Bartholomew's Notes

A sense of déjà vu at The Times:

How the UK became ‘western capital’ for sharia courts

Muslims are increasingly turning to Britain’s sharia courts, which are not part of UK law and operate as informal bodies

…The number of sharia courts, also known as councils, in Britain has grown to 85 since the first began operating in the country in 1982.

That figure of “85” appeared in a Daily Mail headline nine years ago, which tends to undermine the “increasingly turning” news hook. Either the number of sharia councils (actually the preferred term) has been static for a decade, or else the newspaper of record has simply recycled old information. If the latter, we might suspect that the true figure today is more than 85, but one wonders why The Times hasn’t bothered to look into it. It is also surprising that an article about the “how” of why there so many in the UK makes no mention of the Arbitration Act 1996, which opened the door to voluntary alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

The article is illustrated with an old photo of burka-clad extremist protestors holding banners stating “SHARIAH The solution for the East and the West”, followed by “Democracy go to Hell”. This crudely polemical choice out-Daily Mails the Daily Mail, which in 2015 at least used relevant photos of sharia councils in action.

After describing the UK as the “western capital” for sharia courts (although quotemarks are used, the description is not attributed to anyone), the paper explains that

An investigation by The Times also discovered that polygamy is so normalised that an app for Muslims in England and Wales tocreate Islamic wills has a drop-down menu for men to say how many wives they have. The app,approved by a sharia court, gives daughters half as much inheritance as sons.

“Discovered” in such a context has strong connotations of something hidden from view that has now been exposed, but here it really has no more import than “noticed”. The app is not named, but I quickly found what is billed as “The World’s First Islamic Inheritance App” on the website of a solicitor’s firm in Birmingham.

Much of what follows in the article is – like the “85” figure – a rehash of old information: a notoriously misogynistic 2009 quote from Haitham al-Haddad; criticisms from Sara Khan and Caroline Cox; and how the issue has previously been addressed in Parliament. Also:

Women described how men exploit religious texts to exert control over them. Hadiths, the sayings of the Prophet Mohammed, are quoted to insist wives must agree to have sex with their husbands and to claim that women’s minds are deficient.

One woman was distressed when an elder suggested she should enter into a religiously sanctioned “pleasure marriage” which allows couples to have sex, then part.

It’s not clear if these women gave their accounts to the journalist or whether they were passed along second hand,  but given the derivative nature of much of the “investigation” one has to suspect the latter.

Of course sharia councils, like any number of things, should continue to come under scrutiny, but it’s not clear why a story that makes such a token effort at originality has appeared now. Perhaps it’s a vehicle  for Nick Timothy MP, who provides a quote:

Nick Timothy, a Tory MP who as [Theresa] May’s chief of staff suggested the sharia review [see below], called on the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate the councils. Sharia marriages “should be criminalised if they are conducted without the protections of an accompanying civil marriage”, he said.

There are also references to a new code of conduct suggested by the Muslim Women’s Network charity, and further criticisms from the chief executive of the National Secular Society:

Our concern is the slide towards privatised justice and parallel legal systems in the UK undermining the principle of one law for all — and the negative impact this has on the rightsof women and children.

As expected, the article has been seized on by the populist right, with Reform’s Deputy Leader Richard Tice describing it (absurdly) as a “SHOCKING EXPOSE” and stating that

We are Christian based nation with our English legal system… As ⁦ @reformparty_uk ⁩ said at Election, this must be banned.

How banning private arrangements would be achieved is not explained, although Reform’s rhetoric in other contexts tends towards regarding legal obstacles as elite impositions. Theresa May’s Home Office review, which appeared in 2018, also addressed the questions of banning:

It should also be noted at the outset that those proposing a ban on sharia councils provide no counter proposal or any solution for anyone seeking a religious divorce. It is clear from all the evidence that sharia councils are fulfilling a need in some Muslim communities. There is a demand for religious divorce and this is currently being answered by the sharia councils. This demand will not end if the sharia councils are banned and closed down and could lead to councils going ‘underground’, making it even harder to ensure good practice and the prospect of discriminatory practices and greater financial costs more likely and harder to detect. It could also result in women needing to travel overseas to obtain divorces, putting themselves at further risk.

We consider the closure of sharia councils is not a viable option. However, given the recommendations also proposed in this report include the registration of all Islamic marriages as well as awareness campaigns it is hoped that the demand for religious divorces from sharia councils will gradually reduce over time. These key recommendations address the issue of current discriminatory practices identified within the sharia councils.

One approach to curbing excesses was suggested way back in 2010 by One Law For All, but that involved human rights legislation that Reform also opposes. It seems to me that legal advances in the concept of coercive control might be relevant.

Follow up

The Times followed up its supposed “investigation” with a piece titled “High Court fatwa ruling raises alarm over sharia courts in UK”:

Haddad’s sharia council issued a fatwa which was used by an English judge in a life-or-death decision involving a sick child. Tafida Raqeeb, then five, was suffering from brain damage with no chance of recovery and was facing withdrawal of treatment by Barts Health NHS Trust in London which would have led to her death.

