STOP PRESS

Six months later, the police finally released their findings:

30th November 2016

Five months on, Merseyside Police…

whilst possessing undisclosed information

after watching Angela Eagle and UK Labour allow uncontrolled falsehoods to be spread across 12+ national UK Newspapers for reckless political advantage

and whilst watching and hearing these fabrications being consolidated and built upon across national TV and Radio channels

…have finally been ‘prompted’ to admit:

Although the damage to the window appears to have been attributed by the media to a brick, no conclusive information is held that the brick (which was at the scene) caused the damage.

Speculation

So the question on everybody’s lips now should be, if no conclusive information is held that the brick (which was at the scene) caused the damage, what was it more likely to be?

If the cause of the damage is and always was inconclusive, who were the police looking for during their unsuccessful investigation? Were they concentrating on potentially a vandal who’d put his boot through the window – unlikely given its height?

Or did the police actually have whoever reported the incident privately under suspicion?

Such an explanation would seem more in keeping with the facts as they stand now, given that no conclusive information was ever held that a brick was the cause of the damage – even though it was found at the scene! The police held this information all along, eventually stating, “However the following is disclosed because time has now passed…”

Angela Eagle’s team were the same people who had failed to report criminal instances of alleged homophobia at the Wallasey CLP Annual General meeting on 24th June, just three weeks earlier – which served their own purposes as smears proliferated throughout the still unregulated UK media. Similarly, bogus, unchecked smears travelled UK-wide on this occasion – and the truth still wants an opportunity to get its boots on!

Remember how a photograph taken at the scene showed broken glass on the public footpath outside the building, whereas a brick being propelled through the glass from outside would surely have sent the broken fragments inwards? Or did gravity cause some pieces to dislodge, drop and fall outside after the event?

Is the shape of the hole in the glass consistent with a brick? Or was the projectile / rock / lump of concrete simply described as a ‘brick’ for brevity?

The reason we’ve placed the phrase ‘Angela Eagle’s Window’ in quotes is that the damaged window pane was not Angela Eagle’s window pane and never was hers and never will be hers unless Labour plan to assume ownership of the whole building.

As previously explained in several of our blog posts, the broken window was a window to a shared stairwell used collectively by the building’s occupants i.e. the landlord and the Labour Party. I knocked on the door and asked to find out who actually used the building.

Anti-social behaviour

As if wanting to draw a line under the matter, Wirral Council have since concluded that the incident was nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters and is in their opinion related to anti-social behaviour, with the building lying within what they term an anti-social behaviour hotspot.

This local determination appears to have been reached in consultation with Merseyside Police at a meeting at the Manor Road station 300 metres from the Sherlock House site, and runs counter to all the bogus information, attacking Corbyn and his supporters that appeared in the newspapers and across the broadcast media throughout summer 2016.

For our part, we think it’s unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn’s politically-focussed members would involve themselves in anti-social behaviour and that the most likely cause of the broken window is connected to the violent history of the pub situated 25 metres away – the notorious Royal Oak – and the fact that the broken window directly overlooks a busy, unlit by night footpath commonly used by its customers…

…notwithstanding the extreme, outside possibility which still exists – and which cannot be ruled in or out – but which has now become more likely given the Merseyside Police statement above – that the brick was potentially planted at the scene, the glass was broken by a party insider and the police have been given the runaround.

What next?

Here’s a link to the original FOI request, dated 2nd August 2016. We have updated the status of the request, inserting answers or disclosures or maintained exemptions – which have now been reconfigured – in red:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/alleged_brick_thrown_through_com

Please confirm the following: 1. Did your officers visit the Sherlock House location to gather evidence? YES 2. What was the physical nature / description / material of the projectile apparently thrown through and breaking the bottom left pane of the 12 shared stairwell windows on the ground floor of the north eastern elevation of Sherlock House on either 11th or 12th July 2016? i.e. was it a brick or a rock or a stone or something else? Please describe. IT WAS A BRICK. DESCRIPTION OF BRICK NOT PROVIDED. ALTHOUGH THE DAMAGE TO THE WINDOW APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED BY THE MEDIA TO A BRICK, NO CONCLUSIVE INFORMATION IS HELD THAT THE BRICK (WHICH WAS AT THE SCENE) CAUSED THE DAMAGE. THIS INFORMATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL RESPONSE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE INVESTIGATION. EXEMPT INFORMATION 30(1) (3) IS MAINTAINED – DUTY TO CONFIRM OR DENY DOES NOT ARISE. THIS EXEMPTION HAS CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS RESPONSE OF EXEMPTION 30(2) INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY. SECTION 40(2) – EXEMPT PERSONAL INFORMATION – IS NEWLY INTRODUCED TO THIS REQUEST. 3. Do you have in your possession the projectile (brick or rock or stone or something else) that was reported to have been thrown by an unknown person and was later described in several local and national newspapers as ‘a brick’ thrown through a window? EXEMPT INFORMATION 30(3) INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY EXEMPT INFORMATION 40(5) DUTY TO CONFIRM OR DENY DOES NOT ARISE – IS NEWLY INTRODUCED TO THIS REQUEST. 4. Was there any evidence to suggest that the constituency office or office window of Angela Eagle MP on the ground floor of the south eastern elevation was subjected to an attack during the same time period? EXEMPT INFORMATION 30(3) INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY EXEMPT INFORMATION 40(5) DUTY TO CONFIRM OR DENY DOES NOT ARISE – IS NEWLY INTRODUCED TO THIS REQUEST. EXEMPT INFORMATION 38(2) DUTY TO CONFIRM OR DENY DOES NOT ARISE. THE POLICE AGAIN ADVISE US TO DO AN INTERNET SEARCH FOR THE WORDS “ANGELA EAGLE OFFICE ATTACK” IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT A PLETHORA OF FALSEHOODS EXIST CLAIMING THAT A STAIRWELL WINDOW IS ANGELA EAGLE’S OFFICE WINDOW. 5. Did you conclude after gathering evidence that the attack dated 11th or 12th July 2016 was confined to the shaired stairwell on the north east elevation of the building, and that the office or office window of Angela Eagle MP was not attacked given the nature of the evidence gathered? EXEMPT INFORMATION 30(3) INVESTIGATIONS AND PROCEEDINGS BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY EXEMPT INFORMATION 40(5) DUTY TO CONFIRM OR DENY DOES NOT ARISE – IS NEWLY INTRODUCED TO THIS REQUEST. EXEMPT INFORMATION 38(2) DUTY TO CONFIRM OR DENY DOES NOT ARISE. THE POLICE AGAIN ADVISE US TO DO AN INTERNET SEARCH FOR THE WORDS “ANGELA EAGLE OFFICE ATTACK” IN THE FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT A PLETHORA OF FALSEHOODS EXIST CLAIMING THAT A STAIRWELL WINDOW IS ANGELA EAGLE’S OFFICE WINDOW – IS NEWLY INTRODUCED TO THIS REQUEST.

For our part, although the Information Commissioner’s involvement has gleaned further details, we are not happy with the Merseyside Police response…

with their chopping and changing of exemptions used to justify non-disclosure

with their absurd suggestion that we Google UK newspaper reports laced with lazy / deliberate inaccuracies rather than ask them to provide the information in the pubic interest

with their ongoing refusal to release information, especially given the high level of public interest

…and will be appealing the matter to the First Tier Information Tribunal – as is our right.