The right to protest, Cameron, and a 12 year old boy.

Read this link

Meet Nicky Wishart. Nicky attends school in Eynsham, Oxfordshire. Eynsham is near Witney, in David Cameron’s constituency, making Nicky one of Cameron’s constituents. Nicky attends a youth centre, presumably in the same district. That youth centre is due to close next year, due to budget cuts.

Now, we are often told that the young are not political enough. That they do not vote enough. That they are disillusioned and disenfranchised before they are able to become part of the political system. Nicky, to his credit, gave the lie to this, and organised a peaceful picket of Cameron’s constituency office. Note: not his home, his car, his kids’ schools, but the place from which the business of democracy in his constituency is carried out. Further note: picket. Not riot. Not direct action, or anything else one could read as a euphemism, a picket.

Now, somehow, Thames Valley Police found out about this. I do not know how, and it is relatively unimportant. A public demonstration was being organised, and it is right and proper that they found out, as they can then effectively police said demonstration. Let’s assume someone knew this, and told them about the demo.

What concerns me is what happened next. The story I have linked to states that it was anti terror police that visited the school. I suspect that this is not the case. Most areas have a designated schools officer, who will cover a couple of schools, and deal with what happens in those schools. This normally means bullying that has become sufficient to become a legal (rather than educational) issue, the sort of thefts that happen in schools, and behavioural issues which are again serious enough to warrant police involvement. I am happy to accept Thames Valley Police’s statement that it was one of these officers that became involved, as it seems the most likely explanation. Occam’s Razor and all that.

Whichever flavour of Police officer it was, there was a warrant card and a uniform. They spoke to the school, and Nicky was taken out of class. This is not in dispute. Nicky was taken to speak to the Police officer, in the presence of the head of the school. Again, not in dispute. A member of staff called Nicky’s parents, explained that the police had arrived, and wanted to speak to Nicky about something on Facebook. Thames Valley Police have not disputed this either.

Now, this is where accounts diverge. Thames Valley Police told the Guardian that: “On Tuesday 7 December, our schools officer for west Oxfordshire attended the school in Eynsham and spoke to a 12-year-old boy in the company of the pupil’s head of year, about a planned protest. This was not with the intention of dissuading him from organising it, but to obtain information regarding the protest to ensure his and others’ safety. As with any demonstration, we always aim to facilitate a peaceful protest.”

Nicky gives a slightly different account. He states that he was told that “if a riot breaks out we will arrest people and if anything happens you will get arrested because you are the organiser.” The officer apparently had more information for Nicky: “He said even if I didn’t turn up I would be arrested and he also said that if David Cameron was in, his armed officers will be there ‘so if anything out of line happens …’ and then he stopped.”

Now, there are lots of points to consider here. Was it right that the Police spoke to Nicky? Well, yes. It would have been right to approach him to say “We understand you’re planning a protest. Tell us what the plans are, and we can work with you to ensure that a peaceful protest ensues.” However, Nicky is 12. And had done nothing wrong. This being the case, Nicky’s mother, who lives 10 minutes from the school, should have been contacted. This isn’t a kid that’s been throwing rocks through windows. If it were, and he were in trouble, she would have been contacted. To not do so before speaking to him gives the impression (valid or not) that you are trying to catch him on the hop. If Police forces are trying to outfox schoolkids, we’re in trouble as a nation. Now I’m sure that’s not the motivation. I’m sure someone higher up gave them a talk without tea and biscuits, and demanded instant info on the demonstration. I’m sure this lead to not contacting his parents before speaking to him. This doesn’t make it ok. It just means you had a slightly less nefarious reason for cocking up. This information should not have been relayed by the school.

Now, the next bit is in dispute. Thames Valley Police say they had no intention of dissuading Nicky from protesting. But Nicky says he was told “if a riot breaks out we will arrest people and if anything happens you will get arrested because you are the organiser.”

Got that? You started it, you get nicked. Fair enough, right? No. Not at all. Not even a bit. If I organise a chess club meeting, and the top chess player shoves a pawn into someone’s eye because they lost, I don’t get nicked for assault. BECAUSE I DIDN’T BLOODY DO IT. Organising something does not, in any way, make you responsible for everything that happens there. Football club directors don’t spend the night in the cells when hooligans kick off. It’s a very basic point of law that you are responsible for your own actions, not another’s. Now, I know you can point to offences such as incitement, coercion, conspiracy etc. That’s a mistake. Those offences are still and action. The offender still had to coerce, conspire, incite. There is no evidence whatsoever that Nicky did any of these things. If he were arrested for the actions of others, someone would have some explaining to do.

Nicky also states that he was told that he could still be arrested if these things happened, but he wasn’t there. Utter, utter nonsense. If I organise a football match, and am unable to attend myself, I’m not liable to prosecution if the goalkeeper beats the star striker with a corner flag. Are Thames Valley Police stating that it is Nicky’s job, as organiser, to police the demo? Is a 12 year old boy more accountable for the actions of those attending a demonstration than trained, equipped, well backed Police officers? No. It’s a ludicrous suggestion, and one that can only be intended to intimidate.

And now we come to the finest part. The mention of armed police officers. There is a way we could see this as reasonable. Perhaps if the officer said to the organiser something like the following:

“Look, this demo is all well and good. I understand you have your valid reasons for it. I understand you intend no violence. But do remember this is the occasional place of work of the leader of our country. Please ensure that those attending know that if they try anything like breaking in the back door, the man out the back with an MP5 might not know it’s a protesting schoolboy. I want no tragic accidents here.”

However, what Nicky describes is not that. His description sounds more like a hired heavy walking round a china shop advising that “it would be a shame if something were to happen.”

Certain issues must be borne in mind. The story hit the Guardian website at 1749 today. There is time for further developments. We must consider the following:

There are discrepancies between the accounts of Nicky and Thames Valley Police. The school might be able to come out and say which they heard, but at the moment, they say they are “dealing with [the matter] internally”. I find that disappointing, as much light could be shed by their account.

Nicky is a scared 12 year old, normally confident, but terrified because the Police are speaking to him about public demonstrations. His account could well be slightly exaggerated, through no fault of his own. However, we find ourselves returning to that original mistake of not asking his mother to attend. If she had, an adult recollection of the meeting might be available, however biased. I keep returning to this with almost every point, as it is fundamental. I see no reason, at the moment, that Thames Valley Police did not contact her and request her attendance at the meeting.

I would like to know the following:

1. Was Nicky really told he would be liable for arrest if criminal acts were carried out by the attendees? Was he told this was true even if he didn’t attend?
2. Did the officer warn Nicky about firearms officers in the way he described?
3. What information did Thames Valley Police seek about the demonstration to arrange the meeting with Nicky? Was this obtained?
4. Most importantly, above all, why was Nicky’s mother not contacted? This thread runs through everything that is said on the subject after that. It is, in my view, a basic omission that massively undermines anything the force might have to say on the subject in future.

You have a right to protest. Do not be talked out of it, but conduct it in a peaceful and contructive manner. If you are requested to attend a police meeting, take a witness. Or a tape recorder. Or both.

And you are not, in any circumstances, liable to be prosecuted because someone else did something you knew nothing about and did not suspect, even if it happened at an event you organised.

Nicky, you seem like a kid I can respect. Don’t let this incident put you off, because it sounds, at first hearing, like you had it planned right.

Thames Valley Police press office is, understandably, closed at this time.