Her Bangladeshi parents obtained a fatwa from the Islamic Council of Europe, as it was then called, in 2019 that it was “absolutely impermissible for the parents, or anyone else, to give consent for the removal of the life-supporting machine from their child … This is seen as a great sin that has a multitude of grave consequences for them [in] this life and the hereafter.”

Mr Justice Macdonald said in the High Court he had the benefit from the parents of “a fatwa from the Islamic Council of Europe”. The judge observed that prolonging treatment “permits Tafida to remain alive in accordance with the tenets of the religion in which she was being raised and for which she had begun to demonstrate a basic affinity”.

That “alarm” is somewhat belated given that Raqeeb v Barts NHS Foundation Trust & Anors dates back to October 2019 – the judgment can be seen here. In paragraph 169, the judge wrote:

Turning to the principle of the sanctity of life, the parents have, understandably, placed emphasis on the contents of the fatwa secured from the Muslim Council of Europe. Within the context of these proceedings however, the fatwa is simply a valuable restatement of the sanctity of life, a sanctity recognised by all the great religions and also by those who view life through a secular or scientific prism.

Not unreasonably, it was considered relevant to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Again, why exactly is The Times raking over this old material?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

From DeSmog:

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage was the “special guest of honour” at the launch of the Heartland Institute’s new European offshoot on Tuesday (17 December).

…Heartland’s European branch will be run by Lois Perry, a climate science denier who has said it’s her “personal belief” that climate change “is happening” but “is not man made”. Perry followed in Farage’s footsteps earlier this year by becoming the leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), though stood down after just 34 days.

Perry formerly ran the anti-net zero pressure group CAR26, which has claimed that carbon dioxide is “essential to all life” and that its “welcome growth has greened our planet saving countless human and other lives”.

DeSmog provides background detail on the group, which famously started out by attempting to discredit the health effects of second-hand smoking before moving onto climate change.

Perry was formerly in the news as Lois Hillgrove, when she was married to tax-dodging PR executive Richard Hillgrove (although it is not alleged she was aware of his financial arrangements). She stepped down from leadership of UKIP for health reasons earlier this year, but she also cited disagreements with other senior members on issues such as making links with Tommy Robinson (she was against it).

Farage’s appearence followed very shortly after he and new recruit Nick Candy were photographed with Elon Musk at Mar O’Lago, standing in front of a ludicrously idealised painting of a young Donald Trump. According to a write-up on the European Conservative website, the launch event was organised by Touchpoint Politics –  a project of Tess Wheldon’s Touchpoint Strategy consulting firm – and held at Brooks’s Club in St James’s Street, London.

The Heartland UK/Europe Twitter/X feed has posted photos of Perry posing with various attendees, who are addressed in added commentary: Liz Truss (“Your leadership and dedication to economic growth and sound policy inspire our mission to champion freedom and free markets across the continent”); Dan Wootton (“brilliant”); Maajid Nawaz (“Your thoughtful perspective and dedication to free speech and liberty inspire us as we work to promote open dialogue and sound policy across the region”); Ann Widdicombe (“sensible insights and support”) and Lady Colin Campbell (“distinguished”). David Starkey was also present.

Nawaz also posted his own photo of himself with with Farage and Andrew Fox, to which he added his portentous “We Are Coming” mantra.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

Via Sky News (and everywhere else):

Nigel Farage and his party treasurer have met with Elon Musk at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort for the first time since rumours surfaced of a multi-million donation from the tech tycoon.

The Reform UK leader and Nick Candy, the billionaire husband of  singer Holly Valance who will take up the fundraising role for Mr Farage’s party in the new year, met on Monday 16 December, the party said.

The meeting comes following reports that Mr Musk was considering donating £78m to Mr Farage – an ally of Mr Trump – as a “f*** you Starmer payment”.

Musk subsequently posted to X/Twitter:

Time for massive Reform in Britain!

This was posted as a reply to “Inevitable West”, an anonymous user who has achieved remarkable success with building up their presence in just two months since the account was established in October 2024. The account (tagline: “Defender of Western values and culture. Embracing heritage, strength, and unity. Follow to uphold the legacy of the West! Jesus Christ is King”) seems to be Musk’s go-to source for news about Britain, and he has amplified it with replies on subjects ranging from Allison Pearson’s supposed intention to sue the Guardian (“Wow”), to Western weapons being used by Ukraine inside Russia (“the problem is that Russia will respond reciprocally”), to the amount of benefits paid to refugees (“crazy”), and to how the defection of ex-MP Andrea Jenkyns means “Reform will win the next election” (“Yes”).

