“Journalists on the Guardian and Observer in London have backed colleagues on the local titles in their group who are fighting against massive job cuts and almost certain compulsory redundancies,” reports the National Union of Journalists.
“A joint meeting of NUJ members from the two national titles unanimously agreed a resolution that said: ‘When the chapels in Greater Manchester, Surrey and Berkshire decide on a course of action, we will support them,'” the release states.
“With a week to go until the NUJ’s parlimentary lobby over local media cutbacks, more than seventy UK MPs have signed a motion on the issue,” the National Union of Journalists reports.
“The parliamentary petition regrets job cuts at profitable local media and calls on the government to give state support only in return for guarantees on investment in journalism,” the release continues.
The NUJ has issued a release calling on Trinity Mirror ‘to put a stop to its cost-cutting programmes and come up with a strategy that shows respect for local communities and invests in a long-term plan to ensure the success of its papers and websites.’
“The company’s figures show that, despite the downturn, Trinity Mirror still made operating profits of over £145 million – of which £68 million came from local media. The company’s profit margin is almost 17 per cent,” the release said.
Following Friday’s NUJ meeting at the Guardian, which confirmed a pay freeze for 2009, the National Union of Journalists has released a statement reminding managers at the Guardian Media Group that they are obliged to enter negotiations with the union.
“It has been reported that management are not open to consultation on the pay freeze, but under the union’s agreements with the company consultation must take place.
“The company has stated that the economic downturn means it can’t afford to increase salaries this year. It has also announced that most executive bonuses won’t be paid.”
Following Saturday’s job crisis summit, the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has launched a hotline for journalists to anonymously report instances where cutbacks are affecting the quality of journalism in their workplace.
Following the National Union of Journalists’ (NUJ) submission of a list of applications for voluntary redundancy at the Scotland-based Newsquest Herald Group, all but one of the names were accepted, Allmediascotland.com reports.
Further names have now been added (which takes the total to just above 40) – and will be confirmed after a meeting between the newspaper and the NUJ on Thursday, according to Allmediascotland.
The successful applications include Ian Bruce, the defence correspondent at the Herald, and Alan Campbell, sports writer at the Sunday Herald. Full story...
Herald Group’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ) reps have hired employment lawyers following claims that staff could lose redundancy benefits if they do not either volunteer for redundancy or reapply for a position.
Last month publishers Newquest told 250 journalists and production staff they must reapply for 30-40 fewer jobs or face redundancy in 90 days.
As reported by theregister.co.uk and the British Journal of Photography, new terrorism guidance for police officers has been issued. The National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) has released its update ‘Practice Advice’ on stop-and-search powers, with reference to the Terrorism Act 2000.
The advice includes guidance for police officers on how to deal with photographers, but is not final. It has now been circulated to forces for final comments. After further consulatation it will need to be endorsed by the Assosiation of Chief Police Offices. (ACPO) [information courtesy of photojournalist Marc Vallée]
This announcement follows up from Marc Vallée’s assessment of the situation here and here.
The guidance:
“The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.
“If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film.
“Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.
“Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search and images may be viewed as part of a search.”
Marc Vallée asks on his blog:
“What is going on here? Does Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 override the long held journalistic protection of Special Procedure Material under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE)?
“As an article on the EPUK website put it last year: ‘Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, material such as a journalist’s notes, photographs, computer files or tapes are classified as Special Procedure Material, which have a higher level of protection than ordinary possessions.’
“Which means if the police want to look at such material then they would have to go in front of a judge and explain why.”
Pictured: A press photographer files images on the move as environmental activists march from the Camp for Climate Action to Kingsnorth Power Station Hoo, Kent, England on Saturday August 9 2008. 2,000 campaigners marched on the Power Station with the aim to shut it down for the day. (Photo Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2008.
In the meantime, until further information is obtained, Ray Mincoff, the NUJ legal editor, has issued this statement:
“We welcome the publication of unequivocal guidance showing that the Terrorism Act does not prohibit the taking of photographs in public places.
“The authorities must now ensure that police officers are aware of the limits to their powers. It must also be made crystal clear that the right to seize film and memory cards can only be used in the very exceptional circumstances where there are strong grounds for suspecting someone of being a terrorist.
“If section 43 of the Act ends up being casually used by officers in the same slapdash manner as other parts of the legislation, it would seriously inhibit the ability of journalists to work in our cities. The police cannot routinely use anti-terror or other legislation to stop journalists in their lawful and proper work. Neither must they see these guidelines as a green light to seize journalistic material, the special nature of which is recognised by law.
“We will also be looking carefully at other aspects of the guidelines to assess other possible effects on civil liberties and the free press.”
UPDATE:
Marc Vallée wrote to the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA).
“Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, material such as a journalist’s notes, photographs, computer files or tapes are classified as Special Procedure Material, which have a higher level of protection than ordinary possessions,” he wrote.
“What is the view of the NPIA on this in the context of stop-and-search powers like S43? Could a UK Press Card carrying photographer use Special Procedure Material to stop or limit the scope of a stop-and-search under S43? or S44?”
They responded:
“There has been no change to the law. These guidelines remind officers that they can only stop-and-search photographers in exceptional cases where they believe they are involved in some kind of terrorist information gathering activity.”
UPDATE TWO (02/12/08): the NPIA has now added this statement:
“The Practice Advice makes it clear that there has been no change in the law. Journalist material will continue to enjoy the higher level of protection offered under PACE.
“For example, if a police officer suspects that photographs are being taken as part of terrorist information gathering they will rightly investigate. But once the stopped person makes it clear that they are a journalist then this will usually reassure police that they have legitimate reasons for taking photographs.”
Mick Ricket, National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Merseyside branch chairman, has asked for an inquiry by the Competition Commission into regional newspaper ownership in the UK.
Following coverage of last week’s comments by National Union of Journalists (NUJ) chief Jeremy Dear, about his bemusement with the regional press’ opposition to the BBC’s proposals to extend local video offerings online, the general secretary has responded, saying that there’s ‘room for everyone’ in the regional market.
“My point is that the local newspapers campaign is for their own vested interests – they don’t care about ensuring local people have a variety of sources of news, comment and entertainment. They want to be able to capture the market themselves. I fully support the newspapers’ expansion in to online media and I hope they capture a significant part of the audience – but it has to be done through quality content, with enough staff and resources to win ‘eyeballs’ not by stopping the licence fee payer being able to access BBC local services,” he writes in a blog post.
Dear adds that he has replied to a letter from Trinity Mirror’s director of corporate communications about his remarks, but is yet to receive a response:
“I simply asked him the question that if we believe in media plurality and we accept that commercial local TV and radio can exist alongside the BBC what is so different about online?”
Regional newspaper publishers have previously told Journalism.co.uk that ‘enough staff and resources to win “eyeballs”‘ would be a much easier prospect if a £68 million, five-year investment plan was available.
The final decision on the plans is fast approaching – it’s scheduled for February 25 2009 – and perhaps now is the time for the regional press to ask themselves what can be done if their opposition fails.
Is there potential for collaboration with the BBC online, and could this drive further innovation by regional titles online in response to the competition? Or will approval of the scheme lead to a reduction in online investment by the regional media?