From the Daily Mail, 13 July:
The brutal murder of Ann Widdecombe was last night being treated as a suspected politically motivated terrorist attack.
In a dramatic escalation, counter terrorism officers yesterday took over the investigation into the killing of the former Tory minister. It came after the discovery of Russian communist literature and other items of political ideology at the home of the suspected killer.
…The Mail has learnt that items of varying political ideology, including Russian material, have been found at the suspect’s home and on electronic devices.
Asking the public not to speculate after such details have been leaked is futile, and the presence of the material is being widely interpreted as indicative that Widdecombe was killed by a left-wing terrorist. This is despite the fact that “varying political ideology” could mean anything, and there’s no way to assess the signifance of “Russian communist literature” among whatever other materials the suspect may have had in his home. Has the supposed “Russian communist literature” even been correctly identified as such? There’s also of course the minor detail that the suspect has not so far even been charged, let alone found guilty.
Devon and Cornwall Police Assistant Chief Constable Matt Longman had been quoted the day before as saying that there was “nothing to suggest” that the murder “was politically motivated”, but that officers remained “open-minded”. The phrase “nothing to suggest” could be disputed on the grounds that the murder of a politician is inherently suggestive of a political motive, but in context it was obviously intended to mean that no evidence had at that point come to light. (1)
Criticism has inevitably followed the new developments; here’s Jonathan Hall KC, the British government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, in convervation with John Pienaar on Times Radio:
I don’t understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case and I don’t know why they didn’t simply say they had an open mind as to the motivation. I think they probably broke one of the golden rules of investigations, which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge. So that aspect is slightly regrettable.
Hall previously criticised Merseyside Police for saying too little about the Southport killer while Rudakubana was an arrested suspect, yet now he complains that Devon & Cornwall Police said too much (2). It’s not clear how closely he was following police statements, given he does not appear to be aware that Longman had specifcally referred to being “open-minded”; and in the age of conspiracism, the phrase “steering the public” is inflammatory. Thus we now have right-wing commentator Alex Phillips telling Megyn Kelly that “the police lied”, and that the killing was not just “left-wing terrorism” but also “state-sanctioned terrorism” (3).
Inevitably, the development is also being exploited by Nigel Farage. Farage has never been cautious when it comes to forming strong conclusions from initial impressions, and he provided a quote to the media prior to the arrest:
One theory doing the rounds is that it was a burglary gone wrong. But a car went onto the drive at approximately 12.25-12.30 on Wednesday… From what I can see of it, from what I make out, this was premeditated murder. Whether it was politically motivated, whether it was someone with a grudge. I don’t think it pays at this time to speculate.
This may be a reasonable enough theory – but it was obviously speculative, despite his advice not to speculate ludicrously tagged onto the end of it. Now, Farage’s supporters crow that he has been proven right, and that criticism of his statement was ill-considered.
One person who criticised Farage for speculating was Harvey Proctor, who suggested Widdecombe’s death was being “exploited as political propaganda”. Proctor had paid tribute to Widdecombe in The Times for the support she had given him during the Operation Midland fiasco, and his concern in speaking out was not just for his friend’s memory but for the principles of due process that had been cast aside by the elements of the media and some politicians when he was being falsely accused by Carl Beech.
Farage replied that “Harvey was very close to Ann, I know he is upset, but I was really careful not to be political”. This seemed measured enough, but Zia Yusuf and other Reform figures then waded in on social media with gratutious references to Proctor’s 1987 conviction.
Meanwhile, whatever Farage’s intentions with his statement, the involvement of counter-terrorism police and details about the materials found at the suspect’s home are obviously being exploited for political purposes, with claims from supporters that hostility is incitement (Allison Pearson), scrutiny is dangerous personal intrusion (Farage and Yusuf) and criticism of Farage’s undeclared financial gifts are intended to deny him the personal security that he needs (Aaron Banks).
Further, claims of exploitation are themselves incitement, apparently: Isabel Oakeshott amplified a claim (since deleted) by one “Stand Up To Marxism” to have reported the journalist Dan Hodges to police for harassment of Farage:
Hodges has posted about Nigel Farage and Reform 52 times across approximately 43 posts and replies on X in just eight days. Many are direct quote-tweets and aggressive replies clearly targeting Farage personally.
A significant number of these posts accuse Farage and Reform MP’s of politicising the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and repeated attacks on Nigel Farage’s security procedures and finances with personal derogatory comments, and appear to incite others against him and the party.
Hodges appears to be a particular hate figure for Reform supporters at the moment, with Oakeshott’s partner Richard Tice demanding he apologise for various unspecified statements.
Notes
1. The detail of “Russian communist literature” was mentioned online by Dan Wootton a couple of hours before the Mail item appeared. It is doubtful that the Mail relied on him; but did the paper wait for him to “break ranks” before they published?
2. Hall goes on to refer to Southport, where police countered false claims that the suspect was an asylum seeker by confirming it was someone born in Cardiff. This deviated from usual practice relating to an arrested suspect who had not yet been charged, and there was the added problem that the suspect was minor and so reporting restrictions applied. Hall thinks police ought to have gone further, not its not clear what exactly he thinks would have been legal and he shows no concern as regards potential downsides. Inevitably, populists allege that “born in Cardiff” was an attempt to mislead on ethnicity, and when a local newspaper found the detail that he sang in a church choir this was became characterised as an attempt by “the authorities” to present him as a “Welsh choirboy” and by implication as white rather than of Rwandan heritage.
3. A potential communist killer could be helpful to recent MAGA narratives about a supposed communist threat in the USA.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »
