Bartholomew's Notes

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 »