Hove MP criticised over University of Sussex attack

The Argus: Mike Weatherley: "ignored decisions" Mike Weatherley: "ignored decisions"

A damning report has said Hove MP Mike Weatherley and his colleagues made “errors in judgement and communication” ahead of being hounded by protesters at the University of Sussex.

The report said Mr Weatherley’s own decisions – made against the advice of university security staff – brought him and colleagues in “direct contact with protesters”.

Mr Weatherley and his colleagues were pursued as they prepared to give a talk to the university’s Conservative society in November 2012.


MORE:


The findings of the report, released under the Freedom of Information Act and authored by the University of Sussex, have been rejected by Mr Weatherley.

A review of the incident in November 2012 said he and colleagues went against “agreed decisions”. It said he brought extra people to the talk than agreed and ignored decisions made by the university’s head of security Roger Morgan.

The report, written by director of estates at the university Andrew Jupp, said members of Mr Weatherley’s group did not make their way to a building on campus as agreed.

It said: “At least two of the group made their way directly to A2 [a building on campus] although [unnamed] made clear the agreed arrangement was for the party to wait in IDS [a building on campus].”

It added: “The route taken by MW’s party brought them into direct contact with the protesters waiting at A2.”

The report continued: “It is disappointing that the MW group decided to leave IDS for A2 earlier than planned and without the intended escort.”

It added: “It has been confirmed that the initial number of the visiting group increased substantially on the day without prior notification to RM. “It is my view this miscommunication was significant.”

In conclusion the report said there were “errors of judgement and communication by MW’s group”.

However, Mr Weatherley has criticised the report. He said: “This report bears no link whatsoever to what happened on the day. By attempting to cover up the head of security’s mistakes, the university has essentially aided in this severe attack on democracy.”

A university spokesman added: “This detailed report arose from our investigation of the security arrangements for Mr Weatherley’s visit in November 2012, which we conducted under our complaints procedure. We sent this report to Mr Weatherley in January 2013.

“We made clear in November 2012, and repeated in this report in January 2013, our regret and concern that Mr Weatherley was prevented from speaking on campus by protesters.”

No one was convicted following the protests.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:25am Thu 2 Jan 14

mtmoocher says...

So Mr Weatherley. the University's report is wrong & the judges criticism in Court unfair? Yet you whinge about democracy?
So Mr Weatherley. the University's report is wrong & the judges criticism in Court unfair? Yet you whinge about democracy? mtmoocher

10:09am Thu 2 Jan 14

Fight_Back says...

Surely the only people to blame for the violence and disorder are those protestors who committed violence and disorder ? Or is it now acceptable to carry out unlawful acts in the name of protest ?
Surely the only people to blame for the violence and disorder are those protestors who committed violence and disorder ? Or is it now acceptable to carry out unlawful acts in the name of protest ? Fight_Back

10:18am Thu 2 Jan 14

rayellerton says...

A person should be free to walk where they want without fear of violence wherever it is....protesters should do just that and not threaten a person who they disagree with. So, the protesters were in the wrong by resorting to violence therefore nullifying their argument...
A person should be free to walk where they want without fear of violence wherever it is....protesters should do just that and not threaten a person who they disagree with. So, the protesters were in the wrong by resorting to violence therefore nullifying their argument... rayellerton

10:22am Thu 2 Jan 14

Idontbelieveit1948 says...

Priceless, you get attacked by a bunch of layabouts, sorry "model students", because they don't like your point of view and it's your fault.

Only in PC crazy Britain.
Priceless, you get attacked by a bunch of layabouts, sorry "model students", because they don't like your point of view and it's your fault. Only in PC crazy Britain. Idontbelieveit1948

11:46am Thu 2 Jan 14

HJarrs says...

A cynic might think that some sort of confrontation was sought for a bit of publicity. Fortunately, I am not a cynic and would not consider this to be true.

It would be good now for Weatherley to actually do something for the City. He and Kirby are virtually invisible in parliament.
A cynic might think that some sort of confrontation was sought for a bit of publicity. Fortunately, I am not a cynic and would not consider this to be true. It would be good now for Weatherley to actually do something for the City. He and Kirby are virtually invisible in parliament. HJarrs

11:58am Thu 2 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

Nothing to do with PC crazy Britain and more to do with trying to apply double standards; those double standards that never fail to amaze me.

