like they are hurting someone on camera.

The rioters are pretty much mindless thugs, the fact that the likes of ITN might be forced to hand over film footage (much of which was shown on air...) isn't going to make much of a difference to their attitudes.

 

[Hagar]

I think that they should be able to ask for specific incidents over which a complaint has been raised. Not as a general fishing expedition for incidents to prosecute. There are enough cameras in general use.
I agree with ITN and other news organisations that subject to specific requests and with judicial oversight the police may have some access however blanket requests for all footage should be resisted.
Some investigative work should be carried out surely otherwise we will have policing solely by camera and the conclusion that if it is not on film then it's not happened.

 

[stockhausen]

... idiots ... scum ... idiots ... idiots ... rioters are pretty much mindless thugs ...

Ho hum, ho hum . . . NEXT . . .

 

[Werewolf]

Well what would you call people who complain about lack of employment, chances etc, then going and setting fire/burgle/vandalise the local businesses that offer those chances?
It certainly doesn't show much in the way of brains or thinking (mind you, mobs never do).

And that's before the opportunists who turned up for the chance to play "grab a telly"

In those situations the fact that a TV company has, in the past been forced to hand over footage to the Police isn't going to make much odds, the TV crews are already targets simply by being there and taking pictures that are likely to be broadcast anyway.

 

[scorza]

Well what would you call people who complain about lack of employment, chances etc, then going and setting fire/burgle/vandalise the local businesses that offer those chances?
It certainly doesn't show much in the way of brains or thinking (mind you, mobs never do).

And that's before the opportunists who turned up for the chance to play "grab a telly"

This is a thread about the police and their forcing TV companies to handover footage taken of major crimes. Not another rioter bashing thread.

In those situations the fact that a TV company has, in the past been forced to hand over footage to the Police isn't going to make much odds, the TV crews are already targets simply by being there and taking pictures that are likely to be broadcast anyway.

And yet the TV companies were able to operate in close proximity to the rioters, they were trusted by the rioters that their faces would be pixelated out unless they gave consent.