Inevitable West’s particular strategy is to begin many posts with “🚨BREAKING”, although the usage is spurious – what follows is most likely to be either a wild conspiracist extrapolation (such as that the first day of the Southport trial has been scheduled to coincide with the US Presdential inauguration as a “cover up”); or else something the account owner has simply made up, such as a supposed plan by veterans to snub Keir Starmer by turning their backs to him during the Remembrance Day ceremony at the Cenotaph. Even when accurate information appears, it is derivative rather than a new contribution.

Other than that, the account’s content comprises typical tirades against “multiculturalism” and the like – one recent post, billed as “a Christian Priest issues a chilling warning to Europe regarding Islam”, presented an old video of Richard Williamson, a fringe cleric notorious for Holocaust denial. And despite the account’s enthusiasm for Farage and Reform, its owner also apparently has a soft spot for UKIP and for Britain First, who “want their country back” via “Remigration”. Maybe Inevitable West could ask Musk to send them some money too.

UPDATE: Inevitable West has further expressed the view that Musk bankrolling Reform would not be foreign election inference because “Musk has native English blood” (for some reason this long-known detail is also “🚨BREAKING”), adding “Blood & soil”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

From the Guardian, 1 August:

A 17-year-old boy accused of murdering three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport can be named as Axel Rudakubana.

… He will next appear at Liverpool crown court, on 25 October, and a provisional trial date, lasting six weeks, was scheduled for 20 January.

That provisional date was later confirmed in November: it seems reasonable that a trial scheduled to last weeks should start on a Monday, and 20 January 2025 is the third Monday of the new year. The date did not attract much controversy, although inevitably there was some obstuse comment on social media that it was unfair that public disorder following the murders was being dealt with more quickly.

However, it is now being alleged online that the date was chosen deliberately because it coincides with the the US Presidential inauguration, and so will be overshadowed in the news. On Twitter/X, the two events were linked on 15 December by “Inevitable West”, an anonymous account that is sometimes promoted by Elon Musk as a guide to events in the UK. One of “Inevitable West’s” rhetorical strategies is to begin their posts with “🚨BREAKING”, despite not having any new information:

🚨BREAKING: The Southport trial will begin on 20th January – the same day as Donald Trump’s inauguration.

This is a coverup the magnitude we’ve never seen before.

Casual readers were thus given the impression that the date has only just been chosen.

The conspiracy theory then expanded when it was noted by others that two other trials are set to begin on the same Monday: those of Ricky Jones and Anthony Esan.

Jones’ trial date was announced in September; as the Evening Standard reported:

A former Labour councillor is set to stand trial next year over an allegation he encouraged violent disorder in a speech to an anti-fascist protest during the recent riots.

…”We have to set a trial date within the custody trial dates, and the earliest date we can offer is January 20 next year”, said Judge Oscar Del Fabbro.

A conspiracy theorist would have to argue either that (a) earlier dates have been excluded from “custody trial dates” due to some occult government influence; (b) the judge has incorrectly identified “the earliest date”, presumably on instruction from the government; or (c) the judge deliberately avoided the possibility of a later date, again in compliance with improper politicial instructions. None of this is warranted from the context.

Anthony Esan’s trial date, meanwhile, was reported by Kent Live in August:

The case of a man accused of attempted murder following the stabbing of an army officer has been adjourned. During a plea and trial preparation hearing at Maidstone Crown Court today (August 22), Judge Philip St John-Stevens adjourned the arraignment on Anthony Esan’s charges.

Esan’s trial was, however, fixed to start on January 20, 2025 and is expected to last three weeks. It will be heard by a High Court judge.

Nicholas Lissack seems to have been first off the mark in drawing a sinister inference from these other trial dates, a few hours after Inevitable West’s post:

It’s quite the coincidence that on 20th January—Trump’s inauguration—these events are all taking place:

– Axel Rudakubana’s trial.
– Ricky Jones’s trial.
– Anthony Esan’s trial.
– Semina Halliwell’s inquest.

Strange timing, isn’t it? Almost too convenient for the authorities.

The Halliwell inquest dates are actually 13 to 21 January, and it was not included when Darren Grimes jumped on the bandwagon:

DEFLECTION:

🔘 Labour councillor accused of calling for slit throats

🔘 Man accused of stabbing Lt Col Mark Teeton near his barracks

🔘 Man accused of murdering girls in Southport

EACH trial begins January 20, the day the media’s eyes are focused on Trump’s inauguration?! 👀

Grimes’ post was then amplifed by Isabel Oakeshott, partner of Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice, with the added commentary “This is extraordinary”. Grimes also inspired Henry Bolton to offer the view that “It’s impossible to credibly argue that the judicial system is not being influenced by political interference from the government.” Alex Phillips, meanwhile, claims that the timing is a “stitch up”, while Laurence Fox warns that “They are getting desperate now. Which is very concerning, because once the lies stop working, they will use fists”. Fox previously suggested that the media had published a photograph of the suspect as a child “to make him look like the victim”.

