NUJ criticises Met’s ‘fishing trip’, warning journalists of risks being seen as ‘information gatherers’ BBC journalists have been asked if they would be willing to hand over unbroadcast footage of last month’s march against government cuts in central London, as part of the Metropolitan police’s investigation into violence at the demonstration. The initial approaches to reporters prompted a swift reaction from the NUJ, whose general secretary warned journalists of the risks of handing over any of their material to the police. It is understood that detectives from the Met have contacted a number of people in BBC News about the possibility of obtaining unseen material of the event. A hard core of militant activists caused extensive damage in London’s West End at the end of the protest organised by the TUC on 26 March. Officially, a spokesman for the Metropolitan police said it was currently “considering” requesting media organisations for unbroadcast footage. However, unofficial contact already appears to have been made with some journalists at the BBC, prompting the National Union of Journalists general secretary Jeremy Dear to release a statement. Dear described it as to be a “fishing trip” and warned of the hazards of journalists being seen as “information gatherers” for the police. “The NUJ has a long and proud record in fighting to protect journalists faced with actions over sources or journalistic material,” said Dear in an email to NUJ members. He added: “It is important we do not allow the police to use journalists as information gatherers for their purposes. Such a move places all journalists at greater risk when covering public order issues and stops sources coming forward. The NUJ stance has been confirmed in various cases before the UK and European courts.” Dear said a number of NUJ members at the BBC had received emails regarding police attempts to secure unbroadcast material from the demonstration. He said he had also written to the BBC urging them to make “strong representations” in defence of the confidentiality of journalists’ material and their sources. A Metropolitan police spokeswoman said: “As part of the investigation into the serious disorder and violence committed in the West End on Saturday 26 March, detectives are considering requesting unbroadcast footage from media organisations. “This is regularly a consideration for those responsible for investigating these incidents and is done after careful consideration as to its necessity. “Such footage is obtained via an application to the crown court, made under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984. As part of this process all parties are able to put forward arguments, should they wish to do so.” The police can use the courts to access journalistic material provided they can show it is in the public interest or of substantial value to an investigation, and that they have taken all reasonable measures to obtain the material. Police used court orders to seize TV footage of clashes between protestors and police ahead of the G8 summit in 2005 . No official police requests have so far been put into either ITN or Sky. The BBC was unavailable for comment at the time of publication. Detectives from Operation Brontide – the team investigating the disorder – today released 18 images of people they want to identify following the violence around Trafalgar Square, Piccadilly and Oxford Street areas of central London. •
Continue reading …
Welsh MP says UK must challenge US over treatment of marine being detained for alleged leak of state secrets to WikiLeaks Britain risks losing its moral authority if it fails to officially challenge the US government on its “cruel and uneccessary” treatment of the US marine Bradley Manning, parliament is to be told. Ann Clwyd, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, will on Monday evening say UK’s credibility in “places where human rights are not nearly so well observed” is at risk. She will call on the government to offer practical support to the British-based relatives of Manning, who is currently imprisoned on a US marine base, accused of leaking state secrets to the WikiLeaks website. “I do not want us to get drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks revelations. I would like us now to concentrate on the current conditions of detention for Bradley Manning,” Clywd is expected to say at the adjournment debate speech. “Manning’s case is important because of the message it sends out to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. And, for us, it is important what we say – or what we don’t say – because of the message that it sends out about what kind of treatment we in the United Kingdom and in the UK government think is acceptable. “That matters in places where human rights are not nearly so well observed. People will pay attention in China and in Russia. And in Libya where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression. “And most of all in Afghanistan: It matters to those UK and US service personnel fighting in Afghanistan what kind of image Britain and the US have in the world.” Clwyd will draw on her experiences during the seven years she spent as special envoy to Iraq on human rights. “It is my view that some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged,” she will say. “It undermined our moral authority at a time when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq “The United States – and the UK, in the way we respond to actions of the US – needs to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example.” Praising The Guardian’s coverage of Manning’s treatment in the US, Clwyd said she would be willing to visit the solider if his family asked her to. “I have read the several accounts of Bradley’s treatment which have appeared in the press – some very good accounts have been in the Guardian and from David Leigh in particular,” she will say. But the account to which she has paid most