In a recent letter published in the Oxford Mail, Chief Superintendent and Oxfordshire Commander of Thames Valley Police, David McWhirter, attempted to justify his officers’ repressive behaviour during SPEAK's 'Remember George Day' event. His purpose was undoubtedly to give the illusion of openness and fairness in the policing of public events. Yet to those on the receiving end of police aggression on Saturday, the letter will merely serve to underpin their certainty that Thames Valley Police are a law unto themselves, with dispensation from their masters to deal with ‘troublemakers’ by whatever means necessary, even if that means using excessive force. Guessing who their masters are, does not, of course, require us to be seated in the Mastermind chair.
From a simple psychological perspective, it is often to be observed that those who are quickest to justify and defend their actions are also those with a guilty conscience and therefore something to conceal. The fact that Mr. David McWhirter felt there was need to pen a letter so quickly to the Oxford Mail in order to pre-empt any public criticism suggests there may be more than a grain of truth to the above theory. There can be little doubt that Thames Valley Police are concerned that their perceived impartial status has come under scrutiny on several occasions since SPEAK began its campaign over two years ago – indeed, they have been caught out more than once.
This poor track record has forced SPEAK to employ measures to document the police’s doublespeak. The rationale behind this approach was vindicated when taped negotiations with senior Thames Valley Police officers (held in the run up to national march held on the 14th January of this year) proved conclusively that the police had lied to SPEAK negotiators about their policing strategy for the day. (Click here for more information).
The tactic backfired badly; in laying the blame for the violence that erupted during the demonstration solely at the feet of SPEAK campaigners, the police ended up shooting themselves in the foot. The taped conversation was proof positive that police officers had promised to allow us to march to the new lab build, yet on the day, the route of the march was blocked by police officers, who then attacked a crowd made up of women, children and elderly people.
Interestingly, reporter David Modell (who was filming a documentary for C4 at the time) interviewed David McWhirter shortly after the demonstration. According to Modell, who had listened to the tapes beforehand, David McWhirter was insistent that his officers had never agreed that demonstrators would be allowed to walk to the lab as part of the official route. When pressed twice more to answer the question, David McWhirter denied the facts again. Twice. Modell returned to us after the interview and recounted that when he delivered his coup de grace, announcing that an audiotape existed, which contradicted the Chief Superintendent’s version of the day’s events, Mr McWhirter's jaw dropped and his face turned ashen. Make of that what you will…
Despite the fact that we have from the outset been open about our aims and protest methods with regard to the South Parks animal lab, we have not been proffered the same courtesy. For the police, it seems that openness and transparency have different meanings depending on where you’re standing. And that, we suggest, might be the problem. In this regard, Home Office Minister John Reed’s catch phrase: ‘Not fit for purpose’ could very well be considered relevant to Thames Valley policing methods and some of its officers. It could just as readily be applied to the aforementioned offending letter. One blunder, it would seem, could be a mistake. Two might be considered careless. Once again, their version of the facts falls shy of the complete truth, and once again, we have proof of it. Mr McWhirter was fully aware that there was no demonstration planned for Saturday, and we fully informed him via email of our intentions to leaflet on the day. Apparently that – to paraphrase the Chief Superintendent’s words – constitutes a refusal to share our plans for the day.
In order that visitors to the website can decide for themselves, we reproduce in its entirety the letter that appeared in the Oxford Mail, in which Mr McWhirter states: "It is regrettable that for the demonstration last Saturday, Speak refused to meet us and refused to share their plans for the day." You decide if Mr. McWhirter is being fully honest, whether a figure in authority, whose role should be to protect the public, should be attempting to hoodwink them.
David McWhirter’s Letter:
Talk to police before demos
Your report, Police ban lab campaign demo (Oxford Mail, July 24), accurately reflects the decision by Thames Valley Police to place restrictions on the planned demonstration in Oxford city centre last Saturday.
It might be helpful if I develop our position. Thames Valley Police recognise the rights of individuals and groups to demonstrate on any issue. We have consistently said we will facilitate such demonstrations, which, as Mel Broughton, of Speak, said, are part of the democratic rights of individuals within this country.
However, this right to demonstrate is never a blank cheque and we always take into account the impact the demonstration will have on other people who might want to use the city, and on the transport and commercial infrastructure. We therefore seek to find a balance between the rights of those who demonstrate and the rights of those who simply want to go about their legitimate business.
In trying to find this balance, our policy has been to meet the organisers of demonstrations and agree the parameters for the day. Since the demonstration in February when both Speak and Pro-Test marched in the city on the same day, we have been able to meet the organisers from both groups and, in my view, find a sensible compromise which upheld democratic freedoms, yet ensured the city continued to function. It is regrettable that for the demonstration last Saturday,�Speak refused to meet us and refused to share their plans for the day.
Given this situation, the police had to plan for all contingencies, and part of that planning included the use of Section 14 of the Public Order Act, which allows us to impose conditions as we judge appropriate.
While demonstrators may well feel there were limitations placed upon them, the very simple answer to this in future is to sit down with the police and agree plans for the event.