The Southport murders have been a repeated focus for conspiracising: previously, the suspect has been misidentified, and last month there was a false online rumour that as a lawyer Keir Starmer had represented the suspect’s father in an asylum hearing. Conspiracism is also inflamed by public figures claiming to have access to extra information: Nigel Farage recently said that “I know a hell of a lot more than the British public know” (a quote uploaded to YouTube by his interviewer Winston Marshall under the title “The Biggest Cover Up of Our Lives!”), while on 8 December Mike Graham posted an enigmatic “Watch this space #Southport”.

Graham’s post drew attention to an October edition of The Times carrying the headline “Claims of Southport ‘Cover-Up'” – this referred specifically to claims by Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch that the suspect being charged with a terrorism offence and with producing ricin indicated that “facts may have been withheld from the public”, but such a headline of course has the potential to encourage broader speculation (it was amended online to “Tories Accuse Police of Southport ‘Cover-Up'”).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

From Farmers’ Weekly:

London witnessed an extraordinary spectacle on Wednesday 11 December as more than 600 tractors rolled into Westminster in a dramatic protest against the Autumn Budget’s impact on farming.

Organised by Save British Farming (SBF) and Kent Fairness for Farmers, the rally showcased the growing frustration of farmers who believe government policies threaten the future of British agriculture and their livelihoods.

The SBF website states that it exists to protest “the trade deals our government is negotiating which fail to protect British animal welfare and environmental standards for imports.” However, the 11 December action focused on recently announced changes to Inheritance Tax, which it is argued with ensnare farmers whose agricultural land has become valuable but who remain cash poor (1). And SBF “branding” seems to have been less in evidence than banners promoting a group called “#together”, which surrounded the speakers.

As noted by John Bye, the group’s leader, Alan Millar, “was interviewed by Sky News at today’s protest, and chatted with Tory and Reform MPs”. The group, writes John (link added), “started out as a campaign against lockdowns and covid vaccine mandates, but later diversified into opposing anything from net zero to the assisted dying bill. While still finding time to promote anti-vax misinformation from their friends at HART“. DeSmog has more background details here. The same banners appeared at a previous farmers’ protest last month, at which Jeremy Clarkson posed with one (2).

Various other signs at Wednesday’s protest were were photographed by a video journalist named Matt Capon. It’s important to be cautious of reading too much signifance into placards that may be outliers, but the examples shown reflect the familiar contours of populist conspiracism. One man, wearing what appears to be an “I Will Not Comply” hat, had a sign that read “Net Zero aims to make farmers extinct” (along with a “Danger! Agenda 2030” sticker); another effort read “I Do Not Consent to Climate Hoax” and “Full Fart Milk for ME!” (3). One particularly large banner read “Reject the Great Reset” and referred readers to a group called “Stand Up UK” and to social media associated with Together’s “youth ambassador” Montgomery Toms.

I previously looked at conspiracy influencers involving themselves in farmers’ protests here.

Notes

1. Some conspiracists refer to the “Bill Gates budget”, alleging that the end of the tax relief is a deliberate ploy to force farmers to sell up to Gates.

2. At this earlier protest Clarkson expressed irritation when the BBC’s Victoria Derbyshire reminded him that he had previously been open about investing in land as a tax planning strategy. One economist, Paul Cheshire, has gone so far as to describe the current situation as a “tax loophole” that has “simply pushed up the price of land without improving returns to active farmers”. A compromise solution suggested by a tax expert named Dan Neidle is that the tax should only be made payable when land is sold rather than handed on via inheritence.

2. This alludes to objections against a feed additive to reduce the amount of methane produced by cattle. These objections are firstly that climate change is a “hoax”, making such reduction unnecessary, and secondly that the product, called Bovaer, is dangerous and poisons milk. Reform has taken up the cause, and when Daniel Finkelstein accused the party of populist conspiracism in The Times, Reform’s Richard Tice responded by warning that “@Dannythefink wants to experiment with our bodies”. The product is distinct from an additive developed by a company in which Bill Gates has invested, although the Daily Mail managed to shoehorn him in with a headline (later amended) that referred to Bovaer as “Bill-Gates inspired”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

A headline in the Daily Telegraph:

Rotherham rapist to be released from prison after serving only nine years of 19-year sentence

A member of a Rotherham grooming gang who raped and tortured his victims is set to be released from prison after serving only nine years of a 19-year sentence.

Banaras Hussain, 44, who is also a convicted drug dealer, will be allowed out on licence on Friday after being jailed for violent sexual offences in 2016.

That “only” in the headline strongly implies that Hussain has benefited from some controversial act of judicial leniency, when it is general knowledge in the UK that 50% of a sentence served is an “automatic release point”. Hussain has been freed, but he remains subject to various restrictions and can be recalled to prison at any time should be not adhere to the conditions of his licence. Some would argue that his overall sentence ought to have been longer (or been indeterminate, whch gives more leeway in keeping someone in prison beyond a minimum period), but the headline’s framing is misleading.

