Garrett Hargan
The PSNI has refused to confirm or deny the existence of a letter in which a TUV MLA alleged that pro-Palestine protesters mocked the deaths of Jewish people, despite the force previously saying the letter had been sent.
Speaking in the Assembly earlier this year, Timothy Gaston said he had written to PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher about a roadblock in Belfast where demonstrators allegedly chanted “we got two” in the wake of the Manchester synagogue attack on October 2.
Adrian Daulby (53) and Melvin Cravitz (66) were killed in the attack, carried out by Jihad al-Shamie on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar.
Inquests have heard from a senior police officer who said Mr Cravitz was stabbed, and Mr Daulby died after a bullet discharged by an officer struck him in the chest.
When a query was lodged with the PSNI about Mr Gaston’s letter, a spokesperson for the force said it did not exist. The PSNI then said it had found the message but refused to share it.
The TUV originally claimed the letter had been sent by email, but after it was asked to produce a copy, the party changed course and said the complaint had been relayed in a telephone call.
Speaking in the Assembly on October 6, Mr Gaston said: “For years, anti-Israeli protests have featured antisemitic slogans and placards [with] harmful Jewish stereotypes. Even after [the October 2 synagogue attack], that rhetoric didn’t stop.
“I wrote to the Chief Constable after being advised that, at an illegal roadblock at York Street, there were chants of, ‘We got two’.”
Mr Gaston also said “decency should have kept the protesters in the house on [that] evening, of all nights”.
However, the PSNI said the only roadblock it knew of had been mounted on the morning of October 2, before the synagogue attack took place.
The force added: “[There] has not been a report of a protest in the same area on the evening of Thursday, October 2, or on the evening of Friday, October 3.”
Despite the TUV backtracking and saying the complaint had been relayed in a phone call, the PSNI maintained a letter had been sent.
This newspaper submitted a Freedom of Information (FoI) request, seeking a copy of the letter and any response issued by the Chief Constable.
The PSNI refused to answer any of questions, relying instead on a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) exemption.
According to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), these can be used when “even confirming that information is or is not held may be sensitive”.
Its guidance says: “You should apply the response consistently in any case where either confirming or denying could be harmful.”
It gives an example of someone asking for an investigation file relating to a murder, saying this could tip off a potential suspect.
The TUV and PSNI refused to elaborate on why the letter could not be shared.
The party said: “We have nothing further to add to the comments already sent to the Belfast Telegraph and published some weeks ago.”
The PSNI directed this newspaper to a previous response in which it said it had received a letter from an elected representative on Friday, October 3.
It said this letter included details of offensive chants reported to have been overheard by a member of the public at a protest in Belfast the previous evening.
FoI expert Martin Rosenbaum criticised the police’s response to the request for a copy of the message.
He said: “Generally, this is the sort of response I would expect, and police forces give routinely, when asked about contact with anyone who may have supplied them with information.
“However, in this particular case, if the MLA involved, who is a serving politician accountable for their actions, has spoken about the matter publicly and inconsistently, then an outright NCND response is pointless, as the fact of a communication of some kind is already known.
“It would clear matters up in the public mind to reveal whether the communication was a letter or a phone call.
“Although it would be personal information, this would be legal under data protection law, because it would further the legitimate interests of the public to be informed about the activities of a serving politician who has already talked publicly about the issue.”
People Before Profit MLA Gerry Carroll called for the letter to be published in full.
“Timothy Gaston referenced his correspondence in the chamber, so there should be nothing preventing either the TUV or PSNI from publicly sharing it,” he said.
“If this letter was sent in good faith, and they have nothing to hide, they should share its contents.
“The PSNI and TUV owe urgent explanations for this fiasco.”
by askmac
8 comments
this will be swept under carpet and ignored
https://preview.redd.it/rtjognu0omzf1.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=b05ea99726e8e07fe07a874bb845fd8fcd0973bc
> The TUV and PSNI refused to elaborate on why the letter could not be shared.
Something suspicious here, alright. The PSNI and the TUV are playing the coy “yis are asking the wrong questions” game.
Me, I’m not sure whether to be more surprised that the PSNI will accept letters written in crayon or that Timothy Gaston can actually write.
Although _maybe_ the issue is he _can’t_ write and he sent them a picture showing how he feels – thus, technically, not a letter.
“We got two” is such an obvious and transparent lie it’s actually hilarious
Up there with your woman telling Stacey Dooley it was justified to throw piss and explosives at Holy Cross primary school girls coz the week before they had been wearing tee shirts that said “KILL ALL HUNS”
PSNI refuse to confirm is anyone in the TUV knows how to write a letter.
Ah the bigots lying, what’s new?
Careful Gaston, your old boss is in very serious shit over sending spurious letters to the PSNI…
Absolutely nothing stopping the TUV publishing the letter in a redacted format unless they are embarrassed by its contents.
Comments are closed.