Winner: Al-Ahram for Best Foot Forward.

Winner: Inspector Donaldson of the London Metropolitan Police for Tooth Fairy.

Winner: iStock for From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting.

‘We know change is never easy and comes with challenges’
‘I really hope someone will burn in hell because of this.’
‘This is not “like robbery”. This is robbery.’
‘What kind of crackhead business model are we riding on here? We are getting raped.’
‘Rotten news all couched in happy, shiny language. Like getting a beautifully-wrapped turd for Christmas.’
‘Hey, where’s my kiss? I didn’t get a kiss. Did anyone get a kiss? I usually get kissed before I get f…..’
‘We knew when we made yesterday’s announcements that there would be a lot of feedback.’
‘I think you would have been better off saying nothing.’
‘What drugs do you use?’
‘HOW MUCH FRIGGIN PROFIT DO YOU NEED MAN? If you can’t operate on a model such as this you’re just a failure and a failed company. We all know that this company is a fucking cash hog. Getty would not have bought you if you weren’t.’
‘You can’t survive on 60-80% of the profits from a product that you have 0% ownership in? Sad. Pathetic.’
‘So I guess all those glowing announcements about how great iStock was doing and how much profit it was making year after year was all lies.’
‘Money isn’t going to be what makes you all happy.’
‘So THAT is your response to this mess?? Wow, thank fuck you’re not my boss!’
‘Oh, for fucks sake … leave out the pathetic, for-the-camera, misty-eyed rhetoric will you? It isn’t going to wash this time.’
‘Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.’
‘Pardon me while I vomit.’
‘Cry me a fucking river Kelly. You’re all a bunch of spineless fuckwits and you’ll get what you deserve.’

Highly Commended: US Republican Party for What’s In Mexico? Uh…Mexicans.

Part of AFP's winning entry for the Grand Prix de Folie Photographie

Photo © David Hoffman

The UK War On Photography has been going through a difficult phase. First a photographer and videographer won separate damages against the Metropolitan Police in a case stemming from a 2008 demonstration outside the Greek Embassy in London.

Then the European Court of Human Rights rejected the British government’s appeal against its decision in January that ruled Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. S44 is the law much used by police to stop and search photographers, and the court ruling was celebrated yesterday by a flash mob organised by I’m A Photographer Not A Terrorist outside New Scotland Yard.

And between the two court rulings a group of Metropolitan Police officers earned the force much unenviable publicity when they detained and allegedly assaulted a 15-year-old photographer for taking photographs in a public place. When the photographer asked under what law he was being detained one officer replied: “We don’t have to have a law”.

Photos © Jules Mattsson

Having lost the legal arguments Inspector Knacker and his squad did what any reasonable gang of schoolyard bullies would do to a lippy 15 year old: they tossed Mattsson down a flight of concrete steps, expressed concern for his safety and detained him. Mattson has a full account and audio slide show of the incident on his blog: skip to 04:30 in the timeline if you find legal jousting dull and just want the rough stuff.

The outcry in the blogosphere and some sections of the UK national media over the police behaviour was predictable; more surprising to many was how other police officers reacted to the performance of their Romford colleagues. “Rubbish”, “embarrassing”, “disgraceful”, “idiots”, “horrendously ill-informed” and “hopeless” were just some of the verdicts on the Police Specials forum. There’s a double irony here, since photographers frequently complain that the part-time Special Constables are often ill-informed with regard to the law and photography; yet in this case many of the Specials seem far better educated than their full-time Romford counterparts.

More than one of the Special Constables called for the sacking of the inspector involved in the Romford incident. That might actually be a very smart move for the Met. Senior police figures have repeatedly stated that there is no law against public photography in the UK; nevertheless a string of incidents shows that these statements are not reflected in the actions of many officers at street level. Photographers therefore conclude that either the senior police assurances are mere PR spin, or that UK police forces are unable to ensure that officers operate within the law regarding photography.

But if the Met were to sack an officer of inspector rank for illegally preventing a photographer from working those criticisms would ring hollow. Further, it would send a strong message to frontline officers that anyone tempted to emulate the Romford mob would have a short policing career. And if the comments on the Police Specials forum were anything to go by, such action would not necessarily be unpopular within the police services. In other words, the Met could transform the Romford fiasco into a PR victory of sorts if they so choose.

None of that is going to happen of course. Mattsson has already taken legal advice, and proceedings will surely follow: on the evidence publicly available the Met will lose, or at best manage to settle out of court. Either way the incident will cost the force at least a few thousand pounds, not to mention the attendant adverse publicity.

The most comprehensive legal advice currently easily available regarding photography, police and the law in the UK is a new article by lawyer Shamik Dutta on the EPUK website.  Meanwhile, one of the Special Constables has a succinct and accurate summary for the police cadet officer responsible for starting the Romford furore: “If you don’t want your picture taken, don’t leave your house.”

Photo © David Hoffman

While Gordon Brown entertained the British electorate with Bigotgate, the Metropolitan Police gained David Cameron some unwelcome publicity with an Election Day raid on a photographer’s home that immediately became known as Wankergate.

On May 6th David Hoffman was working at home in London’s east end when he heard a loud banging on the front door. On opening the door he found himself facing what he describes as “a wall of cops, very pumped up, very angry, very aggressive”.

“Is that your poster?” demanded the police, referring to a poster in Hoffman’s front window of Conservative leader David Cameron with the word “wanker” emblazoned across it. When Hoffman confirmed that it was the police asked him for identification; as he turned to comply the five officers threw the door open, rushed in and handcuffed him.

“They burst into my house, pushed me back and handcuffed me,” claims Hoffman. “They said I had committed an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act, I was being detained, and I might be arrested.” Section 5 of the POA refers to behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

In a later statement police denied forced entry, presumably on the technicality that the door was already open. But Hoffman, in a video interview with the Guardian, describes the officers involved as “a frightening gang of bullies who burst into my house”.

As a veteran photojournalist Hoffman has worked at many scenes of violent disorder and is used to dealing with police. He says, however, “this really took my breath away: I had no idea what they were going to do.”

After the police left Hoffman was phoned by Inspector Stephen Manger of Tower Hamlets police, and the two discussed at some length the possible options for a rewording of the offending poster. Excerpts give some flavour of The Wankergate Tapes:

David Hoffman: Suppose I were to replace the poster with the word wanker changed so there were 4 asterisks in the middle?
Inspector Manger: You’re denoting what that word is still, aren’t you? I think it’s possible that could be an offence.
David Hoffman: If I were to even cover everything except the W?
Inspector Manger: Well, now I’m not sure. You could construe that word to be anything. But now you’re losing the punch-line for your poster, sir.
David Hoffman: Supposing I put tosser? Where do you stand on tosser? Would I be arrested?
Inspector Manger: I can’t comment…
David Hoffman: I’m about to do it…
Inspector Manger: Mmmm. I couldn’t comment on that sir.
David Hoffman: You didn’t get this in your Inspector’s exam then?
Inspector Manger: No, it’s a tricky one, isn’t it?
David Hoffman: Well, could I say masturbator?
Inspector Manger: No, you couldn’t say that sir.
David Hoffman: Onanist? Self-abuser? It’s difficult to see how that would cause alarm or distress: a biblical word like onanist.
Inspector Manger: You have to consider what a reasonable person would find distressful.
David Hoffman: Is onanist a word you’re familiar with?
Inspector Manger: No, it isn’t.