Also misleading is the reference to “nine years” rather than “nine and a half years”, which implies less than 50% and will put readers in mind of the government’s early release scheme to ease prison overcrowding (1). The text, though, grudgingly clarifies the point:

It is understood that Hussain had already served a number of months on remand and had, therefore, served more than half of his full sentence. Last year, he was moved to an open prison.

Sentencing council guidelines state that offenders sentenced to four years or more for violent or sexual offences can potentially be released at the halfway point under strict licence conditions.

…He was not released under the early release scheme introduced by Sir Keir Starmer’s government as sexual offenders are not eligible.

The phrasing “can potentially be released” downplays the “automatic” nature of the release point, implying that it’s a special privilege that might be applied from time to time rather than standard practice.

The false claim that Hussain has served less than 50% of his sentence has been promoted by GB News on Twitter/X, in a post stating “Maggie Oliver, formerly of Greater Manchester Police, reacts to grooming gang member Banaras Hussain’s release from prison after less than half his sentence”. Ignoring time served on remand in order to create a false impression that someone has been released exceptionally early is a strategy to watch out for in populist reporting.

The Telegraph article also provides a platform for politicians to strut and pose:

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, has written to the Parole Board, asking it to reverse its decision and “keep this monster behind bars”.

…Richard Tice, Reform UK’s deputy leader, said that if a sex offender is sentenced to 19 years in prison, they should be detained for 19 years.

He added: “A sentence is a sentence. I don’t believe in any early release for those sorts of crime. These crimes are heinous and you have to set an example. What is the point of giving someone 19 years and [letting them] out after nine and a half?”

Jenrick must know that the Parole Board cannot simply put aside the rules in the way, but his stunt will doubtless work to whip up misdirected resentment against professionals doing a difficult job.

And Tice similarily must know that determinate prison sentences cannot be dealt with differently according to the “sorts of crime” involved. This seems to be part of a broader Reform strategy of misrepresenting long-standing aspects of the law as capricious anomalies. For example, in July his partner Isabel Oakeshott suggested that the identity of a 16 year old on trial for murder was “being covered up”, when the identity of any minor on trial is protected (when corrected, she cited the naming of the 10-year-old killers of James Bulger in 1994, although she neglected the detail that they were named only after their trial had concluded with guilty verdicts).

The suggestion that Hussain has enjoyed special leniency also has another purpose in Reform rhetoric. Here’s the former Conservive MP Andrea Jenkyns, now Reform’s mayoral candidate for Greater Lincolnshire:

People are sick of this two-tier policing system, where we see a head of a grooming gang released early from prison. Whilst political prisoners are locked-up.

By “political prisoners”, Jenkyns means people who have been sent to prison following convictions for online incitement in the wake of the Southport child killings. The designation has not been made explicitly by party leader Nigel Farage, although it was implicit in his recent statement on Question Time (53:47) that “Kier Starmer locks people up who say nasty things on Facebook – Two-Tier Kier”.

Note

1. The early release scheme allows some prisoners to be released after serving 40% of their sentence, although headlines have tended not to make clear that this is a reduction of 10 percentage points down from 50% – i.e. a 25% reduction in the time to be served, rather than a massive cut of 60%.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

From the Daily Mail:

Viral social media rumours claiming that Sir Keir Starmer represented the father of Southport suspect Axel Rudakubana in an asylum case are untrue, Downing Street said today.

The claims were yesterday circulated widely on X, formerly known as Twitter, by users who were citing them as evidence of an alleged cover-up over the true circumstances of the Southport stabbings in which three girls aged six to nine died.

…The erroneous allegations made against Sir Keir centre on a High Court ruling dating from 2003.

…The High Court document makes clear that Sir Keir’s clients were a 16-year-old Ethiopian girl, a 26-year-old Iranian man and two Angolan men aged 22 and 33.

The sixth party – the only Rwandan national involved in the case – was a 42-year-old woman.

The story does not go into who spread the claim online, although anyone who keeps an eye on fringe-right accounts would have seen it: on 15 November, for instance, Laurence Fox posted “Who was Axel Rudakubana’s human rights lawyer? @Keir_Starmer”, which he then amended to “Who was Axel Rudakubana’s father’s human rights lawyer @Keir_Starmer ?”. Although not mentioned by the Mail, the rumour built on online speculation about why the suspect’s father came to the UK (speculation that is best avoided until the trial is completed).

The rumour doubtless got a massive boost from comments by Nigel Farage, in conservation with Winston Marshall on 16 November:

On Southport, all I can say to you right now, is I know a hell of a lot more than the British public know. A hell of a lot more. I’ve been completely silenced. I dared, the day after Southport, to do a video to say, “Can we please know who this man is? Was he known to the authorities? Why do I feel we’re not being told the truth?”

The level of demonisation I came under for that from both front benches was astonishing. From media commentators, demonisation on a level that I’d never even experienced. Now I’m told by the Speaker of the House of Commons, I can’t ask questions about it in the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege is out of the window.

