Press photographers banned from pride because of last year’s Get The L Out protest

[JaniceBattersby]

Pride London have banned photographers, apart from their own self-appointed ones, from covering Pride.

There is a long discussion about this, with the usual woke bro comments, on the NUJ’s FB page which I can’t c&p for privacy reasons but the gist seems to be that no non-pride photographers will be allowed inside cordons, including many gay, lesbian and bi photographers because of the ‘incursions’ last year.

One of the photographers says “You cannot deny press freedom because it interferes with your corporate image.”

There is a response from the NUJ here www.nuj.org.uk/news/the-nuj-expresses-disappointment-at-pride-in-londons-treatment/

Gotta protect that corporate image eh?

Even though we keep hearing the protesters represent only a tiny number of people, this suggests they have rattled pride, who don't believe their own propaganda.

I hope if there is another protest they take their own photos and release them to the press.

So press photography banned on London’s streets

How does that work then
Does pride London own London streets and tell the press what they can do and what they can cover

Silence the media ?

Hmm, security reasons? Yeah, the smell of bullshit is very strong right there. What they mean is they want nothing out there that might contradict the appearance of ‘we’re all one big happy-flappy skippy rainbow-coloured family’.
There’s no explanation of how official press photographers compromise security or are somehow responsible for the ‘incursions’.

And the NUJ’s statement? What the fuck was that? They’re disappointed?! Well, I’m beyond disappointed with such a meek response to such a blatant attempt to curtail press freedoms - they should be raging and pushing back in the strongest possible terms.

That is because they know that once people become aware about why lesbians are protesting they know the game is up.

The general public knows that lesbians don't have penises and what homosexuality is.
Pride organisers have to push the narrative that somehow lesbians are the ones in the wrong with their "lesbian=female homosexual" banners - they have to stop the public/general press seeing the banners or there will be some uncomfortable questions raised.

Happy-clappy ffs autocorrect.

Just another version of no platforming women.

I suspect they also don’t want more pup-type photos hitting the Daily Mail.

They may also be worried about pics like the furries / puppies /other fetishes and interactions with children as per the puppy tent thing at. ?Nottingham.

General public on the whole haven't got on board with the no kink shaking thing and esp not with the what's the harm in involving kids it's just a bit of dressing up thing.

I wonder if Pride's corporate sponsors might support a block on any images that are not approved in light of the recent disturbing puppy play photographs from a Pride event?

It might be easier for corporate sponsors to insist on policing images rather than policing content of Pride or even expressing concern about it (so to speak).

Xposts you were more succinct!

They can't stop people taking photos though so realistically what is the point of this edict

Optimistically, might this be a massive own goal?

Pride have now pissed off all the journalists in the country who were paying attention.

And I imagine that some of those journalists might be interested in talking to the source of the "incursion"; the people that Pride doesn't want anyone to see or talk to.

Get the L out should have their own mini-protest elsewhere from Pride and invite all the press to turn up and photograph that.

BickerinBrattie I agree, maybe a few are having some qualms that pushing the ‘be inclusive and tolerant’ envelope to include public displays of sexual fetishism might not be such a great look for a so-called family friendly event.

I think there are more and more questions being raised about the idea of Pride as a corporate event, where they somehow control public spaces, and this is another step toward people asking those questions.

In a democracy, the light of press scrutiny is important and we should be suspicious of those who try to prevent the actions of a free Press. Such behaviour should make us all ask ourselves what they are trying to hide and lead to doubled scrutiny.

Ironically even Peter Tatchell is condemning this...

So, basically, they are saying that professional press photographers with union accreditation cannot report on a event held in public space?

This is bullshit.

It's also a political matter because they will have got clearance to hold the event from the local council because it is public space. The council cannot give a licence for a group to hold an event on public streets, and then accept that the press cannot report on it. It breaches the principle of transparency. The public pays for that space; they have a right to know what happens on it.

Any journalist worthy of the name should be asking “what are they trying to hide?” and acting accordingly by doing their fucking job regardless and refusing to bow to this edict.

I have heard about places where Pride has actually closed off streets and not let people through without paying.

Do most Pride festivals make money? It seems like they must. It's odd, most other festivals I can think of that are similar have nowhere near the same level of sponsorship or money flowing through. A lot of them struggle to make ends meet.

Any journalist worthy of the name should be asking “what are they trying to hide?”

I wonder if they can't afford to lose the advertising that is keeping the newspapers etc. alive?

As so many here have commented - this has the familiar odour of charities and virtue-signalling organisations being able to control a narrative right up until a collapse (eg, Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh).

My guess is that one of the papers has been making mutterings about exposing the whole thing as the farce it is and they are running scared as there is nothing they can do.

Puppy fetish is evidently more acceptable than female homosexuality in Pride 2019. Come on papers - report this stuff. Help the #getthelout girls.

The anti-terf mob threatening lesbians are uncontrollable and the less said about the fetish stuff the better (fetish has nothing to do with LGBT - straight people are involved with fetish too).

Any journalist worthy of the name should be asking “what are they trying to hide?”

This.

Also, how are pride intending to stop a professional photographer from attending the event and taking their own photos by other means, other than being officially accredited?

A bit of planning and forethought and you can manage to get around a cordon issue...

Goosefoot said:
^"I have heard about places where Pride has actually closed off streets and not let people through without paying.

Do most Pride festivals make money? It seems like they must. It's odd, most other festivals I can think of that are similar have nowhere near the same level of sponsorship or money flowing through. A lot of them struggle to make ends meet."^

Brighton Pride charge for entry to the main festival at Preston Park (which is pretty much a Pride-themed music festival with big-name pop acts) and into the 'street party' on St James' Street (which is the main road in Kemp Town, the gay village in Brighton). The parade is free but very, very heavily corporate. When I attended last year the parade went on for AGES and there were relatively few grass roots groups in the parade compared to big, sponsored floats for companies like Barclays, British Airways etc