• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Journalists being arrested by (Herts) Police

Status
Not open for further replies.

brad465

Veteran Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
11,521
Location
Taunton or Kent
Charlotte Lynch of LBC has revealed that Hertfordshire Police arrested her while trying to cover recent Just Stop Oil protests, and gave an account of her experiences being arrested and held in custody, for what appears to be just doing her job:


Yesterday I was arrested by @HertsPolice whilst covering a protest on the M25. I showed my press card, and I was handcuffed almost immediately. My phone was snatched out of my hand. I was searched twice, held in a cell for 5 hours, and I wasn’t questioned whilst in custody.

It was absolutely terrifying being in a cell with a pad for a bed in one corner and a metal toilet in the other. I was just doing my job. What’s also terrifying is what this means for press freedom. It was blindingly obvious I was a reporter. Thank you for the kind messages x

I shared my experience with @NickFerrariLB this morning.

There was another account by a documentary maker who had pretty much the same experience:


Yesterday, myself, a documentary filmmaker and @tomsdinner, a press photographer, got arrested by @HertsPolice whilst filming the @JustStopOil protest from a public footbridge over the #M25.

Police had no interest in seeing press ID and handcuffed us instantly on arrival. They said they needed to search me for items which could be used to commit criminal damage. Obviously, they found nothing, so an officer said “just arrest them for conspiracy instead then”.

We were held in custody for about 13 hours and were questioned by the police, who tried to get me to reveal my journalistic sources and give them the pin to my phone. Tom's house also got searched by police and they took his daughter's iPad.

If the account given is true, this is very alarming, given the importance of a free press. Usually the arresting of journalists is news one would hear from somewhere like Russia.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,683
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is a criminal offence to be a pedestrian on a motorway other than if your car has broken down so it is out of necessity. There being a protest on doesn't change that. The only legal way to cover the protest would appear to be by helicopter or drone, or from outside the fence on private land with the landowner's agreement, or from a bridge or similar with a normal road if it's possible to see from there.

The second one is more concerning as that states that it was on a public bridge.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,940
Location
Devon
It is a criminal offence to be a pedestrian on a motorway other than if your car has broken down so it is out of necessity. There being a protest on doesn't change that. The only legal way to cover the protest would appear to be by helicopter or drone, or from outside the fence on private land with the landowner's agreement, or from a bridge or similar with a normal road if it's possible to see from there.

The second one is more concerning as that states that it was on a public bridge.

Not knowing the full story here and even if that was the reasoning, could they not have just read them the riot act and escorted them to somewhere safe?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,683
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Agreed - sounded like the old bill getting overly "helpful". I always like to see nice middle class people see what the fuzz are like close up!

I'm intrigued what their motivation was. Let's say we were a genuine Police state - what would they gain by preventing journalists filming it?

I could see it if they were intending to remove the protesters by excessively violent means - but they didn't do that.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,939
Location
Fenny Stratford
I'm intrigued what their motivation was. Let's say we were a genuine Police state - what would they gain by preventing journalists filming it?

I could see it if they were intending to remove the protesters by excessively violent means - but they didn't do that.
over zealous policing and a desire to reduce publicity?
 

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,562
Location
UK
I'm intrigued what their motivation was.

If you are correct in that you she was committing a criminal offence then it was correct that she was then arrested. Again, without the full facts and the location of where she was arrested its hard to say.

- what would they gain by preventing journalists filming it?

One of the reasons they protest in this manner is because they want the publicity. You here this stated by a fair few of them when they get arrested and/or are doing interviews. If you reduced their exposure, the protests would die down.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
2,442
Probably more a desire to get everyone out of the area and deal with who they are afterwards.

It wouldn't surprise me if actual activists were trying to play the press card to avoid arrest, and of course, some of them may well be legitimately in possession of press ID.

Maybe some of the journalists affected should remind themselves that press ID is not a get-out-of-jail-free card - reporting from the middle of a criminal act when the authorities arrive has always carried the risk of arrest until things are sorted out.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,769
In relation to the journalist on the footbridge, I can see both sides here - I think it comes down to whether the journalist was acting purely as a journalist (even if informed of the action in advance), or whether they were acting in support of the action. The former is protected, the latter is subject to a court injunction.