Even rumours today that the court case, which is due in January, every effort is being made to defer it…. We are witnessing one of the biggest cover ups we’ve ever seen in our lives, and I won’t say any more than that.

Farage’s recollection of his video after Southport once again downplays what he actually said at the time, which was that there were “reports” that the suspect was known to the security services – this was obviously derived from the false “Ali Sl-Shakati” story, although Farage wisely kept his references vague. The reason he cannot ask questions about it in the House of Commons is because of a rule from 1963 that “cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall  not be referred to in any motion, debate or question”. Speakers have some discretion where “they have considered that no substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings would arise”, but Farage prefers to suggest some sinister irregularity rather than make a case for an exception within the rules.

The question, then, is whether Farage was referring to the rumour that has been debunked in the Daily Mail or to something else. It’s quite possible that he was misled by a screenshot of the 2003 ruling doing the rounds, given how quickly and confidently he drew false inferences from online details about the former Reform activist Andrew Parker as soon as they were put before him (Farage asserted that Parker was an infiltrator working for Channel 4 – a subject he has since gone quiet about).

Meanwhile, Sunder Katwala has rounded up some “influential spreaders of the viral rumour on X”, in a series of posts:

Dominic Cummings, who shared the rumour at 2.35pm on 17.11 with a message asking people if it was true or false, saying “nothing would surprise me” (gaining 845k views) before an hour later saying it did not stack up. [here]

Paul Golding, the leader of Britain First, shared it on X at 1.52om, half an hour before Dominic Cummings did. He shared an image of the [unrelated] 2003 case front-page. Golding got 971k views – and Britain First started a petition about this (gaining 100k signatures). [here]

While Paul Golding and Dominic Cummings shared the rumour itself, many found more virality in tweeting about rumours – very much *really hoping* they are not true, like Mr [Konstantin] Kisin, who was very worried how this would not end well. [here]

This comical exchange in which Charlie Bentley-Astor tells Kisin its “probably worse than what you are hearing” but that “most of what you are hearing is probably true” though warning that some of the most viral claims are “misnomers”. (Both seem to self-identify as journalists) [here]

This “Akkad Secretary” got 2.6 million views for spreading the false rumour on X. He now has 69.5k followers. X may well have paid £ to this verified account for this: by rewarding, funding, incentivising and inducing such conduct, they were the main site. [here]

As for Farage,

Saying “we are witnessing one of the biggest coverups we’ve ever seen in our lives” with Winston Marshall gives him more flexibility. His Saturday interview taken by quite a few people as about the same rumour. [here]

Of course, even if the rumour were true, and even if there were some reason why the decision to allow the suspect’s father to remain in the UK had been particularly controversial, it would hardly be to Starmer’s discredit. As discussed by Roddy Dunlop KC as a hypothetical (responding to Kellie-Jay Keen / Posie Parker):

Let’s say the PM, acting as counsel, obtained a legal decision, from a judge, that his client should be given leave to remain in the UK. And then let’s assume that years later that client’s son is responsible for an atrocity.

To try and hold counsel responsible for that atrocity – to imply that (s)he has any moral blame therein – is to misunderstand utterly the role of counsel. We are not our clients, nor their guarantors. We act for all people. Some of them are bad people. Sometimes bad people do bad things. That does not mean they should be denied legal representation.

It would, though, be a difficult predicament for a lawyer-turned-PM when it comes to national memorialisation and interacting with relatives and survivors – a PM having a past connection with a suspect’s family would obviously be emotionally problematic for victims’ loved ones and for survivors, however well they might understand professional duty. Spreading a false rumour about such a connection was not in the best interests of Southport families.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

A statement from Essex Police:

Officers attended an address in Essex and invited a woman to come to a voluntary interview.

They said it related to an investigation into an alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media.

…As this was a call to set up an interview, no extra details were given. That’s because we have to follow the law and make sure that everyone’s rights and entitlements, in particular to seek legal advice, were respected.

This is the right way to do things – it’s the correct procedure as set out by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Fuller details of an alleged offence are always provided prior to the commencement of a voluntary interview, under caution. That allows those present to seek appropriate legal advice and representation if they wish to.

As part of our investigation, we’re liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding an alleged offence which was reported to us by a member of the public. This is an investigative stage review – nothing more.

As has been widely reported, the above refers to a police visit to the Telegraph journalist Allison Pearson last Sunday – an incident that has prompted reams of apocalyptic commentary about the how the UK is now comparable to the USSR under Stalin or (inevitably) to George Orwell’s dystopian vision. Pearson has endorsed Richard Tice MP’s description of her as “terrified and scared”.

