Your browser is no longer supported. For the best experience of this website, please upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Topshop accused of "manhandling" photographer

Topshop has been accused of “manhandling” a photographer who was taking pictures of a UK Uncut protest in the retailer’s flagship Oxford Street store.

The National Union of Journalists is planning to stage a public protest at the store tomorrow (August 11), in which the body will complain to the manager over what it describes as an assault on union member Jess Hurd last December.

Hurd, other members of NUJ and supporters will also attend, to write letters of protest to Topshop as they seek a response from the Arcadia-owned business.

Hurd claims a security guard used force to move her to the back of the store, telling her she was being arrested for trespassing “and pulled my clothing up, exposing my upper body”. Police officers also attempted to take her camera.

After being held for a period of time, Hurd was told she would not be arrested, but was banned from Topshop.

The action planned for tomorrow follows a formal letter of complaint sent by the NUJ to the retailer in March.

The letter asks a series of questions, including what authority the guard had to remove her camera and “physically manhandle” her, as well as requesting they lift the ban. The NUJ claimed it has not received a response from the business.

An Arcadia spokeswoman said: “We are investigating the situation as a matter of urgency and dealing with this directly.”

Readers' comments (1)

  • It appears Ms. Hurd was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Topshop should apologise for the way their security dealt with her (though I can sympathise the member of security was probably under immense pressure at the time of the incident and probably was not thinking logically) and lift the ban and that should really be the end of it.

    There does not need to be a public protest and I would not call this an 'assault'. Unless of course you like to sensationlise things...as most unions do.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.