Thread by @JohnWRees

Back for the afternoon in the court hearing of @STWuk @ChrisNineham and @PSCupdates @BenJamalpsc where defence KC Mark Summers is cross examining Met Commander Adam Slonecki 🧵

Mark Summers: where did you get the idea that the BBC adjacent synagogue was the only one tourists could go to? Slonecki: was told by Jewish reps. Summers: but there are 15 they can go to.

Summers: you felt you had to balance protesters rights with right to worship, but you never seem to have thought that the worshipers had to compromise as well as the protestors? Slonecki: not for worshippers to change.

Summers: you repeated that many times: that worshippers should not have to compromise. So you sought no balance between the two? Slonecki says no.

Summers: you didn’t balance. You thought one side should compromise and the other had no obligation to compromise. Slonecki agrees that this is right.

Summers: you don’t acknowledge that you had a positive obligation to protect the right to protest. Slonecki agrees that this was his position.

Summers: by 20 Dec you knew services finished at synagogue by 1pm, everyone left by 2pm. Slonecki had not even been to the area at this point to see location.

On 20 Dec PSC immediately suggested service be moved forward a little. A balance could have been struck says Summers. This compromise had happened twice before.

Slonecki: this was too disruptive.

Summers: on two previous occassions a compromise had been agreed by the synagogue. How did you ask? Was it a genuine request? Slonecki; yes

Summers: Request went from you: Slonecki advised ‘request to be made for the record’ and ‘I expect I know the answer’. Summers: you didn’t care what the answer was did you. You were mapping circular exclusion zones before you got the answer.

Summers: by 2nd Jan you’d already got flashy slides showing exclusion zones.

Summers: so even before you made the request to move services you were mapping circular exclusion zones.

Summers: you never had any intention of trying to reach a compromise did you. Slonecki: I was just trying to gauge distances.

Summers: by this stage you had already decided that the only thing that needed to bend was the right to protest. Slonecki: I was just looking at distances.

Slonecki: we were looking at abortion clinics for safe access routes. Summers: you used an inapplicable statute and even that only provides 150 metres.

Slonecki we could have used that alternative. Summers: why did you impose a zone of 250 metres? Slonecki: business concerns.

Summers: but you are now introducing another set of representations. Slonecki: we had lots of representations.

Summers: you’re zones are indefensible. You are just expanding the zones to protect the BBC.

Summers: you said that you understood the importance of protesting at the BBC, but your report says nothing about the BBC. Slonecki: it’s a draft. Summers: you can assure the court all you like but it’s not in your report.

Summers: why does your statement say that the BBC is not ‘fundamental to the Palestine cause’. Why can’t I find any reference to why at this time the BBC was important to PSC. Slonecki: my statement isn’t as clear as it could be.

Slonecki says he thought that Millbank might be an alternative because that is where the evening news comes from (btw…it doesn’t, this is completely untrue)

6 Jan Slonecki met Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) and their lawyers. He made no suggestion that synagogue should change times of service. They told police they had complied on previous occassions and still Slonecki does not repeat request.

Was told synagogue would have no services between 1pm and 5pm. Summers: you must have understood there was a gap when the protestors could be at the BBC. Slonecki: yes.

Summers: this didn’t make any difference to you because you were already drawing up exclusion zones. You knew you were going to put conditions on the PSC. Slonecki: we knew that PSC might object

Summers: within 5 mins you wrote to PSC telling them that you were banning them from the BBC. Slonecki: Yes. Summers: you were never going to let them go to the BBC. Slonecki: we were going to tell them to go elsewhere.

Summers: by 8 Jan the synagogue had replied to your ‘for the record’ request for a change. They said no. Was that anything to do with the way you asked the question.

Summers: later the same day you were grovelling the the JLC saying there was ‘no intention’ to get you to vary your services. Slonecki: yes. Summers: so did you ever have any serious intention of getting them to vary their services.

Next day Slonecki imposes ban on meeting at BBC. Summers: reaction of PSC was to mobilise opinion against decision.

This campaign inc letters from Jewish Bloc, TU leaders, MPs, academic, Amnesty, Liberty, 13 Holocaust survivors, EDM supported by 50 MPs.

Slonecki: these were known supporters of PSC. Police position was ‘expected to align with cause’. Summers|: you genuinely expected Holocaust survivors to support this position? Slonecki: wasn’t going to changer my position on the basis of what had been put forward.

Slonecki says to JLC ‘there is no intention from me to vary’. Summers: your decision was set in stone.

Slonecki meets PSC: we are not varying the ban.

Summers: you understand these are national demonstrations, and that weekdays and Sundays are not appropriate. You were given 4 different alternatives.

Slonecki: the alternatives were not workable. Summers: you records say that it was unviable because it went into the exclusion zone, but Cavandish Sq, which was suggested, was outside the zone. Slonecki: but they would have to go through it to assemble.

Summers: to defeat this suggestion you said this would knock on to other synagogues. Slonecki: yes I was looking at other synagogues. Summers: that is 20 minutes away, what were you thinking? Slonecki: people might come on foot

Summers: did you then go on to talk about double parking as a reason for not using Cavendish Square? Slonecki: yes we get cars parked in those streets. We were trying to keep the Kings Peace. Summers: you have power to suspend parking.

Summers: you were saying anything at this point? Slonecki: yes these were outside our zone. Summers: by 9th Jan you excluded Cavendish Square from discussion by extending ban.

Slonecki: yes I was making it clear that we weren’t going to allow that.

Summers: On the 20th Dec you offered a reverse route ending at the BBC in the gap between services. PSC welcomed it. On 8th Jan PSC offered this option again.

By 8th Jan you had received a letter from Lord Mann. He said it should be on a Sunday or at times not interfering with services by reversing the route. Even Mann thought it was possible.

On 13th PSC wrote again asking for reverse route ending at BBC. Slonecki response was to immediately reject without giving reasons.

Slonecki: I said it would be difficult to disperse. Next day PSC say they can make dispersal work. Slonecki replies on 14th: says that his conditions stay in place.

Summers: PSC managed 21 demo dispersals without incident before you arrived.

Slonecki: there are trees and parking bays that would have had to have been suspended. It would have added to problems.

Summers: when you were told that the TUC had dispersed there successfully in the past, did you look into that? Slonecki: No.

Summers: last suggestion PSC put to you: they would just march toward the BBC and stop at the exclusion zone. An idea first suggested by you on 20th Dec. Slonecki: it would cause alarm and distress to worshippers.

Why the next morning did you say you were still considering it. Slonecki: was still looking at what might be done, perhaps a delegation.

Slonecki: on 16th said only option was static protest in Whitehall. Summers: that’s what the JLC suggested to you. Slonecki: that’s a coincidence.

Summers: did you realise that you had lost any easy solution to this problem. Slonecki: I take full responsibility for the operation.

Summers: on the 16th you say in the witness statement you tasked officers to look at a delegation being allowed to the BBC. Where is it in your log? It’s not in your log. Slonecki: its was in conversations. We then decided against it.

Slonecki: sending 16 people to the BBC would have been seen as an affront to the community.

@threadreaderapp unroll