attention is Bradley’s own, in which he complains of “improper treatment” and “unlawful pre-trial punishment”. Clwyd is the only politician to have directly questioned the foreign secretary, William Hague, over the government’s position on Manning. She has sponsored an early day motion calling for the government to raise the case with the US administration. The motion is supported by 37 MPs, including co-sponsors Peter Bottomley, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan and Paul Flynn. Hague has previously said the UK government has not intervened because Manning’s lawyer has said the soldier “does not hold a UK passport, nor does he consider himself a UK citizen”. “Our standing on this matter is limited,” Hague said during a parlimentary debate last month. “[Manning] is not asking for our help, nor considering himself British.” But Clwyd is expected to call Hague’s response a red herring. She will point out that Manning’s mother, Susan, is Welsh and lives in Pembrokeshire, where Manning lived between the ages of 13 and 17. and she will point to calls from Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, for his client’s detention status to be changed. Manning’s treatment in the military prison in Quantico, Virginia, “ignores the repeated recommendations of the marine corps’ own appointed psychiatrists”, Coombs has said. His treatment “serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade Bradley Manning. I regard it as cruel and unnecessary.” Human Rights Watch has called on the US government to “explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment” that Manning alleges he has received. Amnesty International has said “Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn’t even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime.” The UN special rapporteur on torture is understood to have raised his concerns with the US administration and is waiting for a response. Clwyd quoted a recent column written for the Guardian by PJ Crowley , who resigned as spokesman for the US state department after criticising Manning’s treatment, in which he repeated his conviction that it was “ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid”. Bradley Manning Foreign policy US military US national security WikiLeaks United States Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Welsh MP says UK must challenge US over treatment of marine being detained for alleged leak of state secrets to WikiLeaks Britain risks losing its moral authority if it fails to officially challenge the US government on its “cruel and uneccessary” treatment of the US marine Bradley Manning, parliament is to be told. Ann Clwyd, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, will on Monday evening say UK’s credibility in “places where human rights are not nearly so well observed” is at risk. She will call on the government to offer practical support to the British-based relatives of Manning, who is currently imprisoned on a US marine base, accused of leaking state secrets to the WikiLeaks website. “I do not want us to get drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks revelations. I would like us now to concentrate on the current conditions of detention for Bradley Manning,” Clywd is expected to say at the adjournment debate speech. “Manning’s case is important because of the message it sends out to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. And, for us, it is important what we say – or what we don’t say – because of the message that it sends out about what kind of treatment we in the United Kingdom and in the UK government think is acceptable. “That matters in places where human rights are not nearly so well observed. People will pay attention in China and in Russia. And in Libya where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression. “And most of all in Afghanistan: It matters to those UK and US service personnel fighting in Afghanistan what kind of image Britain and the US have in the world.” Clwyd will draw on her experiences during the seven years she spent as special envoy to Iraq on human rights. “It is my view that some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged,” she will say. “It undermined our moral authority at a time when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq “The United States – and the UK, in the way we respond to actions of the US – needs to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example.” Praising The Guardian’s coverage of Manning’s treatment in the US, Clwyd said she would be willing to visit the solider if his family asked her to. “I have read the several accounts of Bradley’s treatment which have appeared in the press – some very good accounts have been in the Guardian and from David Leigh in particular,” she will say. But the account to which she has paid most attention is Bradley’s own, in which he complains of “improper treatment” and “unlawful pre-trial punishment”. Clwyd is the only politician to have directly questioned the foreign secretary, William Hague, over the government’s position on Manning. She has sponsored an early day motion calling for the government to raise the case with the US administration. The motion is supported by 37 MPs, including co-sponsors Peter Bottomley, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan and Paul Flynn. Hague has previously said the UK government has not intervened because Manning’s lawyer has said the soldier “does not hold a UK passport, nor does he consider himself a UK citizen”. “Our standing on this matter is limited,” Hague said during a parlimentary debate last month. “[Manning] is not asking for our help, nor considering himself British.” But Clwyd is expected to call Hague’s response a red herring. She will point out that Manning’s mother, Susan, is Welsh and lives in Pembrokeshire, where Manning lived between the ages of 13 and 17. and she will point to calls from Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, for