Lord Walney Keeps His Job, for Now

John Woodcock AKA Lord Walney, the government’s nominally “independent” advisor on political disruption, remains in his job after a weird week of media speculation and seemingly contradictory government briefings over the status of his role.

The former Labour MP authored a government report, published shortly before the election, on how to deal with the recent surge in street protest movements. The report made a whopping 41 recommendations to crack down on the right to protest, including effectively banning certain groups such as Palestine Action.

Yet while writing the report arguing protesters against weapons companies and fossil fuel giants should face harsher restrictions, Woodcock was moonlighting as a lobbyist for companies with clients including arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants.

Questions over this seeming conflict of interest dogged Woodcock until last week, when his chickens finally appeared to be coming home to roost: on a listing for an event on its website, the London Assembly described Woodcock as a “former” government advisor.

This prompted journalists from Byline Times to ask the Home Office about Woodcock’s employment status. After refusing to answer questions for several days, on Tuesday morning the Home Office gave Byline Times what it thought was an answer: “A Home Office spokesperson confirmed that former Labour MP Lord Walney … is no longer the government’s ‘independent adviser on political violence and disruption,’” the news website reported.

The story was picked up by Novara Media. The left rejoiced; the right fumed. Shonky rightwing political blog Guido Fawkes complained that the government had “caved” to Extinction Rebellion, while the Telegraph hastily commissioned an opinion piece saying Walney’s apparent sacking exposed the government’s “lack of seriousness in its approach to law and order”.

But by Tuesday evening, the Home Office appeared to have either U-turned or realised its communications screw-up, saying that Woodcock remained in post.

In a social media post, Byline Times’s chief reporter Josiah Mortimer later explained how he’d reached his original conclusion: after days of refusing to confirm the the advisor was still in a job, a Home Office official had given a cryptic reply, thanking Woodcock for “the work he had undertaken and for ‘fulfilling the remit and his task’ as set out in the terms of reference”. Several people told Mortimer that the vague language was “civil service speak for ‘he’s gone’”. This turned out to be less clear than it seemed.

Later that evening Woodcock posted on social media about his “ongoing role”. Cocking a snook at reports of his demise, he wrote: “It’s important to get your news from credible sources.”

But by Wednesday morning, Woodcock’s job appeared far from safe. The Times reported that it understands that “the future of the role is under review by the government.” Time will tell whether this turns out to be “credible”. In the meantime, the bizarre affair has prompted further questions about Woodcock’s suitability for the role.

Tim Crossland, from the Free Political Prisoners campaign – which is calling for the release of 40 environmental and pro-Palestine protesters – said: “Presenting him as an ‘independent adviser’ is an appalling deception of the British public. It’s hardly surprising that his ongoing role under the Labour government is a source of tension and embarrassment within the Home Office.”

After all this drama, on Wednesday, Woodcock got back to his job of spreading terrible ideas. He appeared before the London Assembly police and crime committee, saying that protest groups should pay for the cost of their demonstrations. The proposal was instantly panned by the other panellists: “It’s unlawful, it wouldn’t get off the ground and practically it’s completely unworkable and would lead to much discrimination,” said protest lawyer Kirsty Brimelow KC.

Speaking of the London Assembly, what about its listing of Woodcock as “former”, which kicked off the whole affair? Did they know something we didn’t? Apparently not – it was just a mistake. A spokesperson told Novara Media: “The word ‘former’ was used in his title, as he was appointed by the former Conservative government. This was updated immediately when the misunderstanding was queried.”

The Home Office did not comment on the record, and Woodcock did not reply to a request for comment.

Simon Childs is a commissioning editor and reporter for Novara Media.