Andrew Drummond

This is a blog only

The case of Simon Burrowes, ( Brit was jailed because Embassy did not like Fridays), the Briton who was put in a Phuket jail because his passport could not immediately be confirmed as legal is worrying in many ways.

Not least it is worrying because hardly anybody knew he was in jail in the first place. His plight did not come to the fore until he got out of jail and contacted a newspaper in London dealing with the issues of black people.

It therefore follows that, had he not got bail, nobody would ever have known. The British Embassy would not have told anyone, except his nearest and dearest.

The fact that this happened in Phuket is all the more worrying. For many years I have been getting reports from local journalists that they are not allowed to cover cases there. If they wish to cover a trial all they can do is ask for the judgment.  Simon would have got totally lost in the system.

And at the end of the day Simon Burrowes was just a normal tourist going about his own business but desperately trying not to miss his flight.

And although he had managed to get a message out to his brother and travelling companion, a kick boxing ace, who have helped with bail and accommodation, he’s pretty much had to deal with this on his own.

And then Simon is black. I can’t help feel that  he is right when he says: ‘In Thailand there is no perception of a black Englishman’.

So when the British Embassy could not immediately find his passport record and told Thai police, it does not take much imagination to know how Simon Burrowes would be treated. (’Like a West African drugs dealer’) When he was beaten with a leather strap outside the court there were witnesses. But those witnesses would be foolish probably to take the matter further.  In any case he believes he was hit because the officer was ‘in the rhythm’ so to speak. He is big but he was handcuffed and could hardly defend himself.

When I spoke to him here was little malice about it in his voice. He was just gobsmacked and thought the officer in question was just showing off.

When the story from the black people’s London newspaper ‘Voice’ was picked up by the local, singularly pro-active, Phuketwan website, Thai Immigration police seemed to immediately close ranks. Simon was ‘abusive and aggressive’.  He was ‘not the sort of tourist we want’.  ‘He posed naked for his passport picture’. What sort of person would do that?’.

Much of it baloney of course.  Simon laughed about his passport: “Yes. To somebody else I probably look like a black thug,” he told me.  Of course he was not naked in his passport picture. If he was the picture would have been in Thai Rath a long time ago.  It was a head and shoulders picture. His collar bone was exposed!

On the other hand Simon did use the ‘f…ing!’ word, I understand on at least four occasions, linked on three of them I understand to ‘Thailand’, a female immigration officer, and ‘idiot’.

So there you have it. Face saving all round. No need to dwell on the criticism of the British Embassy. But it could have been more muted if they had handled it differently. But time and time again they seem to score own goals when dealing with the media.  And this case was no exception.

There used to be a time – 10, 15, but more probably like 20 years ago – when a journalist could approach the British Consul and say. ‘Hey, we have this story coming in. What’s the S.P. here?’  The conversation would be off the record. An ‘on the record’ quote would be agreed.

But you would get what you considered was an honest account. If the Embassy was in the wrong, but it was a genuine mistake, journalists would automatically cut them a bit of slack it if was possible. In those days we were in each others pockets a little. Not any more. 

The British Embassy is subject to many pressures. It is not short of rude and aggressive Brits queueing up the at the Consular section. They know about Brit tourist rage, Brit in love with bar girl rage. Hence the bullet proof glass was installed long before the ‘War on Terror’.

But in former days there were less tourists and the Embassy probably had more time to spend on individual cases. These sort of  Simon Burrowes things rarely happened.

Nowadays all press statements have to go through London, There are rigid rules about talking to the press. The most widely held unnofficial one is “ If you say nought you cant get into trouble”. (And if you do nought the same applies?).

But these or similar rules also apply to many other Embassies in Bangkok.  ** The cards are stacked against Foreign Office because they are faced with a media in which the general consensus appear to be that job title civil servants, especially an FCO one,  would come in sentences with other stock phrases such as  ‘cocktail parties’, ‘index linked pensions’ and ‘MBEs’. (Not my opinion by the way)  In many ways its a ‘No win’ situation.

And, of course, when they do do good things behind the scenes, few people get to hear about it either, because they won’t tell us.

Other statements almost written in stone are: “We can’t interfere in the justice system of another country” and “obligations of confidentiality towards our customers restrict us from discussing in any detail cases where the embassy has provided consular assistance”. (see below).

Actually there have been some high profile cases where they have certainly intervened.  It depends on the people and I daresay would not apply to black people from Wembley, not that I am suggesting anyone in the Embassy is racist.

The FCO is also entitled to defend itself against accusations if those accusations are unfair.