A woman gets raped and we question her wisdom to walk down a given road at a given time but an MP gets heckled, jostled and gets terrified because someone calls him a coward and suddenly people should be free to walk where they want?
Nothing to do with PC crazy Britain and more to do with trying to apply double standards; those double standards that never fail to amaze me. A woman gets raped and we question her wisdom to walk down a given road at a given time but an MP gets heckled, jostled and gets terrified because someone calls him a coward and suddenly people should be free to walk where they want? mimseycal

12:00pm Thu 2 Jan 14

whatone says...

Fight_Back wrote:
Surely the only people to blame for the violence and disorder are those protestors who committed violence and disorder ? Or is it now acceptable to carry out unlawful acts in the name of protest ?
Could you perhaps show us a single example of anyone who has been convicted of any offence related to this protest?
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: Surely the only people to blame for the violence and disorder are those protestors who committed violence and disorder ? Or is it now acceptable to carry out unlawful acts in the name of protest ?[/p][/quote]Could you perhaps show us a single example of anyone who has been convicted of any offence related to this protest? whatone

1:23pm Thu 2 Jan 14

Valerie Paynter says...

I am saddened to learn that my MP chose confrontation on that occasion and showed no respect for the arrangements made for him by his hosts, deciding instead to do what effectively guaranteed a colourful outcome and lots of publicity. From my understanding of this report it appears to pretty much amount to incitement, That shocks me.
I am saddened to learn that my MP chose confrontation on that occasion and showed no respect for the arrangements made for him by his hosts, deciding instead to do what effectively guaranteed a colourful outcome and lots of publicity. From my understanding of this report it appears to pretty much amount to incitement, That shocks me. Valerie Paynter

6:54pm Thu 2 Jan 14

ourcoalition says...

And Mr Weatherley has only had the report for a year - no comment from him till now - I wonder why that would be so?
And Mr Weatherley has only had the report for a year - no comment from him till now - I wonder why that would be so? ourcoalition

8:46pm Thu 2 Jan 14

clubrob6 says...

It would be nice for a change if MPs admit when they get it wrong,perhaps then the country wont be in the mess it is now.
It would be nice for a change if MPs admit when they get it wrong,perhaps then the country wont be in the mess it is now. clubrob6

8:52pm Thu 2 Jan 14

clubrob6 says...

rayellerton wrote:
A person should be free to walk where they want without fear of violence wherever it is....protesters should do just that and not threaten a person who they disagree with. So, the protesters were in the wrong by resorting to violence therefore nullifying their argument...
Its obvious you have not been on the streets of brighton and hove after dark the risk of fear and violence is very real,perhaps our MPs should be trying to get a visable police force back,but they wont as the MPs know that the falling crime is good for them even though in reality crime is massively up its just that we have few police on duty at night to record any.The local police stations have closed and as I found out last year the police online reporting form gets ignored.This MP knew the risks and ignored advice but still wont accept he was in the wrong.
[quote][p][bold]rayellerton[/bold] wrote: A person should be free to walk where they want without fear of violence wherever it is....protesters should do just that and not threaten a person who they disagree with. So, the protesters were in the wrong by resorting to violence therefore nullifying their argument...[/p][/quote]Its obvious you have not been on the streets of brighton and hove after dark the risk of fear and violence is very real,perhaps our MPs should be trying to get a visable police force back,but they wont as the MPs know that the falling crime is good for them even though in reality crime is massively up its just that we have few police on duty at night to record any.The local police stations have closed and as I found out last year the police online reporting form gets ignored.This MP knew the risks and ignored advice but still wont accept he was in the wrong. clubrob6

9:05pm Thu 2 Jan 14

I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars! says...

HJarrs wrote:
A cynic might think that some sort of confrontation was sought for a bit of publicity. Fortunately, I am not a cynic and would not consider this to be true.

It would be good now for Weatherley to actually do something for the City. He and Kirby are virtually invisible in parliament.
Agree - a good start would be to reverse all the damage the Greens have done in Brighton.

As for your aspirations for London, probably an issue for debate on a more relevant site.
[quote][p][bold]HJarrs[/bold] wrote: A cynic might think that some sort of confrontation was sought for a bit of publicity. Fortunately, I am not a cynic and would not consider this to be true. It would be good now for Weatherley to actually do something for the City. He and Kirby are virtually invisible in parliament.[/p][/quote]Agree - a good start would be to reverse all the damage the Greens have done in Brighton. As for your aspirations for London, probably an issue for debate on a more relevant site. I'm H Jarrs and I can't stand cars!

8:56am Fri 3 Jan 14

hursthill says...