The details are that on 16 November 2023 Pearson posted a Tweet (archived here) that incorporated a photo of two men of apparent Pakistani heritage shown holding a flag of the political party Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and posing with police. The photo was from August 2023 and had been taken in Manchester; Pearson described the men as “Jew haters”, it seems in the mistaken belief that the image showed protestors in London opposed to Israel’s actions in Gaza after 7 October. It’s not clear how exactly she interpreted the flag – perhaps she thought it represented Hamas, but it’s also possible she thought it was a Palestinian national flag and that this in itself was sufficient evidence of being a “Jew hater”. According to the complainant, as quoted in the Guardian, “Her description of the two people of colour as Jew haters is racist and inflammatory”.

The Essex Police statement was made in response to Pearson’s own account as described on the front page of the Telegraph. Pearson complained about not having been given the details, and on one point her account is at odds with Essex Police: she says she had been told that the matter was being dealt with as a “non-crime hate incident”, althugh according to the force the officer actually said “It’s gone down as an incident or offence of potentially inciting racial hatred online. That would be the offence.” She also says that police referred to “the victim” rather than “the complainant” (so much for Henriques).

Although the Telegraph and allied media are relentlessly milking the incident (including the detail that the police called on Remembrance Sunday), the force’s actions do seem to me to be disproportionate. It might have been appropriate (although probably futile) for the police to have offered Pearson “words of advice” about her lack of care in throwing around allegations, but there was not enough of a case to answer for them to arrest her, and it seems unlikely that any case warranting a charge will emerge from a police interview – even if she declines to explain herself. Unlike the case of Bernie Spofforth, where it was reasonable for police to ask her about where her false information about “Ali Al-Shakati” had come from, Pearson’s post was obviously just a polemical (albeit ill-grounded [1]) extrapolation from a flag. (2)

But there is disproportion on both sides here. It would be natural for Pearson to feel apprehension, but “terrified” is excessive – especially given that she has an entire media ecosystem that includes former Prime Ministers (Boris Johnson and Liz Truss) and high-profile politicians fighting her corner. One problem is that people invest police procedure with too much significance, assuming that massive forensic and legal machinery is in play when in fact all that may be happening is low-level box-ticking. It can happen to anyone, and if more people understood this there would be less “no smoke without fire” stigma.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph has been looking for the complainant, who is not named by the Guardian. A musician and doctor named Nishant Joshi had advised Pearson to delete her post, and the paper incorrectly surmised from this that he may have been the person who had contacted police. Joshi was not just emailed by Telegraph journalists: the paper’s hacks doorstepped his parents and “were contacting long-lost Facebook friends, music pals, and anyone who’d ever known me”.

There has also been some confusion over a mirror account. Although Pearson at some point deleted her post, its content was copied by another account that also called itself “Allison Pearson”. This created an impression that Allison Pearson the journalist had been confused with some other Allison Pearson (or an impersonator), which prompted GB News to run a crowing article by James Saunders and Jack Walters headlined “Outrage as Guardian Identifies Someone Else’s Tweet as Allison Pearson’s in Failed Swipe at Under-Fire Journalist”. This article has now also been deleted.

Note

1. Although it should be noted that while in government in 2021 the PTI foreign minister described Israel in terms of “very influential people. I mean, they control media”.

2. Anyone who might draw a more negative inference should be aware that Pearson has announced that she intends to bring libel actions against various people who have done so – in one instance, she claims to have received advice from a barrister on a Saturday afternoon just hours after a comment appeared, and that he is compiling a “list”.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

From GB News, Friday 9 November:

The annual Remembrance Day parade will implement their biggest security operation ever to protect veterans amid concerns of terror attacks tied to Middle Eastern tensions and warnings that pro-Palestinian demonstrators may target the event.

…Pro-Palestinian groups have suggested that they intend to join the crowds attending the parade at the Cenotaph.

Similar groups are set to target the Day of Remembrance across the country, as the Student Federation for a Liberated Palestine has called for a “student day of action”, co-ordinating a network of 15 pro-Palestinian student groups.

As a result, Caerdydd Students for Palestine – made up of students at Cardiff University – have planned a protest to take place this Monday.

We’re not told which “pro-Palestinian groups” supposedly intended to “join the crowds attending the parade”, and none actually did either yesterday on Remembrance Sunday or today. Further, an online flyer for the Caerdydd Students for Palestine protest “rally” for Monday 11 November states that it will begin at 5 pm – long after any Remembrance events, which focus on 11 am. As such, the supposed connection between pro-Palestinian “actions” and Armistice events appears to be contrived.

However, GB News are not alone in this: on 8 November the Express ran an article headlined “Pro-Palestine mob plot to ‘swarm’ five UK cities in ‘coordinated’ Armistice Day protests”:

Five UK cities are being targeted by Youth Demand, an undercover investigation by Express.co.uk can reveal. [1]

In a secret meeting on Saturday, November 2, the activist group joined Just Stop Oil at a members-only central London bar for an exclusive event.

The event in West Dock, called the ‘Politics is Broken: People’s Assembly & After Party’, saw upwards of 50 activists gather to listen to speeches and discuss policy while vegan food and alcohol were served.

