If they’re going to release the footage to the police then they should freely release it to everyone. Given that they are “a public service broadcaster” then it is at least arguable that they should do so.

Demanding the BBC release footage for fishing expeditiins would endanger reporters in future as they could become targets of protesters.

However, if they have footage that might have bearing on charges already made against suspects they have the same obligations to provide evidence to the prosecution or defence parties as anyone else.

Interesting because as of yesterday the BBC stated that it had received “no formal request from police to hand over untransmitted footage of last month’s anti-cuts protest.” and the Met themselves stated that “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”

So it’s not a case of the police asking “Can we have it?” and the BBC just handing it over or not. The police have to make an application to show why they want it, with a court having to decide if that’s a good enough reason or not.

FlipC – Yes, legally they have to obtain it under a court order when they know the specific footage they are looking for. But that is very different from a “fishing expedition” of the kind Jeremy Dear warns about. After the G8 in 2005 police were allowed to view extensive footage without a full court order being issued, see:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/police-seize-g8-television-footage-broadcasters-criticised-for-giving-in-to-detectives-1.43772

This drew heavy criticism at the time.

The BBC may have received no “formal” request for footage in the case of March 26th but journalists have been informally approached and they are under pressure from management, hence the need to speak out in support of the confidentiality of their sources and material.

So to clarify – Allegedly the police have been requesting the ability to view footage prior to making an application for it in Crown Court.

In that case yes it’s fishing and they should be told to *beep* off.

FlipC @5 – spot on. There was hardly serious violence last week as far as I know.
So the cops should be told to get lost.

wot FlipC said @5.

The only people who acted violently on March 26th were very open about who they were and what they intended to do beforehand. They walked past hundreds of policement and CCTV cameras n the way to Oxford Street. There is plenty of broadcast footage of what they did. It is unclear what other evidence could be obtained from unbroadcast footage.

In practice the BBC always refuse, then there’s a court order which they have to obey or face prison. Simples.

Disgraceful

“In practice the BBC always refuse, then there’s a court order which they have to obey or face prison. Simples”

Err..except for they didn’t refuse in 2005 – see the link I posted above:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/police-seize-g8-television-footage-broadcasters-criticised-for-giving-in-to-detectives-1.43772

“The co-operation of the broadcasters was criticised last night by journalists’ representatives after it emerged police were allowed to view extensive footage without a full court order being issued. ”

Hence Dear’s strong warning against a “fishing expedition”, which is consistent with what I’ve heard from people inside the BBC this week who said management are wavering, putting pressure on journos.

So, yea, not exactly a non-issue or “simples” – and something worth making a noise about.

Of course, there is a question of whether the licence-fee sponsored broadcaster should have the right to determine which footage the licence-fee payers as a whole can see anyway.

The problem with this open letter is that it assumes the BBC’s editorial judgement is perfect, and that it shows everything it needs to show to keep us all informed(amazingly this all fits into a half hour programme). Whilst police fishing expeditions are something of a problem (albeit if they find evidence of someone committing a crime, who is to blame – the BBC, the police or the idiot doing something illegal with TV cameras around?), the idea that the BBC should appoint itself as a moral gaurantor of whatever is being asked for here (opposition to the police?) is rather odd. Surely the best action for the BBC is to make all footage available to license-fee payers (or just about anyone if you prefer) so they can draw their own conclusions – that would be true media freedom, since no-one, neither police nor protestor, politician or prostitute (sorry – running out of alliterations) could hide their public actions. Whereas Guy seems to believe the BBC can select what to show and therefore has the right to determine what is seen of the public’s actions…

It took a full week following the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests, for example, for the true story of police brutality to emerge
thats becuase the police invcestigating his death didn’t know what had ha[[ened as Harwood said even when he sayw it ,he wasn’t sure it was him ,as another P.C from Hackney had come forward and wrongly said it was him,so know one knew and htey didn’t want to wrongly give the information befor ehtey were sure

,as for not realsing photos,what if the BBC had footageof the Stephen lawrence bulding being damaged, would you not want that released

thats becuase the police invcestigating his death didn’t know what had ha[[ened as Harwood said even when he sayw it ,he wasn’t sure it was him ,

Wasn’t sure he hit someone and then pushed him over? Bit weird, isn’t it?

