Lessons from Ian Tomlinson’s death: Implications of the new Public Order Act giving police powers to stop filming of ongoing “security” operations

Lessons from Ian Tomlinson’s death: Implications of the new Public Order Act giving police powers to stop filming of ongoing “security” operations

Under the new Public Order Act, the police will have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials so that operations are not compromised.

Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. (read report here)

The law was put in place to prevent filming of police using force to apprehend unarmed, peaceful protestors which have greatly embarrassed the Singapore police in the past as during the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign and IMF meeting where clips depicting the police’s arrest of SDP protestors were widely circulated on the internet.

With the passing of the new law, third parties who are not part of the protest proper risked being arrested and charged themselves if they are caught filming the police “operations”.

The recent death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London illustrates why this law leaves too much power in the hands of the police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

Ian Tomlinson, a 47 year old newspaper seller had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England.

He was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear, dramatic footage obtained by the ­Guardian shows. Moments after the assault on ­Tomlinson was captured on video, he ­suffered a heart attack and died.

However, in an official statement on the night of Tomlinson’s death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any ­contact with officers and described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed – efforts which they said were marred by ­protesters throwing missiles as first aid was ­administered .

Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, referred to Tomlinson’s death as “one small incident” on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The video was shot by a 27 year old fund manager who submitted it to The Guardian. A day after the video was published, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began managing an investigation by City of London police into the ­circumstances of ­Tomlinson’s death.

The Ian Tomlinson case has sparked widespread outrage in England with many bloggers writing in to their MPs to pressurize the police to take action against the culprits.

Had filming of ongoing security “operations” been disallowed on the grounds of “compromising” them, the truth about Ian Tomlinson’s death would never be revealed and he would have died in vain.

If the police had acted professionally at all times, then it should not be afraid of having its security “operations” recorded on film.

The new Public Order Act will make it easier for police to cover up for any abuse of power and there will be nothing the victims can do to seek redress.

Mr K Shan’s use of the Mumbai terrorist incident to justify the law is both inappropriate and misleading. In the Mumbai attack, the mainstream media was the one which filmed and leaked the positions of security forces to the terrorists.

It is improbable that films taken by third parties or passer-bys will be aired simultaneously by the state-controlled media to “jeopardize” ongoing security operations. The law should be tweaked to disallow journalists from the mainstream media to film the event instead of a blanket ban on all filming.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26984.1