Perhaps if he read the  Metropolitan Police website, he would know the law. It clearly states that “Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.”

I did hang around for a while trying to get some footage, but had a group of frantic security guards phoning up the police.

Then I saw policemen coming in our direction, but they headed straight to Neros.

Perhaps the cops are getting the message. But security guards certainly

aren´t.

Paul Cavanagh said: “The Heritage Wardens will approach individuals if they have particularly large, expensive equipment, including larger tripods and lighting, or if models and props are present.”

Tomorrow hundreds of professional and amateur photographers will show their disapproval by attending a Mass Photography Gathering, despite concerns that it could lead to confrontation with the police.

“I have covered many incidents of public disorder over the last 30 years.
Police violence has become far more extreme. The weapons used by the
police have become far more dangerous although their own defensive
equipment has improved considerably and the weapons used against the
police have actually become somewhat less dangerous.

He added: “That shift in the balance of power should enable the police to use force in a more
considered and directed manner but that is the opposite of what we observe.”

Footage shows how photographers and other media members were asked to leave for thirty minutes on 2 April at the G20 protest, near the junction of Royal Exchange Passage and Cornhill.

The policeman told media members: “Go away for about half an hour and then come back.” Their motive was that it would “help resolve the situation.”

In a conference in February, the NUJ informed media members of their rights and were told to defend themselves when disrupted unfairly.

When asked to leave at the G20, photographers attempted to do so but were threatened with arrest.

“You either go away now or you will spend the rest of the afternoon in court. What do you want to do?” said a police officer.

“I´m not getting into a debate, I´m trying to be very nice”, he added.

“You’ve had your chance. This is section 14. If you don’t leave you will end up being arrested, OK. What do you want to do?”

Media editor of the Observer, James Robinson, said: “Journalists should be able to do their jobs without being interrupted. In cases when they are not able to, newspaper editors should be onto the police.”

 Some police officers claim that journalists are being biased. The following quote, taken from the Police Oracle and UK Police Online discussion forums may sound convincing: “The brave firearms officer who died has received FAR LESS coverage- the press (and I mean all of you) should be ASHAMED.”

But cordoning protesters, attacking them and ordering media members to leave are all good reasons for the press to be- quite simply- FED UP.

At the G20 protests  I watched how hundreds of professionals snapped away with no trouble at all, even though it was obvious to the police that they were in the frame.

Could this be a sign of the police becoming more flexible?

 A few months later David Hoffman is featured in a short film by Ollie Wainright, showing how he is targeted by the police in the midst of the G20 riots.

To view the video go to: http://vimeo.com/3972898

A man at the G20 protest got a bit huffy when I asked him politely if he did photography professionally. “What do you think?” he replied, seemingly offended by my innocent query. “Do you think I would walk around with a camera this big if it was just a hobby?”

In a way he was right; most amateurs nowadays own a small digital camera. But the G20 protest was so crowded by big professional cameras that I thought I should make sure.

Photography is now overly popular, so doesn´t it seem ridiculous to impede us from what should be considered a democratic right?