What both sides of this debate can agree upon, is the utter failure by the head of security - Roger Morgan, to ensure the Sussex Campus was safe. Instead free speach was ended by a bunch of thugs (aka protestors) intent on achieving their objectives by intimidation.
What both sides of this debate can agree upon, is the utter failure by the head of security - Roger Morgan, to ensure the Sussex Campus was safe. Instead free speach was ended by a bunch of thugs (aka protestors) intent on achieving their objectives by intimidation. hursthill

9:58am Fri 3 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

hursthill wrote:
What both sides of this debate can agree upon, is the utter failure by the head of security - Roger Morgan, to ensure the Sussex Campus was safe. Instead free speach was ended by a bunch of thugs (aka protestors) intent on achieving their objectives by intimidation.
I don't agree that there was an utter failure by the head of security. Weatherley was there to provoke and provoke he did. The fault is entirely his!
[quote][p][bold]hursthill[/bold] wrote: What both sides of this debate can agree upon, is the utter failure by the head of security - Roger Morgan, to ensure the Sussex Campus was safe. Instead free speach was ended by a bunch of thugs (aka protestors) intent on achieving their objectives by intimidation.[/p][/quote]I don't agree that there was an utter failure by the head of security. Weatherley was there to provoke and provoke he did. The fault is entirely his! mimseycal

11:22am Fri 3 Jan 14

mtmoocher says...

hursthill wrote:
What both sides of this debate can agree upon, is the utter failure by the head of security - Roger Morgan, to ensure the Sussex Campus was safe. Instead free speach was ended by a bunch of thugs (aka protestors) intent on achieving their objectives by intimidation.
How you can possibly believe that is astounding. Are you part of the contingent that totally ignored the advice & neglected to await the escort Roger was organising? Would you rather that another bunch of thugs had ended free speech, such as haranguing politicos, highly paid administrators or Orgreave/Hillsboroug
h-type police?
[quote][p][bold]hursthill[/bold] wrote: What both sides of this debate can agree upon, is the utter failure by the head of security - Roger Morgan, to ensure the Sussex Campus was safe. Instead free speach was ended by a bunch of thugs (aka protestors) intent on achieving their objectives by intimidation.[/p][/quote]How you can possibly believe that is astounding. Are you part of the contingent that totally ignored the advice & neglected to await the escort Roger was organising? Would you rather that another bunch of thugs had ended free speech, such as haranguing politicos, highly paid administrators or Orgreave/Hillsboroug h-type police? mtmoocher

4:27pm Fri 3 Jan 14

hursthill says...

The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - :

1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ?

2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?
The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - : 1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ? 2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ? hursthill

4:54pm Fri 3 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

hursthill wrote:
The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - :

1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ?

2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?
When there is already high tension in the air. You either go and follow the path laid out to you by the local security or you take matters in your own hand and reap what you have sown.

Weatherley followed his own path. Weatherley caused charges to be laid against the protesters. Not one conviction resulted from all the hassle he provoked. The man is a disgrace ...
[quote][p][bold]hursthill[/bold] wrote: The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - : 1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ? 2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?[/p][/quote]When there is already high tension in the air. You either go and follow the path laid out to you by the local security or you take matters in your own hand and reap what you have sown. Weatherley followed his own path. Weatherley caused charges to be laid against the protesters. Not one conviction resulted from all the hassle he provoked. The man is a disgrace ... mimseycal

5:09pm Fri 3 Jan 14

mimseycal says...

hursthill wrote:
The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - :

1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ?

2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?
Actually University Security is not there to protect MPs and control thugs. It is there to ensure the security of the campus.
[quote][p][bold]hursthill[/bold] wrote: The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - : 1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ? 2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?[/p][/quote]Actually University Security is not there to protect MPs and control thugs. It is there to ensure the security of the campus. mimseycal

5:48pm Fri 3 Jan 14

mtmoocher says...

hursthill wrote:
The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - :

1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ?

2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?
Now that you have displayed your ignorance & grasp on reality; I apologise - I am no longer astounded.
[quote][p][bold]hursthill[/bold] wrote: The 2 comments above can be dismissed quite simply - : 1) Mimsey -Since when does a democratically elected MP visiting a university become a provocation ? 2) mootcher - What do you mean by "astounding"? - & no I have never been part of any contingent ! The security man Roger is paid to control thugs & protect MPs.-Your last sentence does not make sense- What are you on ?[/p][/quote]Now that you have displayed your ignorance & grasp on reality; I apologise - I am no longer astounded. mtmoocher

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree