Bartholomew's Notes

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 | 1 Comment »