| Get the EPUK Weekly News ! |
Once a week we put together a roundup of the week's photography, media and copyright news. It's interesting, free and you don't have to meet the usual EPUK membership criteria to sign up. We don't give your details to anyone else, and you can unsubscribe anytime. So what's stopping you ?
| This week we discussed... |
The above advertisers have not been endorsed by EPUK.
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
|
Npower places injunction on EPUK member covering environmental protestTwo solicitors and four black clad security guards working for Npower have served a high court injunction on a working press photographer covering the energy company’s controversial activities at an Oxfordshire beauty spot. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
|
16 February 2007
|
Energy giant npower has placed an injunction upon a EPUK member photographing the alleged dumping of waste fuel ash into an Oxfordshire beauty spot. The Radley Lakes have seen increasing protests over recent weeks over allegations that Npower is dumping power station ash in the lakes which are home to protected species such as otters and kingfishers. Adrian Arbib, a professional photographer and EPUK member based in Oxford, was handed the injunction on Thursday by two solicitors and four black clad security guards wearing high visibility waistcoats and with their faces covered by what appear to be either scarves or semi-balaclavas. You can read the full injunction here
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Comments on this article:
Great work with getting pics of this and dealing with it at the same time. Wishing you all the best on this one. Comment #2 posted by Marc Vallee at 17 February, 04:19 PM ..but surely there are HUGE implications here under the copyright act, about freedom to shoot anything you like from a public place / road? How DARE they assume the role of God when they are plainly up to no good? Am I right in thinking that if you do not accept (ie touch, pick up) the injunction, then it has not in fact been issued to/served upon you? Comment #4 posted by Nick Meers at 18 February, 11:05 AM Thanks for the support. Comment #5 posted by Adrian Arbib at 18 February, 01:29 PM To all you pro photographers, please visit whether or not you have your press passes. This injunction was served on 6 people but in addition is “distributed” to anyone who reads it – so don’t read the notices on the fence. It is draconian and totally unnecessary. I don’t know fifteen people who would make theats to those Goons – there was probably some comment towards them but that was provoked by their threatening behaviour from day 1. We need the press to pick up on this story. It is an infringement of all our liberties and the thin end of a wedge which will be used again by Corporate Entities who don’t want their activities to be recorded! Comment #6 posted by Gemini at 18 February, 06:09 PM There is a road off Audlett Drive called Barton Lane. Go down to the end of Barton Lane and you are at the public footpath which goes round the Thrupp Lake . Views of the islands can be seen. The securiy concentrate their efforts at Sandles, Thrupp Lane, so it is possible to take photos from this other end without being harrassed. Work has been starting at 8am. Good luck. Comment #7 posted by fairy at 18 February, 11:54 PM Just a thought guys but how many photographers are there in your area who could en masse turn up to photograph the situation, even just one session per week? Together with local Radio & TV coverage you’d surely get national press over this? Safety in numbers would also mean a complete breakdown of their enforcement? Just initial thoughts? Comment #8 posted by Glyn at 19 February, 09:22 AM Do hoodies now get to serve ASBO’s on CCTV, to safeguard their identity whilst committing allegedly illegal acts on public property? This is insane and dangerous and merits saturation reporting. Comment #10 posted by Tony Sleep at 19 February, 02:49 PM Is there any reason why Adrian or any other injuncted journalist should not sell or give away their rights in the film & stills to someone outside the jurisdiction of the court. They could then use it as they saw fit. David Hoffman Comment #11 posted by David Hoffman at 19 February, 04:03 PM I’ve just read today’s Oxford Mail and they have managed to get the “Witness Statements”. One of them says he was a Soldier – presumably in Ulster – and we know what tricks they got up to over there. How on earth Mr Justice Whateverhisname is came to give this injunction is a mystery, but there is something very wrong when people can be accused of issuing threats, when no complaint has been made to the Police, who would normally be the organisation to approach, and then be subjected to a Draconian High