Youth Demand activist Arthur Clifton told the crowd how the group was planning to wreak havoc on Monday, November 11 – a time when thousands across Britain will honour those who gave their lives for our country.

…A call to action on Youth Demand’s Telegram channel posted on November 5 told activists that “in just over a week, our nationally coordinated actions will be popping off all over the country”.

And in an apparent threat to Remembrance ceremonies in the five cities being targeted, the rallying cry finishes: “We know we have to shut it down for Palestine.”

It is difficult not to notice that the article fails to include any quote from Clifton that references Remembrance Day events, and that the “apparent threat” mentioned in the last paragraph is inferred. I took a look at the Telegram post; it refers to a “national week of action” commencing 11 November – as such, “shut it down” appears to have a general sense. The Express author might say that “apparent threat” merely means possible knock-on effects from transport disruption caused by protests, but that does not seem be the most obvious interpretation.

The supposed link between “pro-Palestinian groups” and Armistice appears in all instances above to have been constucted by cherrypicking details. The framing also builds on what happened last year, when 11 November fell on a Saturday and as such happened to coincide with a pro-Palestinian march in central London. Although the march took place some distance from the Cenotaph, the populist then Home Secretary Suella Braverman suggested that it was under threat, prompting an aggressive crowd to show up to “defend” the memorial. Andrew Bridgen, who at that time was a Reclaim MP, went further, issuing a statement that made wild claims about “protestors against the Remembrance service” who were supposedly “seeking to occupy Whitehall overnight”.

UPDATE: Youth Demand have posted a video of activitsts sitting in the road in Parliament Square on the Monday morning, with the caption “Supporters of Youth Demand silently shut the road into Parliament Square at exactly 11am this morning, during the Armistice service at the Cenotaph”. Given that vehicles in the area would have stopped anyway for the two minutes’ silence it’s not clear to what extent they can really take credit for “shutting” the road. In any case, the action can hardly be called “wrecking havoc” or a “threat” to a ceremony going on up the road.

Note

1. Youth Demand responded by scoffing at the “undercover” claims:

A news outlet has supposedly exposed our publicly announced plan to take action next week by coming to a public event (ticketed btw, so thanks for the donation😉), and done some deep undercover work by joining a telegram chat link (which you can find in our bio btw if you want to keep up to date💋).

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

From BBC News, a few days ago:

A businesswoman who was arrested after sharing a fake name for the Southport attacker online will face no further action.

Bernadette Spofforth, from Chester, was arrested on 8 August after reposting the fake name, commenting that if it were true there would be “hell to pay”.

The 55-year-old, who has more than 50,000 followers, later deleted the post and apologised after realising the information was incorrect.

I discussed the case previously here – Spofforth was suspected not just of having “shared” the fake name, but of being the first person to have put it online. The name, “Ali Al-Shakati” (double-hyphenated by Spofforth as “Ali-Al-Shakati”), apparently means “I have to go to my apartment” in Arabic, but it created the impression that the Southport attacker was a Muslim. Spofforth’s post also claimed that he was an asylum-seeker on an “MI6 watchlist”, which was then amplified in a general way by Nigel Farage when he referred to “reports” that the suspect was “being monitored by the security services”.

I thought at the time that it was unlikely that the arrest would lead to any charge, although it was matter of public concern where the false name had originated. Spofforth’s own explanation has been vague, and friendly populist-right interviewers since the case was dropped (Dan Wootton and Julia Hartley-Brewer) aren’t pressing her on the point. Inconsistences and anomalies have been noted by Sunder Katwala here and earlier here. However, it appears that Cheshire Police were concerned only with whether a case could be built against Spofforth, rather than who else might be culpable, and so it may be that we will never know who invented “Ali Al-Shakati” or why. (1) Despite her interview round, Spofforth hasn’t said a great deal about what specific questions were asked during her police interview.

Some commentators have suggested that the phrase “if this true” in Spofforth’s post proves that she did not knowingly spread false information, and thus should never have been suspected of incitement. The logic of this, it seems to me, amounts to saying that it can never be incitement to ask a question, which would be preposterous. However, in the wake of the arrest various populist-right figures (Dan Wootton, Bev Turner, David Vance) posted a notice which they apparently believe would give them immunity from successful prosecution. (2)

It should also be noted that Spofforth has a blue-tick verified Twitter/X account, which creates a financial incentive to sensationalise rather than exercise caution and discernment.

Note

1. The fact that it wasn’t a real Arabic name suggests a mixed motive – not just to spread disinformation, but also to feel a sense of superiority by including an “in joke” that most people wouldn’t understand.

2. The notice reads as follows: “None of the information posted or repeated on this account is known by its author to be false, nor intended to stir racial or any hatred of, nor cause psychological or physical harm to, any person or group of people (howsoever identified)”. This is a sovereign-citizen adjacent approach to the law, in which a form of words amounts to an incantation that somehow confounds the the power of the authorities.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »