Over the past eight years, relied on Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, I have sent letters requesting the Home Office, Foreign Office and Prime Minister's Office, amongst others, to disclose information about the pressure put on the British police by British and Chinese government departments to suppress the right to peaceful demonstration during Xi Jinping's visit to the UK in 2015, which included detaining peaceful protesters, raiding their homes and prosecuting them. The charges against those arrested protestors were later dropped after a series of protests and House of Commons debate. The Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister's Office, among others, responded to the FOI requests mainly through exemptions, refusals or other excuses such as “the detriment of British-Chinese relations and the public interest”, or have delayed substantive replies to the present day.
If courting proceeding is used to request the UK authorities to release the relevant information, the costs are enormous. Due to the massive cuts in legal aid by the UK government, I am unable to obtain such legal aid, and crowdfunding is nowhere near the basic costs required for courting proceeding at this time of generally declining incomes for most civilians.
The British government's avoidance of the freedom of information requests is in fact damaging to the public interest. The Government's way of this response renders the Freedom of Information Act a waste of paper, denies citizens the right to know, covers up the abuse of Chinese labour and other rights by British politicians, businessmen and other elites in their dealings with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and undermines the right to protest peacefully and other related rights.
We started Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) complaint in December in 2015 and civil claim process in July 2019. Through the IOPC final report and relevant process, we found more evidence of pressure on the police by the CCP regime and 10 Downing Street to restrict the right to peaceful protest. For example, the CCP delegates even demanded that the UK suspend the Human Rights Act during Xi Jinping’s visit and remove peaceful protesters from a distance of five miles from Xi Jinping. In addition, the police in the UK interpreted "threat" in exactly the same way as the CCP, in effect amending the interpretation of "threat" in section 5 of the Public Order Act.
We are now on the eve of the UK General Election. Recalling the use of the Freedom of Information Act and process of IOPC and civil claim, it helps to observe the trend of shrinking civil rights, and It is hoped that voters who value human rights and the media, which have the function of independently monitoring the Government, would raise relevant questions of all candidates standing in constituencies. After the election, it is hoped that newly elected and re-elected MPs will be urged to set up or authorise the establishment of an independent commission for an full independent investigation into involvement of Home Office, Foreign Office, Prime Minster Office, police and other UK authorities during Chinese state visit in 2015 as well as inquiry to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the co-operation and profit-making of British politicians, businessmen and other elites with the Chinese Communist Party over the last 50 decades. This investigation would include, but not be limited to, the following matters: 1. which individuals or groups have profited, etc., and how they have affected civil rights and the public interest in the UK; 2. whether these dealings have helped the CCP to intensify its repression of people fighting for democracy and human rights in P R China, and what kind of damage has been done to the rights of Chinese, Tibetans, Uyghurs, Hong Kongers, Mongols and women etc.; 3. Whether it reinforces the international expansion of the Chinese Communist empire, leading to a further shrinking of the rule of law and academic freedom in the UK; 4. whether the UK has breached further international law and humanitarian obligations; 5. whether it has made the current system of representative government and governance in the UK less democratic, less transparent and less open; 6. Please publish the full, unabridged report when the invesigation is complete.
The investigative process should be open and transparent so that the public can know the political, economic, diplomatic, and civil rights and representative democracy implications of the CCP empire and other empires & authoritarianism in the UK. Otherwise, the environment of hostility to peaceful protest in the UK will continue, labour and other rights will continue to decline, there will be an even greater lack of democracy in the public interest sector, the gap between rich and poor will continue to widen, poverty will continue to increase, minorities and vulnerable groups will have less protection of their rights, and the UK will be likely to step fully into development model of the CCP or the development model of the British Empire— the denial of human rights, the rejection of democracy, and an autocracy dominated by profit, privileges, and the chauvinistic imperialist empire, or a part of it.
Below is a copy of the FOI requests I sent to the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office on 22 June 2024, for the reference.
Information Rights Unit
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Room WH2.177
King Charles Street
London
SW1A 2AH
United Kingdom
Protests during Xi Jinping’s UK visit and related questions
Dear FOI Officer and Mr David Cameron
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I sent a FOI request on 11 April and received your apology for not finishing your response in 20 working day on 11 May.
My key FOI questions were sent in November 2020, but as of today these questions have not been substantively answered. How long will it take you to address these important issues of public interest?
Based on the questions sent on 10 April 2024, three additional questions have been added this time.
According to Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) investigation, Prior to the dictator’s visit in October 2015, a number of meetings took place between Foreign Office, Home Office, Royal House and representatives from the delegation in the P R China. The IOPC told us that there was definitely evidence of pressure from the Chinese on the way of policing and operation as well as on imposing restrictions on where people could protest and how they could protest.
At Lancaster house in the morning of 21 October 2015, the Chinese delegation walked out on Met police Gold Commander Lucy D’Orsi, threatening to call off the trip. According to a leaked conversation at Queen’s summer party in 2016, Commander D’Orsi was ‘seriously, seriously undermined by the Chinese’.
The IOPC’s final report shows that the police were placed under political pressure from both the Chinese and UK governments to make sure that Xi Jinping was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay. In addition, the autocrat’s delegation made “a series of requests” regarding the “management of protesters” to the UK government and had tried to apply pressure directly to the police in the UK. The investigation says that the UK government also made “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during Chinese state visit, which according to one senior police officer was “unprecedented”.
1. Please give names of attendees for the preparation meetings prior to and during Xi Jinping visit in October 2015.
2. Who wrote the meeting minutes? Who fielded the meeting minutes?
3. How did the Prime Minister's Office make sure that Xi Jinping was not “embarrassed” by protesters during his stay?
4. What did Prime Minister's Office make “unusual requests” to the police about managing protests during the Chinese state visit? For example, did Mr Cameron discuss the instruction from Xi Jinping's subordinates with officers from of Prime Minister’s office? Did an officer at Prime Minister’s office directly call a senior MPS officer, demanding that protesters not "embarrass" Xi Jinping during his stay or ensure that demonstrators stay away from Xi Jinping? Did Mr Cameron appoint the officer as a new peer?
5. Any policy or guidance devised and/ or implemented in relation to the policing of demonstrations in the UK, during and related to the October 2015 visit of the Chinese dictator. This should include any arrangements classified as ‘security’ that might impact upon the right to demonstrate, for instance restricting any protestors from being visible or audible to the dictator; or relating to the arrest of those who might demonstrate or be expected to demonstrate during the period of the visit.
6. Details of any budget/ resources allocated for the purposes of policing and/ or security for the October 2015 visit of the Chinese tyrant.
7. Details of the numbers of individuals who entered the UK around the time of the visit of the despot for the purposes of presenting as “pro-PR China” demonstrators.
8. Based on relevant news reports, please disclose the annual profit and profit distribution of Mr Cameron’s involvement in a new UK-China investment fund since 2017. Please provide a list of the names of those involved in the UK-China investment fund contacts with Chinese companies/organizations, as well as with Chinese and British officials/officers.
9. Please disclose, based on relevant news reports, whether the Tory Party and its party branches organised pro-PR China greeters to occupy the close proximity of Xi Jinping's arrival at the request of the Chinese delegation or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and to isolate the protesters from Xi Jinping's sight and hearing.
10. Regarding the judgment which handed down in the Global Legal Action Network and World Uyghur Congress' case against the UK government. Please make public the relevant records of communication between the British Government and the court. Has the British Government had any relevant communication with the CCP on this issue, and if so, please release the relevant records. If not, did the British Government request the court to make such a judgement.
11. Please give names of attendees and minutes for 1st- 12th China-UK Leadership Forum and other platforms between state of parties at Westminster, and the Chinese Communist Party/ “National People’s Congress” or “People's Political Consultative Conference” since 1970.
Please include copies of material which you hold in the form of paper and electronic records including emails and minutes. I would be grateful if you would supply this information by sending me photocopies by post and by email. If I can help to clarify these requests, please contact me by email.
Based on the details revealed in the proceeding of IOPC proceedings and civil claim, FCDO and Mr Cameron are related to the above questions.
There is a genuine public interest in disclosing the names of officials/officers involved in discussions with the Chinese Communist Party officers/officials about restricting the right to protest and other FOI requests above-- whether Mr Cameron and his affiliated officers were suspected of exchanging their power for money, and of using their power to suppress the right to protest with their power, and making profits and regaining new power through power-business dealings.
Yours sincerely
Dr SHAO Jiang