 I further have to ask myself that if I was an Embassy official and was called up by an Immigration policeman, who described the picture on a passport of a black man arrested at the airport as, naked, skewwiff, in the wrong place, and that the lettering on the passport did not look the same as on any other British passports, I might think that they probably did have a West African drugs trafficker.

Anyway I was frequently in touch with the British Embassy in the lead up to the breaking of the Burrowes story, during which I posed a number of questions to them. Their answers, as is usual, indicated immediately that they felt the less they said the better. The first questions went to them on a Thursday. The final answer the following Monday evening did not clarify the story at all.

Their last statement after the story had already hit the first editions of the Evening Standard  included a comment that at no time had they suggested that Mr. Burrowes passport was false.

I immediately put out the correction,  though of course telling Thai police they could not find a record of his passport would have had exactly the same reaction as saying it was fraudulent. Perhaps as websites are still the experimental arm of newspapers, only one in three newspapers online contained the correction. And yes, it was a tabloid.

I took a look again at my notes  “They told police that they could not find any record of my passport. It was not on their computer!” said Simon.

Of course the Embassy had failed to answer the question put to the allegation the previous weekend that an official had said they could not trace Simon’s passport number.

The FCO final statement that officials had to contact the office where the passport was issued (The British Consulate in Melbourne, Australia) posed all sorts of questions.

At the British Embassy in Bangkok there are full time passport officers and members of the British Border Agency, even members of SOCA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency. I would have thought somebody from this bunch could have provided the answers on a Friday.

The Embassy seemed to be saying there is no centralised system, or if there is, it doesn’t work. Seems to confirm that the TV series ‘Spooks’ is way ahead of its time”!  Well actually they are saying nothing. At this stage we can only guess.

Anyway I have taken the unusual step of reproducing my email efforts to get answers from the Embassy below. I have of course removed names of Embassy staff. It would not be fair to include them because they cannot and will not answer.

I have done this because  it may cast light on the problems journalists face and indeed might also help you see this from the Embassy side too. It is clear that the Embassy PPS was working within extremely tight restrictions so one can’t tell how much personal effort went into his replies. You can also see how my badly phrased questions enabled him to give incomplete answers. And how some questions were just simply ignored.

As for Simon’s claims that an Embasy official said: “I empathise with your self-righteousness’ and this was a ‘one in a thousand glitch’.  I had to use my own judgment. I believe him 100 per cent.  They are sort of the phrases one would hardly forget.

Simon was meticulous and I could tell that when he was talking that he was consciously trying to report everything as close to verbatim. He is also a published writer. And in his note gathering had got the name of every immigration policeman involved in his case.

Finally it would be also fair to say that the Embassy having visited Burrowes in jail helped make contact with relatives in the U.K. who stumped up his bail.

Anyway  I hope this story is a one day wonder and that the Thai authorities let this man go home soon. The British Embassy do not have to interfere with Thailand’s justice system.  They could just let the right people know that this case is not exactly what it appears to be.

**Finally and coincidentally. An independent report into the workings of the British Foreign and Commonwealth officer seems to have come to the conclusion that despite having some amazing talent it is suffering from ‘incompentents, clones and clowns’.  Here is the link to the Daily Mai. As I said the British media would be prone to highlight the bad parts of the reports.

‘Stagnation, decay and fear of failure is crushing the foreign office’ - Daily Mail

 
AD – Andrew Drummond
PPS: Political/Press Secretary, British Embassy,Bangkok

Edited March 11 2009/Edited March 17 for clarity and balance

Edited March 24 with new information.

11.11 Thursday March 05 2009

AD to  PPS

Dear (name removed)

I have been watching the various forums over the last few days and the case of Simon Burrows a British national who was arrested in Phuket on Friday Jan 30th by Immigration at Phuket and subsequently charged with possessing a fraudulent passport, and insulting Immigration officials.

I have now spoken at length with Simon B and witnesses to the events at the airport, and of course have seen the reports in ‘The Voice’ and ‘Phuketwan’.

Following this interview may I put the following to the FCO to check against his allegations and to give the FCO full opportunity to reply. I am sure the FCO may have a completely different version of affairs.

I understand the answer will come from the FCO and ask you kindly to give me the email to who in FCO Press, this should be addressed. I am giving you the questions in advance as I may have problems reaching you after midday Friday.

Is it true as Mr. S.B. claims that on the morning of January 30th that a British Embassy official (name removed) spoke both to Immigration Police in Phuket and Mr. Burrows?

Did Mr (name removed)  tell both Immigration Police and Mr. B himself that, Mr. SB’s passport number did not exist?

Did he tell Mr.SB that nothing could be done until the following Monday when his case would be prioritised?

Was the case ‘prioritised’?