Looking at the profile of the journalist, I would characterise him as more of an activist. It still makes me very uneasy, though. The implication is that people can’t report on illegal causes they agree with for fear of being accused of aiding/abetting.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,163
Location
Elginshire
Do we have any proof that the journalist concerned was a pedestrian on a motorway? It seems unreasonable to assume that this was the case without knowing the full facts.

It's rather worrying that the press are being harassed for doing their job. It matters not a jot how you feel about the protests; the press should be able to report it as long as the journalists themselves are acting within the law.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,115
Location
Redcar
Either someone is a member of the press or they are not. There isn't room for "whataboutism" or "well are they really part of the protest". They are either a properly credentialed member of the press or they are not. The only exception might be someone who is in the process of gluing themselves the motorway whilst waving a press pass. By all means arrest them. But if they're not in the way of the police operation then I'm sorry the police have no business arresting them. If she was on the motorway tell her to bog off and if she refuses then arrest her so you can manhandle her to a position of safety. But you have no reason to detain her for hours and then release her without charge. The fact that some of these people were seemingly detained for hours, were asked to give access to their phone, have had their fingerprints and DNA taken (will these now be deleted as they were released without charge? I suspect not) should be chilling to everyone who thinks a free press is rather important actually. Even if we don't like what they're reporting.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,471
Location
Glasgow
There's a bit more here from the Guardian:

Hertfordshire police promise inquiry into arrest of journalists at Just Stop Oil protests​

Chief constable responds after minister condemns arrest of LBC reporter covering climate action

A specialist police officer attempts to remove a Just Stop Oil protester from the gantry over junction 30 of the M25 on Wednesday.

A specialist police officer attempts to remove a Just Stop Oil protester from the gantry over junction 30 of the M25 on Wednesday. Photograph: Essex Police/PA

Damien Gayle
Environment correspondent

The chief constable of Hertfordshire constabulary has promised an investigation into the arrests of journalists covering climate protests, amid accusations the force was threatening press freedom.

After a police officer was injured responding to a third day of protests by the climate activist group Just Stop Oil on the M25 on Wednesday morning, a Hertfordshire constabulary spokesperson said “additional measures” would allow “legitimate media” to cover the protests.

Essex police said there was a collision involving the motorcyclist and two lorries during a rolling roadblock introduced because of the actions of an activist on London’s orbital motorway between junctions 26 and 27. Just Stop Oil said about 10 of its supporters had climbed gantries at various locations.

Police in Hertfordshire said the protests were causing “significant disruption and potential harm” to the public and that officers had “been instructed to act as quickly as they can, using their professional judgment, to clear any possible protesters.

“The awful incident in Essex today, where an officer has been injured, underlines this,” the force said. “However, chief constable Charlie Hall recognises the concerns over the recent arrests of journalists who arrived at these locations and have been present with the protesters at the scenes. Additional measures are now in place to ensure that legitimate media are able to do their job,” it added.

“In addition, Mr Hall is today requesting an independent force to examine our approach to these arrests and to identify any learning we should take in managing these challenging situations.”

Charlotte Lynch, a reporter at LBC, on Tuesday became the third journalist arrested in two days by Hertfordshire constabulary while covering Just Stop Oil’s protests. Speaking on LBC on Wednesday morning, Lynch said she was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit a public nuisance despite being in a public area, some distance from the protesters, and showing officers a valid press ID.
Her arrest prompted criticism of police from the National Union of Journalists, the human rights group Liberty and a cabinet minister. “This is the second incident in as many days where the police have threatened press freedom and disregarded the right of journalists to cover protests,” said Michelle Stanistreet, the general secretary of the NUJ.

“No reporter should fear being placed in a cell for doing their job, and it’s time the police take immediate action to ensure this is prevented in future. We’ve raised this directly with the national police chiefs council and the police forces involved.”

Jun Pang, policy and campaigns officer at Liberty, said the arrests were “being enabled and encouraged by the government’s dangerous assault on protest rights.

“The reports we’ve heard of the arrests of journalists are deeply concerning,” Pang said. “Press, film crews and journalists should be able to cover protests without fear of being harassed, having their footage seized or being arrested.”

Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, told LBC police were wrong to make the arrest. “Journalists shouldn’t get arrested for doing their job,” she said. “We are defenders of free speech.”

Lynch’s arrest is thought to be the eighth of a journalist covering actions by Just Stop Oil, whose supporters have been waging a campaign of disruptive protests to force the government into introducing a moratorium on all new oil and gas licences.