Uk liberty, in all the confusion of the amount of encounters police have that day and the adrenalin of trying not ot be attacked, the memory is the first thing that goes,

@ 12 Watchman

“Surely the best action for the BBC is to make all footage available to license-fee payers (or just about anyone if you prefer) so they can draw their own conclusions.”

You make a good point. I’d add the caveat that if the BBC had footage that it had a good reason to keep secret in usual circumstances (for example, the footage was of someone in their private property committing no crime, who had not given permission for filming), it would make sense for them to refuse to show it to anyone, police or otherwise, unless ordered to by a court.

Otherwise I have to agree; I’m not comfortable with someone at the Beeb deciding to only release footage that implicates people they don’t like.

@ 15 JohnPReid

“Uk liberty, in all the confusion of the amount of encounters police have that day and the adrenalin of trying not ot be attacked, the memory is the first thing that goes”

It is possible and even routine for people to construct false memories, especially of confusing and distressing events when they might not have been taking much detail in to begin with. However, it is also possible and routine for people to lie to cover up for their actions.

I’m not quite sure what the issue is.

This is likely the polite request before seeking a court order to get it anyway.

As police need to track protesters throughout the day to see where clothing was changed and some masked up, the police wouldn’t know the exact period in time where protesters they’re interested in will appear. We slaying have no idea how much BBC and sky actually captured, if the footage actually contains anything the police could use, or if anything new that they don’t have already would be gained.

My personal view is if you were peaceful and acting lawfully on 26th March, then what’s the big deal? Surely you’d welcome this identify those who took things too far tarnishing the anticuts movement AND UK uncut protesters.

Uk liberty, in all the confusion of the amount of encounters police have that day and the adrenalin of trying not ot be attacked, the memory is the first thing that goes,

We are talking about a specific officer who struck a person and then pushed him over despite that person not being a threat. On reflection, yes the officer most probably would want to forget it.

The legal concept of a fishing expedition is where the investigator suspects that X (who is normally identified) did something and demands all information about X to establish an investigation. The fishing expedition is perpetrated to acquire evidence to support *suspicion* of criminal activity.

In the case of Black Bloc activists, crime has been identified by police and they request evidence to identify the perpetrators. By definition, this is not a fishing expedition. The request is for information about identified crimes and who might have committed them. It is the obverse of a fishing expedition.

What does this mean to Black Bloc activists? It means that video coverage of the hard men and women in black jackets will be given to the police. That will be linked up with CCTV coverage from railway stations and bus stops where the Black Bloc had their faces uncovered.

Because the Black Bloc dressed in a common uniform, all coverage will be given to the police so that they can sift through the images to identify something unique about any potential perpetrator dressed in black. Police will thus have snapshots of the lass who didn’t throw paint balls or street furniture but attended with the hard lads. And snapshots of the idiots.

In theory, all dressed in black is a defence strategy; but it simplifies identification; 20 year old protesters not wearing black and who show their faces can be eliminated, so the police will look at CCTV accordingly.

What does this mean to video journalists? It means that they will get fewer chances to record close up. They will not be permitted to cross the Black Bloc line.

@20 Charlieman – But that’s not suspicion of wrong-doing as they know criminal activities occurred. As such it’s a case of – we know that a crime happened, we believe that the BBC footage may help us identify the culprit(s), therefore we are requesting access to said footage via a court order.

Then they can pre-screen the footage and request copies of the pertinent information. Of course if they just get the lot does anyone believe that they won’t use it to identify ‘ringleaders’ of the non-violent non-criminal majority side of the protest?

Do it with the court order and they’re operating outside their remit; do it without a court order because the footage was given to them and they can do what they like with it.

Don’t the public have the right to know who was behind criminal behaviour? Or do you no longer believe in the rule of law?

@22 Blanco – But if this was about criminal behaviour it would be done via a court order.

This is the equivalent of a police officer turning up at your house and asking to search it because there’s been a burglary in the neighbourhood.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/04/08/police-admit-ukuncut-arrests-made-for-intelligence-gathering/#comment-257338

Seems the BBC has already handed the Met previous UK Uncut appearances for use in their case.

When viewing the footage will the police note the presence of the brown hoody wearing undercover policeman who is also seen in Channel four footage helping to throw a crowd control barrier through Santander’s window. Or will that be conveniently destroyed.