Did he make Mr. S.B. aware that he was being charged with having a false passport and insulting an Immigration official? If only one charge, please state which charge.
(Mr. SB claims he was only made aware of one charge)

How long did it take for the FCO to establish that Mr. S.Bs passport number was in fact valid as was the passport itself?

Is the initial information, whether a passport number is valid or not, simply available by keying the number into a computer. If not why?

How long does it take for the FCO to establish whether a passport number is valid or not?

Having established that Mr.S.B. was wrongly charged with having a false passport what steps did the FCO take to notify the authorities and when?

“ When I asked (name removed), does that (nothing can be done until Monday) mean you are unwilling to do anything to stop them sending me to jail, he replied, ‘Yes’

Is this statement an accurate version of the conversation between Mr. S.B and Mr.(name removed).

What other assistance did the British Embassy (name removed) provide to Mr. S.B.

 ‘They could not be bothered because it was a weekend.”  SB – Comment?
Best wishes

 
————————————————————

15.58; March 5 2009

PPS to AD

Thanks Andrew
 
I have spoken to our consular team about the assistance provided to Mr Burrows. I have also asked Press Office for guidance overnight about how much of these details we could share with you, given the restrictions imposed by our obligation of confidentiality to our consular customers. I’ll relay this to you tomorrow.
 
Kind regards
 —————————————————————
AD to PPS
16:51 March 5 2009

Ok thanks. I’ll take what you offer.  I am just telling the FCO what this man is saying so they can address the issues if they so wish
————————————————————–
AD to PPS
11.08 Friday March               

As its approaching midday (name removed) can u give me the email/phone ext of the chap at FCO Press who is dealing with this just in case I need to contact him later.
————————————————————————————————-
PPS to AD
11.09 March 06 2009
Andrew
 
I will be replying to you shortly on this. 1230 latest.
 
Thanks
 
————————————————————————————-
12;29 March 06 2009  (Author’s comment. This was sent one minute before the Embassy closed for the weekend and the sender could not be contacted)

Andrew
 
As you are aware, obligations of confidentiality towards our customers restrict me from discussing in any detail cases where the embassy has provided consular assistance. What I could say is that in this case we provided efficient and prompt consular assistance. The issue was resolved as swiftly as possible (within 3 working days). The embassy has systems in place to provide consular assistance in emergency cases 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The embassy does not provide legal advice and has no power to intervene directly in criminal or judicial proceedings in Thailand. We do not recognise the account of events suggested by the questions and quotations you put to us. 
 
Kind regards

—————————————-

12.51  March 06 2009
AD to PPS

Thank you.
 Is there any overriding public reason in these days of terror alerts you can provide as to why the FCO cannot properly check the validity of a British passport number on a Friday? 

(Thai police have independently confirmed they were initially told the passport was false)
Or if you did, why the result was false.

Rgds andrew

————————————-

18.10 March 06 2009 (Friday
AD to PPS

Dear  (name removed)

I have referred the FCO reply to my queries onwards and upwards.  While the Editor concerned says he is used to such replies, this particular reply from the FCO contains what to all intents and purposes appear to be a mistruth.  Accordingly I have been asked to re-phrase the questions in the following way

On or about January 30th this year did or did not a member of the British Embassy staff inform Thai police in Phuket that a passport a British citizen was travelling on was fraudulent in that the number did not exist?

Did or did not the FCO also talk to a British national informing him of the same.

Did the FCO later retract that statement to Thai police. And if so when?

Was the case resolved and how?

Many thanks

Andrew Drummond

—————————————–
Sunday 08.03. 13.43
AD to PPS
Dear (name removed)
Ref: Simon Burrowes

Your statement: “As you are aware, obligations of confidentiality towards our customers restrict me from discussing in any detail cases where the embassy has provided consular assistance. What I could say is that in this case we provided efficient and prompt consular assistance. The issue was resolved as swiftly as possible (within 3 working days). The embassy has systems in place to provide consular assistance in emergency cases 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The embassy does not provide legal advice and has no power to intervene directly in criminal or judicial proceedings in Thailand. We do not recognise the account of events suggested by the questions and quotations you put to us”. 

I have held on to this story for a few days now and looking at your statement above thought you might like to reconsider it. There are reasons why this will not be published in a British newspaper, and I suspect it was not constructed by any of the journalists in the FCO press office.  Indeed the Mail on Sunday has already approached the FCO and been given further comments. Further I feel you may be doing the Consular department a disservice with this statement.

(1) Obligations of confidentiality towards our customers restrict me from discussing in any detail’ etc.

The customer in question has obviously lifted his right to confidentiality by complaining the Embassy would not work after 12 am on Friday January 30th to satisfy themselves that he was a British citizen, thus condemning him to a Thai prison.