his client’s detention status to be changed. Manning’s treatment in the military prison in Quantico, Virginia, “ignores the repeated recommendations of the marine corps’ own appointed psychiatrists”, Coombs has said. His treatment “serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade Bradley Manning. I regard it as cruel and unnecessary.” Human Rights Watch has called on the US government to “explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment” that Manning alleges he has received. Amnesty International has said “Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn’t even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime.” The UN special rapporteur on torture is understood to have raised his concerns with the US administration and is waiting for a response. Clwyd quoted a recent column written for the Guardian by PJ Crowley , who resigned as spokesman for the US state department after criticising Manning’s treatment, in which he repeated his conviction that it was “ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid”. Bradley Manning Foreign policy US military US national security WikiLeaks United States Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Welsh MP says UK must challenge US over treatment of marine being detained for alleged leak of state secrets to WikiLeaks Britain risks losing its moral authority if it fails to officially challenge the US government on its “cruel and uneccessary” treatment of the US marine Bradley Manning, parliament is to be told. Ann Clwyd, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, will on Monday evening say UK’s credibility in “places where human rights are not nearly so well observed” is at risk. She will call on the government to offer practical support to the British-based relatives of Manning, who is currently imprisoned on a US marine base, accused of leaking state secrets to the WikiLeaks website. “I do not want us to get drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks revelations. I would like us now to concentrate on the current conditions of detention for Bradley Manning,” Clywd is expected to say at the adjournment debate speech. “Manning’s case is important because of the message it sends out to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. And, for us, it is important what we say – or what we don’t say – because of the message that it sends out about what kind of treatment we in the United Kingdom and in the UK government think is acceptable. “That matters in places where human rights are not nearly so well observed. People will pay attention in China and in Russia. And in Libya where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression. “And most of all in Afghanistan: It matters to those UK and US service personnel fighting in Afghanistan what kind of image Britain and the US have in the world.” Clwyd will draw on her experiences during the seven years she spent as special envoy to Iraq on human rights. “It is my view that some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged,” she will say. “It undermined our moral authority at a time when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq “The United States – and the UK, in the way we respond to actions of the US – needs to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example.” Praising The Guardian’s coverage of Manning’s treatment in the US, Clwyd said she would be willing to visit the solider if his family asked her to. “I have read the several accounts of Bradley’s treatment which have appeared in the press – some very good accounts have been in the Guardian and from David Leigh in particular,” she will say. But the account to which she has paid most attention is Bradley’s own, in which he complains of “improper treatment” and “unlawful pre-trial punishment”. Clwyd is the only politician to have directly questioned the foreign secretary, William Hague, over the government’s position on Manning. She has sponsored an early day motion calling for the government to raise the case with the US administration. The motion is supported by 37 MPs, including co-sponsors Peter Bottomley, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan and Paul Flynn. Hague has previously said the UK government has not intervened because Manning’s lawyer has said the soldier “does not hold a UK passport, nor does he consider himself a UK citizen”. “Our standing on this matter is limited,” Hague said during a parlimentary debate last month. “[Manning] is not asking for our help, nor considering himself British.” But Clwyd is expected to call Hague’s response a red herring. She will point out that Manning’s mother, Susan, is Welsh and lives in Pembrokeshire, where Manning lived between the ages of 13 and 17. and she will point to calls from Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, for his client’s detention status to be changed. Manning’s treatment in the military prison in Quantico, Virginia, “ignores the repeated recommendations of the marine corps’ own appointed psychiatrists”, Coombs has said. His treatment “serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade Bradley Manning. I regard it as cruel and unnecessary.” Human Rights Watch has called on the US government to “explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment” that Manning alleges he has received. Amnesty International has said “Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn’t even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime.” The UN special rapporteur on torture is understood to have raised his concerns with the US administration and is waiting for a response. Clwyd quoted a recent column written for the Guardian by PJ Crowley , who resigned as spokesman for the US state department after criticising Manning’s treatment, in which he repeated his conviction that it was “ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid”. Bradley Manning Foreign policy US military US national