Bartholomew's Notes

From the Daily Telegraph:

A Pakistani web developer accused of spreading fake news that helped foment anti-immigration and anti-Muslim riots after the Southport stabbings has been arrested in the city of Lahore.

Farhan Asif is alleged to have worked for a sensationalist news aggregation website called Channel3Now, which published false reports about the identity of the knife attacker.

Channel3Now infamously repeated claims that the attacker’s name was Ali Al-Shakati; that he had recently arrived in the UK via boat as an asylim seeker; and that he had been on an MI6 “watchlist”. From an extra detail carried in Dawn, it appears Asif is claiming that he got this false information from another aggregator site, called Kossyderrickent and based in Nigeria. Kossyderrickent has removed the relevant page, but an archived version shows that its write-up included a verbatim Twitter/X post (now deleted) from an account called XCellent78:

Southport Stabbings suspect, Ali-Al-Shakati, was on MI6 watch list and was known to Liverpool mental health services. He was an asylum seeker who came to UK by boat last year.

Those kids have been failed by our pathetic government who are more interested in going after Tommy Robinson on made up terrorism charges than actually stopping real terrorists

These sentences were integrated into the text, rather than being presented as a quote by a third party. XCellent78’s post also included a full stop that is missing on Kossyderrickent, which is suggestive of a cut-and-paste job. The reference to “our pathetic government who are more interested in going after Tommy Robinson” of course is incoherent in a Nigerian context.

Channel3Now repeated much of the first line, but without the comma: “Ali-Al-Shakati was on MI6 watch list and was known to Liverpool mental health services. He was an asylum seeker who came to UK by boat last year.”

The first part of XCellent78’s post also appeared in a post by a member of the UK conspiracy crowd named Bernie Spofforth (@Artemisfornow); Spofforth claims that she copied XCellent78, but her post appeared first and so it would appear to have been the other way round. Spofforth and XCellent78 both have an extra space after the second comma (“Ali-Al-Shakati,  was on MI6…”) that is not present on the Kossyderrickent version. Questions that occur to be include (1) why was the false name given two hyphens?; (2) why does the sentence refer to “MI6 watch list” rather than “MI6’s watch list”, or “an MI6 watch-list”?; and (3) why “came to UK” rather than “came to the UK”?

Spofforth was arrested a couple of weeks ago, and she remains under investigation by Cheshire Police. So far, she appears to be the earliest person to have put the false claims into the public domain. We may never be sure whether she’s the ur-source for all the online repetitions – if the rumour was circulating privately before her post then there may be other lines of transmission. However, we can suggest with some confidence a chain of Spofforth → XCellent78 → Kossyderrickent → Channel3Now. Alternatively, there may have been some unknown source common to both Spofforth and XCellent78 (in which case, Spofforth might have mistook the XCellent78 post for this earlier source).

Channel3Now in Pakistan was the focus of an ITV News investigation that appeared a week ago. However, the arrest is now being seized on by bad actors to re-write the history of the past month; here’s Reform Deputy Leader Richard Tice, extrapolating wildly:

If this is true…..well well well

Seems a gentleman in Pakistan spread the fake news about Southport

Perhaps he was of the Far Left, deliberately creating division ….

What say you ⁦@Keir_Starmer?

Meanwhile, Tommy Robinson:

So as the UK government blamed everyone from the non existent group “EDL”, the “Russians”, even me, for the riots.

It was a Pakistani.

Hundreds jailed, scores attacked by Muslims because of the government lies.

#StarmerMustGo

And Laurence Fox:

I hope the police are grovelling their way to @Artemisfornow front door to apologise for their dreadful abuse of power.

While from GB News:

‘Starmer’s claim that these riots were organised by far right agitatiors was itself, fake news.’

Director of Free Speech Union, Toby Young, reacts to a man in Pakistan identified for allegedly giving a false name for the Southport attacker.

These interpretations are all deeply dishonest, although the motive is to “flood the zone” with a superfically plausible narrative that populists and conspiracists will identify with without needing much or any convincing.