(2) “The issue was resolved within three working days. The Embassy has systems in place to provide consular assistance in emergency cases 24 hours a day’.

 This issue is not resolved. Mr. Burrowes has spent three weeks in prison. He is on bail. He will not appear in court until the end of next month. He says he has already lost his flat in Wembley because he cannot pay the rent.  His case, as you know could take ages. Further you cannot claim the 24/7 rule in this case, because you have stated the Embassy only used ‘working days’.  Mr. Burrowes was not given the chance to call the duty officer’s telephone number. Had he the chance he would have been told ‘In the event of a life or death emergency, and only in those cases’ can he contact the duty officer.
(3) “We do not recognise the account of events suggested by the questions and quotations you put to us’ 
This cannot be published in a newspaper unless you explain what you think is the account of events.

If you did not understand, the main issue is a claim by Mr. Burrowes, that had the Embassy not told Thai police he was travelling on a false passport, had the Embassy checked properly he would not have been charged with having a false passport.  It therefore follows that instead of loading on extra charges of insulting a uniformed official, that they might have issued an apology to him instead.

Mr. Burrowes says his passport was issued by the British Consul in Melbourne nine years ago and has been travelling on it ever since. He specifically reports that at 10.40 am on Friday January 30th when he begged (name removed) to sort this problem out immediately otherwise he would go to jail. He says he was told that was not possible, but that it would be ‘prioritised ‘the following week.

He says he was not officially informed for 11 days that the Embassy had admitted their error and told Thai police. He is now is a system which is very difficult to get out of.

You may wish to stick with your original statement but if you wish to make any amendments I shall hold this story until Monday afternoon March 8th at 2 pm.

Have to go now as I have my baby daughter in the pool and am blasting the Russian Red Army choir over my lake.  I am not about to tell you your job, but, if it is true,  you might wish to say that the British Embassy pulled out all stops in this case and is monitoring the situation, even if you are unwilling to admit that Embassy staff gave Thai police false information in the first place.

With best wishes

Andrew Drummond

—————————————–
09.21 March 09 2009

AD to PPS

Can we say this?
The Embassy have denied that a consular official described Burrowes as ‘self righteous’ or that it was a ‘ one in a thousand glitch’

—————————————————————

10.53  March 09 2009
PPS to AD

Andrew
 
I’ve just seen all your emails. Thanks. I’ll get back to you before 2pm.
 
Daniel
11.42 March 09 2009
AD to PPS

Ok many thanks: 2pm is my first deadline on this. My note was intended to be helpful.
——————————————————————–

 
12.13: PPS to AD
Andrew
 
Any chance of an extension to the deadline until 5pm today?
 
Thanks
 
————————————————————————

(Email deleted but I confirmed I  confirmed I would hold copy))

12.13 March 09 2009
PPS to AD: Andrew
 
I appreciate that, thanks. We are just a bit hamstrung about what we could say, but I’m trying to stretch the limits on this. If I could have the extra time to discuss with press office directly (until 5pm today) that would be helpful. Let me know.
 
Thanks
 

___________________________________________________
12.45 AD to PPS

 Ok I am going with part of your statement and that the Embassy has no record of any official saying  ‘ It was a one in a thousand glitch’ and ‘I empathise with your self righteousness’.  But I will hold any story for British national papers until  after 5 pm.  This story may not appear anywhere of course but it scheduled for a daily run. I told MoS I cd not hold for a week.
Maybe honesty is the best policy. Its not a big deal (except of course for the victim)  in the general scheme of things -don’t help to make it one!  Rgds AD

————————————————-
17.25 March 09 2009
PPS to AD
Dear Andrew
 
The fact that Mr Burrowes has chosen to speak to you about the details of his case does not mean that we are free to do so. Our obligation to respect the confidentiality of our customers applies regardless of what information the customer chooses to make public. London have agreed that in this case we could say the following without breaching these obligations.
 
The validity of Mr Burrowes passport was resolved within three working days. We proceeded to check the validity of the passport immediately upon being informed by the police of his arrest on the Friday. At no point did the embassy tell anyone involved that the passport was false. The diplomatic mission that issued the passport replied to confirm the passport’s validity the following Tuesday. We then informed the police and they dropped that charge. The subsequent period of detention and court proceedings relate to a different charge.
————————————————————–
17.30 March 09 2009

AD “Gosh.(name removed). I’ve just got this off to the Standard so I can include it to all dailies.  We knew this guy’s passport was issued in Melbourne nine years ago, but for the life of me I don’t understand why there are no records in London.
This was in the nick of time.”