Court Injunction issued under some pretext which has not been proved in a court of law and for which remedy there is only an expensive route, via the legal profession, to remove the slur which has been made on one of those named, whom I know, and is a law-abiding upstanding member of the community. Comment #13 posted by lakesaver at 19 February, 04:13 PM The Injunction applies to anyone that sees it. So if i email it you, you have been served. It states a protestor shall mean Then it goes on to state This is regardless of whether they are doing something that is potentially illegal, which they are; cutting trees down whilst the Lake and surrounds is undergoing a town green application the next para states 6.3 publishing by any means whatsoever names..photographs…or any other material serving to identify a Protected person. Well there we go then…that’d be freedom of the press stamped on Comment #14 posted by Adrian Arbib at 20 February, 02:31 PM The full text of the injunction given to Adrian and others can now be seen here Comment #15 posted by The EPUK Website Editor at 20 February, 03:19 PM A protestor named ‘Ant’ nearly died in police custody last week after sustaining multiple fractures of his arm – a fracture of his humerus severed an artery and he nearly bled to death. Why is this not being reported? The flyash is a highly toxic waste. The local press refuse to use the word toxic so the public are not being informed of the true danger flyash poses. Ant was detained my Npower’s masked thugs whilst attempting to prevent deliberate disturbance to a European Protected Species – a kingfisher and nest hole. He was thus acting to prevent a breach of wildlife legislation for which Npower could be prosecuted. Ironically, the police arrived and arrested him instead. Comment #16 posted by Bob Eeles at 20 February, 08:34 PM Just followed a link in here from the Amateur Photographer website – I’m minded to take my camera down there and see what happens, despite having no professional reason to do so. I do like photographing wildlife and I understand there are kingfishers and otters in that area…? Comment #18 posted by curious at 21 February, 01:39 PM This is exactly the sort of activity and paranoia against photographers I am campaining about. It seems a little mis-information may have swayed the judge to allow such an injunction against basic rights we have as UK citizens. Comment #19 posted by Simon Taylor at 21 February, 02:59 PM madness. Comment #22 posted by adrian arbib at 22 February, 01:32 AM Will the Oxford Mail lead the way? Sadly not – it would be difficult to imagine a more gutless bunch of journalists. I’ve seen village church newsletters with more bite than the Mail. They have failed to investigate or report the circumstances in which the ‘Ant’ suffered severe injuries – for what reasons I don’t know, but I’d guess sheer cowardice. Comment #23 posted by Tarbatt at 22 February, 11:52 PM The Oxford Mail and Times seem to have some tie up with NPower – the Radley Lakes issue rarely gets into the Oxford Times, instead it is featured in the smaller circ Abingdon Herald. When you look at the Times, it is all about the City of Oxford trivia. They don’t like to upset their advertisers and any contentious issue it doesn’t get houseroom. There are no fearless news editors any more, and that goes for the BBC and ITV as well. Comment #24 posted by Lakesaver at 24 February, 12:49 AM Sadly there is going to be more like this – where’s my cammo! Comment #25 posted by Stoker at 4 March, 10:17 PM There is a march to protest on Sat March 10th, from 12.30. It seems that the official march will avoid Radley lakes, but it is expected a group will proceed to Radley later. Will be interested to see if photographers are targeted. Comment #28 posted by NickB at 6 March, 05:23 PM The Tree Preservation Officer was repeatedly approached by Save Radley Lakes to try to get protection orders issued for some of the trees. There were several specimen trees, visible from the byway, that could have been protected. He simply made himself scarce and would not do anything. I wonder why. Comment #31 posted by Basil Crowley at 8 March, 11:48 PM A update on this story: Correspondence obtained by EPUK reveals that the judge who granted the npower injunction never intended it to be used against the press Comment #32 posted by The EPUK Website Editor at 10 March, 12:02 PM N.Power seem to think that they have the right to a) do as they please and hang the public b) they can get the judicary(sp) to back them and stifle protest and c) that bully boy tactices are acceptable. When will the leaders of this benighted country realise that to get any respect they have to be seen to act for the public and not just the swine whose troughs their noses are in. Keep reporting the news