security WikiLeaks United States Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Welsh MP says UK must challenge US over treatment of marine being detained for alleged leak of state secrets to WikiLeaks Britain risks losing its moral authority if it fails to officially challenge the US government on its “cruel and uneccessary” treatment of the US marine Bradley Manning, parliament is to be told. Ann Clwyd, chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human rights, will on Monday evening say UK’s credibility in “places where human rights are not nearly so well observed” is at risk. She will call on the government to offer practical support to the British-based relatives of Manning, who is currently imprisoned on a US marine base, accused of leaking state secrets to the WikiLeaks website. “I do not want us to get drawn into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of the WikiLeaks revelations. I would like us now to concentrate on the current conditions of detention for Bradley Manning,” Clywd is expected to say at the adjournment debate speech. “Manning’s case is important because of the message it sends out to the rest of the world about what kind of treatment the United States thinks is acceptable for people in detention. And, for us, it is important what we say – or what we don’t say – because of the message that it sends out about what kind of treatment we in the United Kingdom and in the UK government think is acceptable. “That matters in places where human rights are not nearly so well observed. People will pay attention in China and in Russia. And in Libya where we want to be on the side of those fighting for freedom from state repression. “And most of all in Afghanistan: It matters to those UK and US service personnel fighting in Afghanistan what kind of image Britain and the US have in the world.” Clwyd will draw on her experiences during the seven years she spent as special envoy to Iraq on human rights. “It is my view that some of the greatest damage was caused to British and American efforts in Iraq when the stories of prisoner abuse emerged,” she will say. “It undermined our moral authority at a time when we needed to explain that we were fighting for a better future for Iraq “The United States – and the UK, in the way we respond to actions of the US – needs to preserve that moral authority if we are to have a positive impact on the world and lead by example.” Praising The Guardian’s coverage of Manning’s treatment in the US, Clwyd said she would be willing to visit the solider if his family asked her to. “I have read the several accounts of Bradley’s treatment which have appeared in the press – some very good accounts have been in the Guardian and from David Leigh in particular,” she will say. But the account to which she has paid most attention is Bradley’s own, in which he complains of “improper treatment” and “unlawful pre-trial punishment”. Clwyd is the only politician to have directly questioned the foreign secretary, William Hague, over the government’s position on Manning. She has sponsored an early day motion calling for the government to raise the case with the US administration. The motion is supported by 37 MPs, including co-sponsors Peter Bottomley, Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan and Paul Flynn. Hague has previously said the UK government has not intervened because Manning’s lawyer has said the soldier “does not hold a UK passport, nor does he consider himself a UK citizen”. “Our standing on this matter is limited,” Hague said during a parlimentary debate last month. “[Manning] is not asking for our help, nor considering himself British.” But Clwyd is expected to call Hague’s response a red herring. She will point out that Manning’s mother, Susan, is Welsh and lives in Pembrokeshire, where Manning lived between the ages of 13 and 17. and she will point to calls from Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, for his client’s detention status to be changed. Manning’s treatment in the military prison in Quantico, Virginia, “ignores the repeated recommendations of the marine corps’ own appointed psychiatrists”, Coombs has said. His treatment “serves no purpose other than to humiliate and degrade Bradley Manning. I regard it as cruel and unnecessary.” Human Rights Watch has called on the US government to “explain the precise reasons behind extremely restrictive and possibly punitive and degrading treatment” that Manning alleges he has received. Amnesty International has said “Manning is being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This is particularly disturbing when one considers that he hasn’t even been brought to trial, let alone convicted of a crime.” The UN special rapporteur on torture is understood to have raised his concerns with the US administration and is waiting for a response. Clwyd quoted a recent column written for the Guardian by PJ Crowley , who resigned as spokesman for the US state department after criticising Manning’s treatment, in which he repeated his conviction that it was “ridiculous, counterproductive, and stupid”. Bradley Manning Foreign policy US military US national security WikiLeaks United States Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Navy pilots, Gurkhas and troops serving in Afghanistan among those to lose jobs in initial round of military redundancies Some 1,600 navy personnel and 1,000 soldiers will lose their jobs in the initial round of defence cuts, senior military officials have announced. Gurkhas will be among those going in the army’s first round of redundancies, while troops now serving in Afghanistan may not be saved and Navy pilots will be among those losing their jobs. Around half the redundancies in the army are expected to be compulsory. The head of army manning, Brigadier Richard Nugee, said the 3,500-strong Brigade of Gurkhas would lose about 50 soldiers. There was a surplus number of Gurkhas because changes made