All motions concerned the role of new editor of the Journalist, Christine Buckley, and the state of the Journalist magazine.

Richard Simcox, from the Press and PR branch, said: “We’re really lagging behind in terms of how we run things. We could, and probably should be, following the students’ examples.”

All motions were passed of which motion 133 (covering motion 134) was unopposed.

Motion 133 – Increasing the role of the Journalist editor

Motion 133 (covering Motion 134), proposed by Press and PR branch, discussed the issues of convergence and the role of the editor of the Journalist (the NUJ Journal). It passed unanimously.

Under current NUJ guidelines the editor only has power to edit articles in the journal and those online which have been taken directly from the journal.

In the motion the ADM instructed the National Executive Council (NEC) to:

• Change the NUJ rules to increase the editor’s role – via a motion at next years’ ADM – to expand his/her responsibilities to editing all Journalistic news pieces on the website
• This will mean that the editor will have additional control over “union and other website pages” involving content taken from, or associated with, the union’s journal
• He/she will not have control over the whole site

In order to make the Journalist more prominent among members.

Leeds branch proposed an amendment to the motion arguing that a clause confirming the role of the editor as an “independent elected editor” – and giving them responsibility for all NUJ website content – would clarify the motion.

Press and PR branch asked conference to reject the amendment made by Leeds branch as gives the editor too much power. The amendment was rejected by a massive majority.

Motion 135 – Concerns over the frequency of the Journalist and lack of co-operation between the journal and the online content

Motion 135 (covering motion 136 to 140) – proposed by North Wales Coast, Manchester, Birmingham and Coventry branches – concerned worries that the ADM has with the communications strategy imposed by the NEC and the cutting of regular Journalist issues.

The motion outlined that the Journalist has been cut to six issues a year and that communications between all sectors of the Union are being damaged by cut-backs and incoherent publishing of online material – which is often not published in concert with the news in the Journalist.

The motion instructs the NEC to:

• Ensure that the website includes a daily link to the Journalist is displayed so users are aware of the journal
• To integrate the editor of the Journalist into the Union’s Campaigns and Communications department to ensure unity

Leeds branch proposed an amendment to the motion saying there should be a further section on the NUJ website specifically for unrelated Journalist matters. This was proposed to prevent a converging mess on the internet.

Peter Lazenby, from Leeds branch, urged that the amendment be passed. He said: “In the current state the Journalist – which is our trade press – is inadequate. We have to sort out the online section with the journal and get members involved. First that means highlighting the independence of the Journalist.”

The amendment was rejected by an overwhelming majority and the motion was passed.

The fringe meeting, ‘When good bosses go bad & industrial action against progressive employers’, was organised as part of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) Annual Delegates Meeting (ADM), in Southport. It is part of a process to build a forum for journalists faced with issues from their organisations.

The NUJ members attending the meeting requested that they all remain anonymous, due to fears their employers might discover their complaints.

Pressure from bosses

The main topic of the meeting was to address pressures from bosses, which sometimes came in the form of bullying.

One delegate explained a situation faced by many journalists. He said: “We are facing lots of issues incluing even bullying from bosses.

“This adds to the problems we have already as to how we are going to carry on. Loads of freelances have gone out of business and it’s very difficult to know what can be done.”

Conflict between companies and their journalists

Part of the meeting focused on the conflicting interests of news organisations and their journalists, and how speaking out about problems can threaten jobs.

One delegate explained how some news organisations enforce their news values to maximise profit.

The delegate, who had to leave due to conflict over a story, said: “What led to my departure was the organisations’ inability to determine news stories from personal stories.

“The worst thing for me is that I want to do what the organisation wants to achieve, but it conflicts with my professional judgements.”

Another delegate explained how bosses have become more demanding over the past few years. The delegate said: “I’ve got a dream job as a journalist. Generally management are quite hands off.

“But when it goes bad it’s really bad. Without any decisions with workers money is spent on other areas.”

The delegate added: “I’m not saying they’re bad people but the values they have are bosses’ values which are above ours and the trade unions concerns.”

Trusts: a better model?

However one delegate expressed satisfaction with how some of the trust-run media deal with complaints. They said: “There is opportunity with trustees to bring up problems as you must report any grievances to the trustees.

“They often do not employ many people so they can often deal with your complaints once communications have started.”

The group exchanged personal details and agreed to meet again soon to discuss possible action.

Detainee Y, who cannot be named for legal reasons, spoke at the NUJ Annual Delegate Meeting (ADM) in Southport via telephone. He has been electronically tagged under a control order from July 2008 for being an alleged security threat – a charge which has never been heard in public.

The control order means that for twenty-hours a day he is restricted to his home. The other four-hours can be spent in a designated three-mile area, allowing for Mosque visits every Friday.

The restrictions do not allow him to carry any money, possess any electronic equipment or have contact with others except by telephone.

He is allowed to shop at the local Tesco with food vouchers. Serco, a business services company, must be notified of all of his movements.

Detainee Y fled to Britain from Algeria in 2000 to escape possible terrorist activity. He was arrested in 2003 for alleged threats to national security and spent over two-years in prison.

He was released in September 2005 but spent a further three years being held in solitary confinement in a prison as he awaited deportation.

Detainee Y was not deported but was instead served with a control order which restricted his movements.

His charges have never been made public in the interests of national security.

A further seven people are reported to be held under the same restrictions.

Detainee Y, who addressed the council via telephone link, said: “I do not know what I have done. The evidence against me has never been heard in a public court.

“The only means of communication I have is by phone. I have my mother in Algeria but I’m not allowed to even contact her.”

Arjum Wajid, Member of the NUJ Ethics Council, said: “There are people in this country who have been in prisons for a very long time without ever being charged at all. Despite all demonstrations these people still continue to be subjects of these laws.”

Asked if it was worse than prison, Detainee Y said: “At least in prison you can talk to others and go to the shops. But here you can’t.

“I am in complete and utter isolation. It’s so physically and psychologically punishing.”

The meeting was held by the Ethics Council to highlight the issues faced by suspected terrorists and to promote a new leaflet about terrorism reporting guidelines.

Michael McColgan, NUJ member and a Human Rights Lawyer for Howells solicitors, Sheffield, said: “The principle of justice is the right to be heard. This man has not been heard. He does not even know what charges he faces. This is not open justice at all.”

An audibly frightened Detainee Y said: “I’m being tortured in this country. I feel I’m living like a ghost. I have less rights than animals and am being abused by justice. My life in unbearable. Please help me.”