and telling the truth! all powe to your elbow. Comment #33 posted by paul tiney at 20 March, 08:31 PM I have placed an article on my blog and I even feel intimidated NPower should not see this as winning or losing and should not use the law in such a way. Their PR team should know that open debate will be more effective, even if the result is still the same. They are heading for a PR disaster that could cost them clients Rob Comment #34 posted by Rob at 22 March, 09:50 AM Go and vote for Radley Lakes on the Government Petition website. petitions.pm.gov.uk/SaveRadleyLakes An email will be sent to you which you have to open and click on the link in order to validate your vote. Comment #35 posted by Lakesaver at 23 March, 11:08 PM The High Court in London has confirmed the continuance of the injunction in its present form and the Judge asked for NPower to get together with the Injunctees (if that is the right word) to agree a wording suitable to both parties and return to court at a later date. It seems the Judge had realised that Mr Lawson Crutchundone has a penchant for filling lever arch files with lots of blurb – some of it irrelevant and is not prepared to wade through it for several hours. In other words, the Judge said “cut to the chase”. I can testify to the time taken to read all NPower’s evidence, having looked at it, and found hundreds of pages of padding. In fact lots of it was drawn from the Save Radley Lakes Website, omitting certain pages which didn’t suit their case, of course. Does this reprinting breach copyright rules? as most pages contained photographs? It would be good to know if a counter-claim could be lodged. The NPower Lawyers had failed to disclose the fact that there was a Town Green Application in Process. They told the Judge they didn’t know about the Town Green Application, yet in their bundle of “evidence” were the pages from the website showing the Town Green Public Meeting – which they were potraying a rabid protesters who were threatening NPower! The fact that one Peter Harbour, a local resident and pillar of the community, remains listed on the injunction and stands to lose his home by standing against NPower to clear his name has escaped the power of the press. This injunction is against all our enshrined rights to protest and to take photographs. I wish I was wealthy enough to take on NPower but having worked all my life I too only own a house, which I share, and which I cannot risk on the altar of idealism. Comment #36 posted by Lakesaver at 26 April, 06:30 PM After a protracted Town Green inquiry the residents of Radley Village failed in their attempt to get the Lake listed. Lost i’m told on some obscure point of law or maybe this is a euphemism for ‘someone at Npower plays golf with the planning inspector’. N power can now fill this beautiful place in with waste fuel ash; destroying a home to otters, kingfishers and quite few other protected species.Waste fuel ash that could be made into building materials but N Power are too greedy and arrogant to care. Even the fact that they are listed as the ‘dirtiest’ electricity provider in consumer magazines doesn’t phase them. for more info see: http://www.oxfordmail.net/search/display.var.1762569.0.radley_lakes_village_ green_decision.php Comment #37 posted by adrian at 18 October, 06:06 AM This story is not surprising and typical of the skullduggery and canker that affects our society. It is very difficult to get Town or Village Green applications passed now, more so since Labour came to power. I tried and failed in 2001 to stop a refuse tip coming within 400 metres of our village school when the objectors put a top London QC – Frank Hinks – up against me when I was a humble Parish Councillor. The Inspector was a barrister as well and very chummy they were too. Comment #38 posted by David Murray at 24 June, 10:16 PM Add your comments here:
|
||||||
| Headlines | News | First Person | Opinion | Resources | The Curve | Showcase | Masterclass | WTD | Sqweegee's blog | |
About | Join
| Help
| Shop
| Lost And Stolen
| Discounts
|
Support EPUK
|
Advertise on EPUK
| RSS
| Atom
|
| Site design and CMS integration © Dundee photographer Nick McGowan-Lowe. Site content is © original authors. To reproduce any content on this website, contact editor@epuk.org who will put you in touch with the copyright holder. You can read our privacy policy here. Any advice given on this site is not intended to replace professional advice, and EPUK and its authors accept no liability for loss or damage arising from any errors or omissions. EPUK is not responsible for third party content, such as epuk.org adverts, other websites linked to from epuk.org, or comments added to articles by visitors. |
|
|
Best of luck, Adrian.
Comment #1 posted by Graham Harrison at 17 February, 10:23 AM