Channel3Now certainly played a role in amplifying the false information: for example, it provided the basis for a post on Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch that was (typically) quietly deleted. However, it did not create the “fake news” – and either way, the site’s involvement does not exonerate those who spread it further or who acted on it by rioting and inciting disorder.

“A Pakistani made them do it” is a pathetic excuse.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

From the Daily Telegraph:

BBC presenter Chris Packham has been criticised after urging people who bank with Barclays to stick their heads in a bucket of petrol and set themselves on fire… He said: “But, if anyone here is banking with Barclays, then, I suggest you stick your head in a bucket of fuel and set fire to it because you’re burning our planet down. And, it’s time to put this stuff behind us.”

A complaint about Packham’s comments was also made to Derbyshire Constabulary.

The complainant, a country sports enthusiast who wishes to remain anonymous, wrote to officers asking how the BBC presenter’s comments could be legal “given the recent spate of civil unrest which we have seen across the country” and those “inciting people to take direct action.”

A police spokesman said: “The video has been reviewed and no offences have been committed.

“Each incident that takes place is reviewed based on the language used as well as the specific set of circumstances in which the comments are made.

“In this instance, while there is legislation covering individuals encouraging or assisting a person or persons to cause serious harm to themselves, there is no suggestion that this is a serious attempt to influence anyone to commit any such acts.”

This preposterous non-story, bylined to Simon Trump and Steve Bird, is just the latest installment in an ongoing series of lame attack articles aimed at Packham, in each case bolstered by a convenient anonymous accuser.

Back in April 2023, the same duo reported on speculation that a vehicle working on Packham’s Springwatch programme may have been responsible for running over a badger nicknamed Bernie in Suffolk… in 2015. How did this become “news” eight years later?

The mystery surrounding the badger’s death only came to light after a keen naturalist recently posted a message on social media asking whether the BBC would ever reveal what happened to Bernie.

Details of where to find the message were not provided. This was followed by another item in August:

When Chris Packham appeared on The One Show with three goshawk chicks, the naturalist took great pride in showing how a bird of prey once near extinction in Britain is at last thriving.

But, that BBC recording is now at the centre of a police investigation over whether a wildlife crime – including the somewhat unusual practice of bird sniffing – was committed before the nation’s very eyes.

The clip, broadcast in June following a morning of filming, prompted a complaint to police that a filming licence may not have been obtained.

…The man who complained – a shooting enthusiast who does not want to be named for fear of reprisals – said: “I watched the programme and was struck by the way Mr Packham was handling and sniffing the birds. These birds are Schedule 1 protected and it is a crime to ‘intentionally or recklessly disturb at, on or near an active nest’.”

The matter was dropped in October:

Hampshire Police has written to the man who complained – an amateur shooting enthusiast who does not want to be named – to say that no charges will be brought and the case has now been closed.

It is tempting to suspect that the “country sports enthusiast”, the “keen naturalist” and the “amateur shooting enthusiast” are all the same person – or if not, that there is some coordinating intelligence behind them. Does this individual really “fear reprisals”, or is it rather that the two hacks for some reason would rather obfuscate who it is they are repeatedly relying on for their stream of easy copy?

As well as the above, in 2022 the paper also published a more serious story about Packham – this time, it was written up by the paper’s crime correspondent Martin Evans, but as with the more recent examples an unnamed individual was at the heart of it:

A mystery businessman has offered a £50,000 reward to help capture a gang who carried out a terrifying arson attack at the home of the BBC TV nature presenter Chris Packham.

Suspicion immediately fell on pro-hunting supporters who were thought to be targeting Mr Packham because of his vocal opposition to bloodsports.

But there was also fevered speculation online that the attack might actually be the work of animal rights activists who were trying to set up and discredit their opponents.

…The mystery benefactor, who claims he is not a hunting, shooting or fishing enthusiast, has appealed on a website to a number of potential parties, which he believes could help.