to their terms of service in 2008 meant they could now serve for 22 years rather than the previous 15-year limit. “Opportunities for promotion within the brigade are being severely limited by the current situation,” Nugee said. “We are committed to a strong and vibrant Brigade of Gurkhas into the future and therefore must take action to ensure that, like the rest of the army, their structures and manning are in the best possible shape by the end of this process.” Fifteen out of the 59 navy fast jets pilots will be made redundant as a result of the decision in last year’s defence review to get rid of Britain’s fleet of Harrier jumpjets. The redundancies are part of 17,000 in the armed forces – 7,000 from the army, 5,000 from the RAF, and 5,000 from the navy – announced in the review. Military Defence policy Gurkhas Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Navy pilots, Gurkhas and troops serving in Afghanistan among those to lose jobs in initial round of military redundancies Some 1,600 navy personnel and 1,000 soldiers will lose their jobs in the initial round of defence cuts, senior military officials have announced. Gurkhas will be among those going in the army’s first round of redundancies, while troops now serving in Afghanistan may not be saved and Navy pilots will be among those losing their jobs. Around half the redundancies in the army are expected to be compulsory. The head of army manning, Brigadier Richard Nugee, said the 3,500-strong Brigade of Gurkhas would lose about 50 soldiers. There was a surplus number of Gurkhas because changes made to their terms of service in 2008 meant they could now serve for 22 years rather than the previous 15-year limit. “Opportunities for promotion within the brigade are being severely limited by the current situation,” Nugee said. “We are committed to a strong and vibrant Brigade of Gurkhas into the future and therefore must take action to ensure that, like the rest of the army, their structures and manning are in the best possible shape by the end of this process.” Fifteen out of the 59 navy fast jets pilots will be made redundant as a result of the decision in last year’s defence review to get rid of Britain’s fleet of Harrier jumpjets. The redundancies are part of 17,000 in the armed forces – 7,000 from the army, 5,000 from the RAF, and 5,000 from the navy – announced in the review. Military Defence policy Gurkhas Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Navy pilots, Gurkhas and troops serving in Afghanistan among those to lose jobs in initial round of military redundancies Some 1,600 navy personnel and 1,000 soldiers will lose their jobs in the initial round of defence cuts, senior military officials have announced. Gurkhas will be among those going in the army’s first round of redundancies, while troops now serving in Afghanistan may not be saved and Navy pilots will be among those losing their jobs. Around half the redundancies in the army are expected to be compulsory. The head of army manning, Brigadier Richard Nugee, said the 3,500-strong Brigade of Gurkhas would lose about 50 soldiers. There was a surplus number of Gurkhas because changes made to their terms of service in 2008 meant they could now serve for 22 years rather than the previous 15-year limit. “Opportunities for promotion within the brigade are being severely limited by the current situation,” Nugee said. “We are committed to a strong and vibrant Brigade of Gurkhas into the future and therefore must take action to ensure that, like the rest of the army, their structures and manning are in the best possible shape by the end of this process.” Fifteen out of the 59 navy fast jets pilots will be made redundant as a result of the decision in last year’s defence review to get rid of Britain’s fleet of Harrier jumpjets. The redundancies are part of 17,000 in the armed forces – 7,000 from the army, 5,000 from the RAF, and 5,000 from the navy – announced in the review. Military Defence policy Gurkhas Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Navy pilots, Gurkhas and troops serving in Afghanistan among those to lose jobs in initial round of military redundancies Some 1,600 navy personnel and 1,000 soldiers will lose their jobs in the initial round of defence cuts, senior military officials have announced. Gurkhas will be among those going in the army’s first round of redundancies, while troops now serving in Afghanistan may not be saved and Navy pilots will be among those losing their jobs. Around half the redundancies in the army are expected to be compulsory. The head of army manning, Brigadier Richard Nugee, said the 3,500-strong Brigade of Gurkhas would lose about 50 soldiers. There was a surplus number of Gurkhas because changes made to their terms of service in 2008 meant they could now serve for 22 years rather than the previous 15-year limit. “Opportunities for promotion within the brigade are being severely limited by the current situation,” Nugee said. “We are committed to a strong and vibrant Brigade of Gurkhas into the future and therefore must take action to ensure that, like the rest of the army, their structures and manning are in the best possible shape by the end of this process.” Fifteen out of the 59 navy fast jets pilots will be made redundant as a result of the decision in last year’s defence review to get rid of Britain’s fleet of Harrier jumpjets. The redundancies are part of 17,000 in the armed forces – 7,000 from the army, 5,000 from the RAF, and 5,000 from the navy – announced in the review. Military Defence policy Gurkhas Richard Norton-Taylor guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …A Paul Gauguin painting of two topless Tahitian women was attacked last week by an angry National Gallery visitor who pounded on the artwork, shouting: “This is evil!” She “was really pounding it with her fists,” a witness told the Washington Post . “It was like this weird surreal scene that…
Continue reading …