On Monday, police in Hertfordshire arrested Rich Felgate, a documentary maker, and Tom Bowles, a photographer, also while covering protests on the M25.

Lynch said she was taken to Stevenage police station, where she was fingerprinted, photographed and had DNA samples taken. She said she was questioned over how she knew to be at the protest, with the implication that she ought to have informed police of the planned demonstration, but that she refused to give officers any information.

“It’s not the job of journalists to do the police’s job for them,” she said. She was released after five hours with no further action taken.

The arrest of journalists is the latest in a range of measures to reduce the impact of Just Stop Oil’s campaign, including pre-emptive arrests, injunctions banning protests and a new public order bill that will introduce additional protest-related offences.

Just Stop Oil said its activists would not be deterred. “This is an act of resistance against a criminal government and their genocidal death project,” the group said. “Our supporters will be returning – today, tomorrow and the next day – and the next day after that – and every day until our demand is met: no new oil and gas in the UK.”

The Guardian has contacted LBC for comment.

The fact that some of these people were seemingly detained for hours, were asked to give access to their phone, have had their fingerprints and DNA taken (will these now be deleted as they were released without charge? I suspect not) should be chilling to everyone who thinks a free press is rather important actually. Even if we don't like what they're reporting.
Thankfully, fingerprints and DNA samples are not - or at least should not be - retained when a person in custody is later released without charge. However, by virtue of the way that photographs of individuals in custody are treated separately to fingerprints and DNA by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, custody photographs can be retained indefinitely and uploaded to the Police National Database. Following a review by the Home Office in 2017 the policy was updated to allow for their deletion after a specified timeframe, but this requires that the person concerned specifically request it from the police service that took them into custody, and there are grounds on which the request can be refused.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,442
Location
Stevenage
Do we have any proof that the journalist concerned was a pedestrian on a motorway? It seems unreasonable to assume that this was the case without knowing the full facts.
According to the BBC, in both cases, the journalists were on bridges, not the motorway.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-63569177
The LBC reporter said her arrest happened on a bridge between junction 20 (Abbots Langley) and junction 21 (M1/St Albans interchange).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-63552488
Rich Felgate, who has been filming a Just Stop Oil documentary, told the BBC he was standing on an M25 bridge near Kings Langley, Hertfordshire, with another photo journalist on Monday when the pair were arrested and detained for 13 hours by police.
 

Broucek

Member
Joined
13 Aug 2020
Messages
951
Location
UK
Doesn't sound good, does it? Although I think people are wise to counsel caution - there may be reasons or elements of context that are not obvious to those of us who are "seeing" this through our keyboards... And whilst I'm STRONGLY against arresting journalists, there are people in that profession that are not above pushing boundaries
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,925
Location
UK
Either someone is a member of the press or they are not. There isn't room for "whataboutism" or "well are they really part of the protest". They are either a properly credentialed member of the press or they are not.

Indeed. I have a press card and it can be easily checked by way of a passcode that is registered with the police. My photo is clearly on it also.

I have only had to show it a police officer a few times and never had any issues, although I am not attending protests/activist rallies so don't think for one second my experience would be the same if I did.
 

johncrossley

Established Member
Joined
30 Mar 2021
Messages
4,440
Location
London
So Ms Lynch now has to get a visa to visit the United States and cannot apply for a Visa Waiver.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,925
Location
UK
So Ms Lynch now has to get a visa to visit the United States and cannot apply for a Visa Waiver.
As a journalist you need a visa to visit the USA anyway (okay, technically not if you're not intending to work, but good luck getting in if they find out you're a journalist). The waiver scheme is a somewhat risky move and many a journalist has been caught out and deported.

It's probably easier to get a visa for China than the US as a member of the press!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,683
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Maybe. It is a very murky area involving the distinctly US term 'moral turpitude'.

I believe the term essentially refers to crimes of dishonesty e.g. fraud, but is a bit wider than that. I'm fairly sure that conspiracy to cause a breach of the peace, or whatever it was, isn't that, though.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
2,964
As a journalist you need a visa to visit the USA anyway (okay, technically not if you're not intending to work, but good luck getting in if they find out you're a journalist). The waiver scheme is a somewhat risky move and many a journalist has been caught out and deported.

A journalist friend spent 3 hours being grilled about this there. They were convinced that he was there to report on things, even when he went through Google with them to show that he hadn't even written a word about the US. They just couldn't believe that he was so completely disinterested in the US from a journalistic point of view. They only relented when he explained that he was there to eat meat and drink beer.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,442
Location
Stevenage

Mcr Warrior

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
17,287
The Herts Police and Crime Commissioner does not seem to be a fan of press freedom.

https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/herts-pcc-believes-just-stop-7806158

Indeed. A couple of further quotes from the link you've referenced might be considered particularly noteworthy...

“I think we’ve just got to ask ourselves as a society if we are handling the Just Stop Oil appropriately by giving them the oxygen of publicity,” PCC Lloyd told LBC’s Nick Ferrari on Thursday.

Mr Ferrari replied: “I put it to you that you are far better versed in police affairs than I am, but perhaps in the news business I might just have the edge. This is news – if you close vast tracks of a 116-mile orbital road because of one particular protest… that’s what we in the business call news.”
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
6,886
The Herts Police and Crime Commissioner does not seem to be a fan of press freedom.

https://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/news/hertfordshire-news/herts-pcc-believes-just-stop-7806158
Back in around 2012 he made several silly suggestions i.e. Police should look into putting advertising for local businesses on police cars and uniform; those who spend the night in custody should be charged a comparable rate as a local hotel etc... Sounds daft but I'm honestly not making it up:

Police cars, uniforms and equipment could carry sponsors’ logos to raise money for the force under a plan unveiled by Police Crime Commissioner David Lloyd.

The idea for businesses to advertise through the force and even have products officially endorsed by Hertfordshire Constabulary was first proposed in Mr Lloyd’s Police and Crime Plan.

Suspects should be charged for being kept overnight in police cells, a police and crime commissioner (PCC) has said.
David Lloyd, PCC in Hertfordshire, said the "honest taxpayer" should not be forced to meet the cost.
Instead criminals "should be punished in the pocket", Conservative Mr Lloyd said in an open letter laying out policing proposals.
Hertfordshire Police said it was "working closely" with Mr Lloyd.
Mr Lloyd said he thought "most people" would agree with his plan.

I'm not sure much of what he says should be considered reasonable or thought through.

From that second link -
The Police and Crime Commissioner admitted his idea was "not the finished product" and he needed to check the legality of the proposal but he had had "a lot of very positive coverage so far".
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,683
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,925
Location
UK
It's a valid view - protests only work if they get publicity. After all one of the most important aspects of US style free speech is the responsibility to use it appropriately.

However, arresting journalists who don't agree with him is NOT on.

If there's an incident where you need to clear an area, fine, but assist the press to a safe area. If there's an issue of national security then there are processes for that also, and the accredited press will work with the authorities.

You shouldn't need to arrest them!
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,163
Location
Elginshire
It's a valid view - protests only work if they get publicity. After all one of the most important aspects of US style free speech is the responsibility to use it appropriately.

However, arresting journalists who don't agree with him is NOT on.
It isn't a valid view at all. Whether or not you agree with the method of protest, numpties like this have absolutely no right to decide what I get to hear about. To sweep it under the carpet and pretend it's not happening makes us no better than an authoritarian dictatorship - Tiananmen Square, anyone?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,683
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It isn't a valid view at all. Whether or not you agree with the method of protest, numpties like this have absolutely no right to decide what I get to hear about. To sweep it under the carpet and pretend it's not happening makes us no better than an authoritarian dictatorship - Tiananmen Square, anyone?

He has no right to decide what you hear about, no, which is why the arrests were wrong. For the simple reason that the Police enforce the law, not make it (separation of legislature, police and judiciary is important in a democracy to prevent conflict of interest).

He is entitled to the (wrong) opinion that the law should provide for such censorship, as he's entitled to his opinion as much as you are. The fact is, however, that it does not, and thus arresting people who haven't broken it is unacceptable.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,163
Location
Elginshire
It's a valid view - protests only work if they get publicity. After all one of the most important aspects of US style free speech is the responsibility to use it appropriately.
You seem to be agreeing with the premise that protests should be shut down and not reported. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into the idea of "free speech as long as I agree with it" mantra. That is not free speech.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,683
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You seem to be agreeing with the premise that protests should be shut down and not reported. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into the idea of "free speech as long as I agree with it" mantra. That is not free speech.

No, I'm saying he has a right to hold and express a view that I disagree with, because that is free speech. It is one of the "liberal paradoxes" that one has the right, in US-style free speech, to express the view that you believe there shouldn't be free speech.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top