The website was being sued by Packham for libel (mentioned by Evans in passing), and there is no evidence that Evans did anything to verify the existence of this “mystery businessman” for himself. In his witness statement, Packham detected bad faith (para 179):

The clear message from these articles is that in addition to writing myself a death threat letter, I also fabricated the arson attack in order to, presumably, elicit further publicity and/or public sympathy. I understand that the final date for the reward to be claimed is 2 May 2023 which is the first day of listing for trial in this litigation, making a mockery of the idea that the reward is not associated with my defamation claim.

Packham’s advice to Barclay’s customers was captured by a website called Fieldsports TV, which had settled a separate libel action last November.

UPDATE (October):

On 5 October 2024, Trump and Bird produced yet another story about Packham:

Chris Packham has been forced to pay £200,000 to a pensioner and country sportsman he was accused of pursuing “vindictively” through the courts, it has been claimed.

In 2023, the naturalist and BBC presenter was awarded £90,000 in damages after the High Court upheld his defamation claims against two contributors to Country Squire, an online magazine that wrongly accused him of misleading people into donating to a tiger rescue charity.

But his case against Paul Read, a 70-year-old grandfather who was the proofreader for some of the magazine articles, was thrown out by the High Court judge.

It meant Packham, 63, became liable for the pensioner’s legal costs, and Mr Read has now claimed his damages have been dwarfed by that bill.

It is understood the Springwatch presenter had to pay £196,008, more than double the £90,000 he was awarded as damages.

Read was actually billed on the website (previously discussed here) as a “co-author” of the articles, a designation he was happy to accept until the libel action was launched. However, given that Trump and Bird go on to quote Read, why is the costs figure only “understood” to be £196,008? This implies some intermediary. The article does not explain why this is news now, 18 months after the court case.

Ten days later the same detail appeared in the Daily Mail, in a short piece by the paper’s gossip columnist Richard Eden that also contains further claims:

He [Packham] has, it emerged, sustained a grievous blow in his latest High Court battle, after which he was accused of ‘vindictively’ pursuing a 70-year-old grandfather through the courts – and was landed with a legal bill for £196,008.

But that, it seems, does not mark the end of Chris Packham’s current woes.

I can reveal that the BBC presenter has just suffered the publication in America of a marmalade-dropper of a book which has been privately published but is financed in part – so its publisher claims – by some of Packham’s BBC colleagues, with elements of research apparently supplied by High Court staff… it pulls no punches, even alleging that Packham, 63, is ‘narcissistic’ and a ‘manipulator’.

That “He” in the first sentence starts the article, which implies some botched late editing. As for the book, Eden neglects to provide its title, its author or the name of the publisher. It seems poor form to publish vicious allegations against Packham’s character – “narcissistic” and “manipulator” – that are unattributed and unexplained.

The book in fact is called The Fall of Packham, and an image of the cover was posted online by Andrew Gilruth of the Moorland Association on 8 October. No publisher is apparent, although the author is supposedly one “James Johnson”. It doesn’t seem to be for sale anywhere, and there’s no ISBN number. However, copies have been circulating privately: Jeremy Clarkson brandished a copy in an Instagram video that was noticed by the Express on 24 October (Clarkson miread the title, referring to it as the “The Fall of Chris Packham“), while celebrity farmer Gareth Wyn Jones showed off his one the next day.

Clearly, then, the book is being disseminated by someone with a grudge, and it provided a bit of easy work for Eden at the Mail. So why did Trump and Bird at the Telegraph ignore it? It seems unlikely that they wouldn’t have received a copy as well, and its appearance is the only news hook on which to hang Read’s award so many months after the case. Perhaps they don’t believe everything anti-Packham that comes their way.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »

On LBC News, Nigel Farage has been pressed by Tom Swarbrick about his 30 July references to “reports” claiming that the Southport stabbings suspect was a Muslim who had recently arrived in the UK (an aspect of “cover up rhetoric” that I previously noted here). Here’s Farage’s reply:

One of the reasons the Southport riots were as bad as they were is we weren’t told the truth. There were stories on online from some very prominent folks with big followings, Andrew Tate, etc., suggesting the man had crossed the English Channel in a boat in October 2023. Other suggestions that he was an active Muslim, and much of this led to the riots that we saw.

I asked a very simple question: was this this person known or not [to the security services].

…Give us some clarity… I mean, I remember, the London Bridge attacker, we knew within an hour that this person was known to the security services. Whenever in Northern Ireland there was a terrorist outrage, very quickly people were told the background of the perpetrator. I asked a very simple question.

I could have said “some reports suggest he crossed the Channel last October. Some reports suggest he’s an active Muslim”. I did none of those things. What I asked for was clarity. We didn’t get clarity, and I would argue… that what happened in Southport would not have been at the same magnitude had the truth been told, and told very, very quickly. It wasn’t for many hours that we learnt more.

Here’s what Farage said at the time:

Was this guy being monitored by the security services? Some reports say he was. Others are less sure.

The next day, however, he reformulated what he had suggested:

…I also asked whether, amidst a sea of speculation, the 17-year-old involved had been under the watch of our authorities.

It’s remarkable that Farage would choose now to say that “some reports” means Andrew Tate. Most people would have understood Farage as referring to credible sources, some of which were supposedly saying the suspect was known to the security services while others were saying that this only might be the case. Anything emerging from Tate would very obviously have just been a derivative rumour. This false picture fell apart, which is why the next day Farage tried to give the impression that he had instead merely raised a broad and general question arising naturally from the circumstances.

Farage’s new self-justification fails to convince, due to several leaps and false premises.

First, Merseyside Police confirmed on the evening of 29 July that the suspect had been born in Cardiff. An update at lunchtime on 30 July said that an “incorrect” name (i.e. Ali Al-Shakati) had been circulating on social media. Farage’s statement was posted to Twitter/X a few hours after that – it appears he wants credit for not repeating specific claims that had already been debunked by the police despite the fact that the “security services” claim had been bundled in with them. Most reasonable people would have thought “well, the rest of the internet rumour was rubbish, so why should the supposed ‘MI6 watchlist’ claim be taken seriously?”. Farage, in contrast, appears to have thought “well, police have responded to the false claims overall, but here’s one detail that I can still get some mileage out of”. And he also appears to have thought, “an ‘MI6 watchlist’ can’t be right, since MI6 operate abroad, so I’ll amend to ‘security services’ as being more credible”.

Further, Farage’s comparators are bogus. A more reasonable inference from the London Bridge attack would be that if a suspect is known to the security services then this will probably come out very quickly, not that the lack of any such confirmation indicates a cover up. And in the case of Northern Ireland there was a very obvious terrorist context, with groups even phoning in to take responsibility for bombings. That’s why people were told “very quickly” (1) – but where context is unclear, it will take a few more before police will be in a position to update the public. Understanding the vast differences shouldn’t be difficult.

If Farage had merely wanted police to act more quickly to neutralise false rumours then that would have been explicit in his 30 July statement. He would also have highlighted what the police had actually said. Instead, he gave credence to the “security services” rumour, which in turn implied a context of Islamic extremism. As such, there is no reason to go along with his self-exclusion from the factors he says affected the “magnitude” of what happened in Southport, and elsewhere.

Now that the suspect has been charged and named, news reports must be guarded so as not to prejudice the trial, although unsourced claims about his alleged motivation continue to circulate on social media (I saw one instance promoted by Carl Benjamin). Given the circumstances, many social media users will either chafe at or ignore the legal requirement to describe Rudakubana as “the suspect”, and there’s scope here for bad actors to suggest that the word has been chosen by the media in order to favour him – this may seem ludicrous, but Laurence Fox claims that the media has published photographs of Rudakubana as a child in order for some reason “to make him look like the victim.”

Note

1. It should also be remembed, though, that what we were told “very quickly” as regards Northern Ireland wasn’t always correct.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »