Regional daily journalists have criticised a police force which put an investigating officer up for interview – only to then demand that questions be submitted to him in writing.

Thames Valley Police’s press office invited the Oxford Mail to interview PC Mick Anderton, who was investigating an incident involving a drone, but then refused to answer most of the newspaper’s questions.

Seven questions were submitted in writing by Mail chief reporter Sophie Grubb’s about the incident, but the force declined to comment on five of them.

In two instances TVP urged Sophie to contact the government and the Civil Aviation Authority respectively, while a third response said she would have to submit a Freedom of Information request to ascertain whether PC Anderton was aware of any similar incidents.

When Sophie emailed back asking for an explanation about the answers, she was told her questions were “not relevant to the force.”

The invitation to interview PC Anderton had appeared in a note to editors after the force issued a press release about a near-miss between a drone and an aircraft near Oxford Airport, which was accompanied by a warning from the officer that it could have had “fatal consequences.”

Sophie posted the questions she submitted, and the responses, on Twitter, adding: “Police invited press to interview an officer about a drone/aircraft near-miss, insisted on vetting questions via email, then refused to answer them all anyway…”

Police invited press to interview an officer about a #drone /aircraft near-miss, insisted on vetting questions via email, then refused to answer them all anyway… ???‍♀️ pic.twitter.com/bDSUm4QLx4

— Sophie Grubb (@OxMailSophieG) July 28, 2019

The force’s responses also drew criticism from Mail news editor Rebecca Hudson and features editor Tim Hughes.

Posting on Twitter, Rebecca wrote: “Here’s one to remember for all the people who read news stories and say ‘the journalist should have asked about XYZ and tried to get more information’. We do. What a waste of time.”

Tim added: “Quite hilarious: Poor police officer is pushed forward for interview but, quite reasonably, cannot answer more than a single question. A perfectly pointless waste of time for our reporter on a busy weekend…”

A Thames Valley Police spokesman told HTFP: “The force proactively offered interviews with the media in relation to this case because TV and radio often want the officer in the case to read details of an appeal, as it is more engaging for their audience to hear directly from the officer. Naturally, the force also offered this opportunity to the press.

“On this occasion the Oxford Mail reporter requested an interview. A media officer asked for an initial list of questions to ensure they were relevant to the police, thus ensuring that the interview was worthwhile conducting.

“In response, the reporter stated ‘I don’t usually prepare questions’, but the following day they did provide some questions.

“Unfortunately, the majority of these questions were not relevant to the police, nonetheless a full response was provided to the reporter, including guidance as to which agencies would be able to answer the reporter’s questions and where they might be able to find the information they were interested in. Unfortunately, the reporter did not contact the relevant agencies for comment.

“The media officer also reiterated that the force would be willing to organise an interview with the officer, as long as the questions were relevant to the investigation.

“Further, the media officer also offered the reporter a video interview, which could be published on the Oxford Mail’s website, but the journalist did not reply.”