I remain very clear in my position in terms of managing demonstrations in Oxford city we will facilitate lawful and peaceful demonstrations on any subject matter, but I will do all in my power to ensure the city is not brought to a grinding halt in the course of those demonstrations. Talk to us in future.
David McWhirter, Chief Superintendent, Oxfordshire Commander, Thames Valley Police
SPEAK's Email to David McWhirter:
Dear Mr. McWhirter
Thank you for your email requesting a meeting with us in order to discuss how Thames Valley Police can facilitate what has been billed by SPEAK as the 'Remembering George Day'.
As you are aware SPEAK have always been keen on meeting officers in Thames
Valley Police so that any disruption to the local community, whether it be shoppers or local businesses is kept to a minimum. However on the 22nd we don't envisage any such disruptions taking place for a number of reasons.
Firstly we are not planning a march - as you are no doubt aware we have stipulated on our website that we are not planning to march. The second reason we don't think a meeting is necessary is because we don't expect a large turn out of people. Unlike at our national marches we have not provided coaches or any other transport - which will limit the numbers of people attending.
On the day, we are planning on leafleting the Oxford public - so that the sad life of the primate called 'George' can be brought to the attention of the public; nothing else has been planned by us for the day.
So as you can see a meeting is not necessary on this occasion, however of course a SPEAK representative will, as is usual, be only too happy on the day to liaise with Thames Valley Police officers, should any problems arise, although we are not expecting this to be necessary given the nature of the event i.e. giving out leaflets.
If you have any queries regarding the 22nd July please don't hesitate to contact us so that we might be able to clear up anything you might have a question about.
Of course in the future if we are planning a national march through Oxford we will of course contact you so that we can discuss the matter further.
Yours sincerely
SPEAK
David McWhirter’s response:
Good evening,
Thanks for your reply to my mail asking to meet to discuss your plans for the event in Oxford on 22nd July. I'm afraid it was not very helpful. Whilst I note you do not intend to hold a march you do actually say what you intend doing. As I look at your web site I see you talking about "taking control". What does that mean?
I believe that by not giving details of your intentions and by using phrases such as "Taking control" you are leading us to believe you have some activity planned which you want to keep secret from us. If that is the case then we will plan our policing accordingly but, again, I encourage you to be open and talk to us. By having open discussions we can plan to facilitate lawful activity. By not having such discussions we will plan for the worst case scenario, using those legislative powers available to us.
I look forward to hearing from you.
David McWhirter
Oxfordshire BCU Commander
SPEAK's response:
Dear Mr. McWhirter
Thank you for your email. We are sorry that the last email we sent you seems to have left you confused as to what we intend to do on the 22nd July. However, we fail to see how we can make ourselves any clearer on this subject: we have not organised a march in Oxford, neither do we intend to march on this day. As we previously stipulated in the last email, we intend on leafleting the public in Oxford. SPEAK have organised nothing else. Whether we sit down opposite you over a table or whether we state what we plan to do over an email - surely it amounts to the same thing?
We are sorry that you appear to be reading more into what we have written than is actually the case. Reality is a lot more mundane. However, having had dealings with Chris Farmer and, in particular, on the World Day March on the 22nd April, we do appreciate the mindset of Thames Valley Police who appear to overreact to situations that are usually more innocuous if truth be told. On the 22nd April, Mr. Farmer appeared to believe that groups of individuals on the march were there to cause trouble. On the day, we tried to reassure Mr. Farmer that we didn't share his concern. As you are aware, there was absolutely no trouble on the World Day March. It was just a pity that we weren't listened to. Unfortunately, this attitude does not surprise us - we are well aware that no matter what we say, you will draw your own conclusions as of course is your prerogative.
All we can say is that you are misreading things in the context of what we intended them to mean. We are not aware of any secrets being kept from you: we have always been open and frank in any dealing we have had with you. Of course, you are aware the same cannot be said of your own officers, who have not acted in such a way with us. You are of course aware of the audio tapes we have in our possession that clearly highlight this fact.
As we have previously stated in the last email: although we don't feel a meeting with yourself is necessary on this occasion because of the nature of the event on the 22nd, i.e. leafleting - we are of course always available to speak to senior police officers on the day should the need arise.
Should you require even greater clarification of our intentions please don't hesitate to contact us.
Yours sincerely
SPEAK
So, just to sum up: Mr. McWhirter was fully aware that SPEAK had no intention of marching or causing any disruption to the local community, and that our intention was to have a group leafleting session. Since when has one needed to get police consent to give out leaflets? Perhaps someone just didn’t want the dirty facts behind George’s story to be made widely public?
While we still live in a democratic society of sorts, it is vital that we continue to fight for openness and maintain a sense of fair play. We at SPEAK have always tried to do that, entering into negotiations with the police wherever appropriate. These attempts are often being undermined and misrepresented, and though we would far rather use our energies where they are most needed – in the fight for animal rights – it is also necessary for us to redress the balance, and ensure that the truth is seen to be the truth and not a biased account of it.
On a final note, many – no doubt even those without sympathies for the cause – might well pause to reflect on the following: an Oxford city councillor disclosed to SPEAK that policing for the day cost £200,000. That’s £200,000 spent on preventing a small group of people from distributing leaflets. What’s that all about, then…?
