Claudia’s father apologises for campus room searches
The father of missing Goodricke chef Claudia Lawrence has apologised following a search of University accommodation by North Yorkshire Police.
In a statement published on the University’s York Extra service, Peter Lawrence apologised for the searches which took place in student accommodation both on and off campus on April 3 but maintained that they were a “necessary” part of the investigation.
The searches came under fire from YUSU representatives after it was learned that the police had acquired neither an official warrant nor express consent from students to enter their accommodation while they were away.
In the statement, Mr Lawrence said: “I am sure that most of you will realise that it had to be ascertained that Claudia was not there. Please accept our apologies for any intrusion you may have felt by [the searches].”
The head of the inquiry into Claudia’s disappearance, Detective Superintendent Ray Galloway, has suggested that the University would continue to play a significant role in the investigation.
Claudia Lawrence has not been in contact with friends or family since Wednesday, March 18.
Mr Lawrence is appealing for any students who may have noticed anything unusual at around 2pm on March 18 around the Goodricke area to inform North Yorkshire Police (0845 6060247) or Crimestoppers (0800 555111).
Additional reporting by Raf Sanchez
Loading ...
I see no reason for Claudia’s father to apologize.
I hope she’s safe.
Claudia’s father has indeed no reason to apologise, but the police and the university do. College administrators did not even had the courtesy to let us know about this, neither before nor after it happened. I would not have refused obviously, but at the very least I would have expected an email explaining the situation.
I’m sorry, but I’m not sorry.
What a meaningless statement this was.
Simon, get over it.
The bloke’s daughter is missing and you’re faffing about whether or not the NY Police found a bit of weed in any students room. Pipe down.
Amazing, you must have developed the power to read minds over the holidays, as you can apparently (although extremely poorly) refute an entire argument I never made.
Now, extrapolating the underlying motivational views of a person can be a meaningful pursuit, if you’re successful and if you refrain from making your entire point a giant ad hominem.
The validity of my point that “apologising” for an action taken while fully endorsing that action is meaningless is not addressed in your response at all, it simply attacks me for (apparently) holding a (unrelated) particular view on the ethics/legality of the searches.
And finally, should someone who trolls the Nouse website looking for opportunities to test out whatever new logical fallacies he’s managed to learn since his last comment and just has to get his own little comment in on every article, really be telling others to “pipe down”? Take your own advice and do us all a favour.
Simon, he’s apologizing that student rooms have been searched without notification, but he feels that ruling out the huge number of student rooms on york uni’s campus from this investigation is a just step… He’s being polite… I fail to see where your confusion lies…
I agree with Dan… Pipe down…
No it’s not. You just look a bit of an idiot for saying something petty. As I said, you should probably pipe down because as Dan Walker says, an apology shouldn’t even be expected from this individual who has far more important things to concern himself with than busy-body students like you writing your shpiel as you have done so above.
Pipe down.
x
Simon,
I don’t think that “apologising for an action whilst fully endorsing an action” is necessarily “meaningless”. There are plenty of things that you can be sorry for but feel you have to do or say, don’t you think?
E.g. “I am sorry to say this, Simon, but the posts you have made on this page make you sound like the worst kind of smug, self-important student who thinks he is too cool to be sensitive about a murder case, and so clever that he thinks it is his responsibility to correct the father of a missing woman on that father’s apparent logical inconsistencies. Sorry mate but it had to be said.” No?
Tom
http://img.archiexpo.com/images_ae/photo-g/rainwater-down-pipe-148510.jpg
amidoinitrite?
Oh dear, what an over reaction this has been.
I criticised a statement made by a guy who’s lost his daughter, is that insensitive? Maybe. I’m sorry if my statement was offencive, but I feel it needed to be said.
It didn’t need to be said. Well done for apologising and then endorsing your own actions though. “I’m sorry if my statement was offencive, but I feel it needed to be said.” I hope you are being a sarcastic pillock. Otherwise you are just a pillock.
Offensive is spelt with an s.
> I criticised a statement made by a guy who’s lost his daughter, is that insensitive?
Yes, it is.
The second comment has it completely spot on.
Jennifer, you do realise you are now doing exactly what I did, right? His emotional state is irrelevant as he is unlikely to read my cooment and get offended andd even if he did, I suspect he has bigger things to worry about.
Extremely amused that Simon’s initial criticism was that someone apologised but wasn’t sorry – a criticism for which he’s apologised but isn’t in fact sorry.
Simon, let’s get a little perspective.
