Dossier on Sussex House occupation released

A dossier of witness statements from the occupation of Sussex house which call management’s characterisation of events that day into question – to say the least – has been released. The question of ‘hostage-taking’ receives a particularly close examination. A covering letter outlining some of its findings is here ; an appendix containing the witness statements can be found here.

The cover letter – which is short and incisive – is well worth reading. It’s posted in full below the break.

Apologies for the poor formatting. It’s here for RSS feeds, but do read the pdf if you’ve got a reader for it.

Statement about events at the occupation of Sussex House, 3rd March.
During and after the occupation of Sussex House, members of management made several statements about the behaviour of student protestors. We have collected statements from staff and students who were inside the building, to put right some of the misconceptions that management’s statements may have spread on campus.
Firstly, the method of entry into the building has been misrepresented. A witness statement by John Duffy, the Registrar of the University, mentions “forcing entry”(1) , something repeated by the Vice Chancellor in his statements which mention “breaking in”(2) and implies that this was a criminal act. In fact, students entered through a fire exit that had been opened from the inside(3). There was no forced entry or damage to the doors.
Many of the statements come from John Duffy’s testimony, which we believe contributed to the disproportionate police response to the occupation. We are especially troubled that a member of senior management would be willing to make these accusations in a formal written statement to a high court judge – statements which are at best ill-informed and at worst downright dishonest.
John Duffy states that students were “holding key members of the University staff hostage”(4) We refute this absolutely. Upon entering the building, protestors distributed a leaflet to all staff offices, making it clear that they were free to leave at any point, and suggesting routes of exit.(5) Specifically, Duffy alleges that students “have locked key members of staff including myself into their offices against their will.”(6) This is not only untrue but would not even have been possible:
“There was no intention to lock office doors – nor could we have done so. Offices, once empty, were locked by porters with a key from the outside. It would have been impossible for us to have locked any office doors, as we did not have a key. Any office doors that were locked whilst staff were inside were locked by staff themselves from the inside.” (7)
One protestor explained to John Duffy that his continued presence in the building was being used to justify the heavy police response. “This, like my note [requesting that he leave, and offering tea or water if he wanted to remain in the building] was met with laughter from inside.” (8)
The Vice Chancellor’s statement to senators included the following: “My own staff who were working in the building when it was invaded have told me there was aggressive, confrontational and intimidatory behaviour towards them.” (9) We are concerned that this suggests intentionally aggressive behaviour from students towards staff. The fire escape corridor where negotiations took place with police was very crowded and tension was at times high, but intimidating staff was never our intention. We apologise unreservedly if any members of staff felt intimidated.
Many of the statements we have gathered speak of efforts to reassure staff inside the building, and to be courteous:
“After a few minutes, a group of staff left through [the] door [where I was standing]. We made a point to stand back and hold the doors fully open. I smiled and thanked every staff member as they left, many of them smiled back.” (10)
“Students were keen to apologise to the staff members for the disruption of their day… Importantly, numerous staff members decided to carry on with their work amidst the peaceful protest.” (11)
“[Students were] apologising for disruption, and holding doors open for staff as they were leaving.” (12)
Tom Wills, president of USSU, has stated that a member of staff commented to him as they were leaving that it was nice to see students being so respectful.
One incident did occur in which a female member of staff was inside Michael Farthing’s office while a student banged on the door. When it was realised that she was inside, other students immediately told the individual to stop, and apologised to the woman. After she had left the building, one protestor saw “at least three different students ask the porter whether the woman was alright and show concern as to whether she had been let out.” (13)
We know of only one incident in which there was physical contact between students and staff inside Sussex House. John Duffy and another member of staff tried to remove one protestor from a doorway, “using the full weight and force of his body”(14), in a manner that one student described as “unnecessarily aggressive”(15) :
“John Duffy, who had been trying to get the member of staff who opened the door to close it, began to try to physically remove her. We were all slightly shocked – a member of management, of quite large build, was using his full physical strength to try to force a student out of the doorway. He grabbed her arms and body, and yanked and pulled her several times. We were all shouting at him.”
The student involved stated that she “offered only passive resistance”(16) and shouted the she was being hurt, but that “[staff members] paid no heed.”(17)
The personal inconvenience that the occupation caused to staff members was also stressed by Michael Farthing: “Many staff were also left stranded on the day, unable to retrieve keys, money and other personal belongings from the building.” (18) In every case where it was made known to the protestors that staff needed to re-enter the building to retrieve personal possessions, this was done:
“I escorted [a female member of staff] to the door of the locked office, waited for her to collect her things and escorted her back to the exit, we shared a joke or two and everything was very amiable. The same woman returned maybe an hour later for 5 of her colleagues’ belongings and we obliged once more with the same friendliness.” (19)
Additionally, Duffy’s testimony states:
“The protestors have sought no formal discussion or dialogue with the University save for issuing some demands in an email to the University on 09.02.10… They have not sought to use the well-established channels and processes for student involvement in the running of the University despite being represented by students on every committee, including special committees set up on issues such as restructuring.” (20)
We see this as a fundamental misrepresentation of the campaign and an effort to isolate direct action taken by the movement from the many other types of campaigning that we are engaged in. “The protestors” cannot be seen in isolation from the broader Stop the Cuts campaign. We have used a variety of means to draw attention to the managements’ damaging proposals. Students within the campaign are engaged in letter-writing, petitions, participating in meetings and open forums; we are doing all we can to communicate with management. Many of those involved in the protest at Sussex House have also been engaged in these less visible activities for months.
We hope that this statement, and the statements and images included in the appendix, goes some way towards giving a more balanced picture of what happened at Sussex House last week, and urge all students and staff to keep informed about the campaign and about developments around management’s proposals.
Appendices can be found at http://defendsussex.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/appendix.pdf

1 John Duffy’s testimony included in injunction text, paragraph 11
2 Statement on Sussex News, March 5 2010 – http://www.sussex.ac.uk/students/newsandevents/?id=3518
3 Statement from protestor H
4 John Duffy’s testimony included in injunction text, paragraph 11
5 See appendix
6 John Duffy’s testimony included in injunction text, paragraph 11
7 Statement from protestor H
8 Statement from protestor B (please also see appendix for a photograph of this note)
9 Statement on Sussex News, March 5 2010 – http://www.sussex.ac.uk/students/newsandevents/?id=3518
10 Statement from protestor H
11 Statement from protestor I
12 Statement from protestor B
13 Statement from protestor G. For more statements about this incident, please see appendix.
14 Statement from protestor N
15 Statement from protester M
16 Statement from protester M
17 Statement from protester M. For a full account of this incident, please see appendix.
18 Statement on Sussex News, March 5 2010 – http://www.sussex.ac.uk/students/newsandevents/?id=3518
19 Statement from protester A
20 John Duffy’s testimony included in injunction text, paragraph 14