This guy’s daughter is missing, presumed dead. You are on a comment-wall nit-picking holes in his statement when he has tried to do good by issuing it in the first place. Not only do you yourself then say that he probably has better things to be doing: “I suspect he has bigger things to worry about…” but then apologise for an extremely insensitive comment and then not apologise.
Just stop being a complete moron and stop digging yourself a hole.
“Extremely amused that Simon’s initial criticism was that someone apologised but wasn’t sorry – a criticism for which he’s apologised but isn’t in fact sorry.”
That was the joke.
Dan, I fail to see any attempt at logically moving from “insensitive” to “moron”. You can’t just string a bunch of random insults together as a substitute for substance and expect to be taken seriously.
And you expect to be taken seriously? Have you read what you write, sir? I shall have a little chuckle to myself at some point.
For now, I have revision and a dissertation to complete. You are more than capable of showing yourself up, so I shall leave you be.
If I wanted to be taken seriously I would have skipped the jokes and wrote about everything that is wrong with how these searches were conducted. I’m perfectly fine with just winding you up.
Not sure this is the time or place for winding people up, Simon.
Perhaps the most serious incident to affect York University in recent history (certainly the biggest police investigation since 1992) and you believe this is the type of story that’s in need of wind-ups in the comment section?
It’s ludicrous enough that a few pathetic whingers have objected to the police’s legal duty to investigate Ms Lawrence’s disappearance (searching student rooms is legal, authorised and wholly in accordance with the accommodation office contract), it’s worse that people are so insensitive that they feel this story is the place for wind-ups.
Maybe Nouse should pull the comments from this story as the York Press have done.
People deal with situations in different ways. If you find my comments objectionable that’s your business, but nobody’s forcing you to take part in the open forum of free speech (although you seem intent on preventing others from participating).
You don’t seem more compassionate, just more uptight in what you consider appropriate responses to tragedies.
I’m not going to close the discussion, but can we please bring it back on topic – further comments directly attacking Simon will not be allowed.
Back to the story. No apology needed, it was not his fault, and great credit to a man who has lost his daughter, to find the time to apologise for something that perpetuated a huge outcry from certain students.
Edited by a moderator
As I’ve said Dan, a large part of what perpetuated a huge outcry is the university’s reluctance to inform its own students about the situation. Not a single email has been sent to all those of us whose rooms were searched, we only found out from Nouse. I honestly fail to see why the university would refuse to inform us – either before or after the search.
A polite letter was left in each room that was searched without the knowledge of its occupier. Obviously the Police couldn’t inform us in advance!
No polite letter was left in my room.
Perhaps it wasn’t searched? They said they only searched 1000 rooms on campus, I believe the actual number of rooms is nearly 3 times this.
Undergrads may not have received an email about the searches, but postgrads certainly did.
I actually received an email from the GSA on April 3rd explaining that searches were taking place that day in Goodricke, James and Wentworth and I don’t even live on campus anymore.
Absolutely no apology needed from Claudia’s father, I find it absolutely ridiculous that students have even complained about the situation.
Stop being so pedantic, focus on the tragedy and the simple fact that a loving family are trying to find there daughter.
James College students definitely received a letter. Also, the privacy of students was respected as much as is possible (when your room is being searched); a student rep stood at the door and uni officials stood outside – average search was about 1 minute.
Whilst I agree the rooms needed to be searched to rule out possible leads, there are rules and procedures in place for a reason. The police should not bypass these rules and procedures and thus it should be them and the University who apologise. I think it’s very noble of her father to take the flak for an operation he neither administered nor took part in.
The searches were carried out completely within the law, no rules or procedures were bypassed.
“The searches were carried out completely within the law, no rules or procedures were bypassed.”
In the letter of the law certainly, They did bypass that pesky procedure called a ‘ search warrant’ though. The spirit of the law states that you either get consent of the occupier or a warrant; in this case neither occured.
That said, good on Mr Lawrence; he didn’t have to apologise, and it certainly wasn’t his fault.
“The police should not bypass these rules and procedures and thus it should be them and the University who apologise.”
Actually, I think the police deserve some credit for their handling of this issue. I was one of the ‘Student Reps’ who went round with the search teams; and the Police were incredibly sympathetic to our position. The officer in charge was at pains to say that if we were unhappy with the conduct of the searchers we should talk to him, and the team I went around with were as sensitive and accommodating as they could be in the circumstances. Not that it matters, but I was actually very impressed.
Anything else in your comment notwithstanding, I don’t think the Police need to do anything. It’s their job to find information and solve crimes; and if they can search or do whatever else legally, then they should do it, it’s the role of the judiciary/government/etc to protect our rights by defining those parameters.