Police launch an investigation into Ann Widdecombe death

LemonJam

HH is not the first person to make vile, morally repugnant comments and sadly won’t be the last.

Such comments rightly attract public indignation- and the public then can focus back to focus dignity on the subject of such comments to correct the vile subversion.

The comments were completely unacceptable in every way and if that’s “free speech” online then frankly gawd help us all!

There are new online laws designed to specifically stop posts such as these.

There’s such a massive difference between stating you didn’t like Anne Widdecombes beliefs (and I didn’t) and the things HH stated.

I guess if it’s lawful it’s up to us to openly condemn remarks such as these, which I do!

Oh dear!

Daily Mail, this morning, have reported SW murder was politically motivated (in their opinion) as police report a lot of communist literature found in the suspects house.

AW had been giving interviews in the week before her death.

It’s a sad sad day (again) in our country that anyone, let alone an elderly lady, should be murdered for her political views, however extreme they might be considered.

Extremism at either end of the political spectrum can be very dangerous.

I’m not sure that there was one thing AW said (politically) with which I agreed, but to murder her because of them is utterly abhorrent.

May she eventually RIP and her family and friends be able to grieve.

Every MP in the HoC has already condemned this murder.

Events such as this often unite rather than divide.

I pray this happens in our country and no one seeks to use this murder to their political advantage.

Cossy

LemonJam

HH is not the first person to make vile, morally repugnant comments and sadly won’t be the last.

Such comments rightly attract public indignation- and the public then can focus back to focus dignity on the subject of such comments to correct the vile subversion.

The comments were completely unacceptable in every way and if that’s “free speech” online then frankly gawd help us all!

There are new online laws designed to specifically stop posts such as these.

There’s such a massive difference between stating you didn’t like Anne Widdecombes beliefs (and I didn’t) and the things HH stated.

I guess if it’s lawful it’s up to us to openly condemn remarks such as these, which I do!

I agree it's up to us to us to condemn the comments.

Which I and others did.

Jenrick on the news this morning saying this murder demonstrates the need for Farage to have more police security. Is this horrible murder of an old woman with strong links to Reform being used to bolster Farage's need for the £5 million from Christopher Harborne? I sincerely hope not. If I was advising Reform or Farage I'd say keep well away from going down that particular road.

There are new on line laws designed to stop this....

Never forget that a law that seems to be supporting your position now, can always be used against you in the future.
I prefer that people show us who they are by their own actions.

Maybe a tightening of the 'incitement to violence' position would be more beneficial.
At the moment there us a big push to 'control' the narrative on line.

Vintagewhine

Jenrick on the news this morning saying this murder demonstrates the need for Farage to have more police security. Is this horrible murder of an old woman with strong links to Reform being used to bolster Farage's need for the £5 million from Christopher Harborne? I sincerely hope not. If I was advising Reform or Farage I'd say keep well away from going down that particular road.

The Home Secretary has requested a meeting with Nigel Farage to discuss his and his fellow MP’s security in the light of Ann Widecombe’s murder and the ongoing investigation.

I will wait to see the outcome rather than throw accusations into the internet.

Why do so many people find it necessary to point out how much they disliked Ann Widdecombe's political views before
writing condolences about her tragic death.
Surely there is no need to refer to her political stance?
It seems almost an apology for expressing sympathy.

Farage is a man who so far
has survived being hit by a car, testicular cancer, a wheel coming off his car on a French motorway and a plane crash.

Now the very sad murder of Ann Widecombe has happened.

No one can hardly blame the man for being a bit alarmed for his safety, going forward.

Lucy Donnelly’s admitted her offence and was convicted for inciting racial hatred:

Inciting racial hatred is a criminal offence primarily governed by the Public Order Act 1986. It is illegal to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words, behaviour, or material intended or likely to stir up racial hatred” punishable by up to 7 years in prison

The legislation strictly defines the law against stirring up racial hatred:

The Offence Using threatening, abusive, or insulting language/behaviour, or publishing, distributing, or displaying inflammatory material.
Intent vs. Likelihood In England and Wales, a conviction requires proof that the perpetrator intended to stir up racial hatred, or that, in all circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up.
Penalties The maximum custodial sentence for stirring up racial hatred is 7 years imprisonment.
Hate Crimes as Aggravators For lesser offences not charged as incitement racial hostility acts as a statutory aggravating factor.

Under the Sentencing Act 2020, judges are directed to impose more severe penalties for crimes motivated by racial hostility.
Specific jurisdictions within the UK (such as Scotland under the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021) may have expanded hate crime legislation with varying thresholds regarding intent and protected characteristics.

HH- online hate in context of legal framework:

Under UK law, posting vile or offensive opinions is not a crime by itself but it becomes illegal if the content crosses the threshold into targeted harassment, credible threats, or hate speech. Several key pieces of legislation govern online communication:

Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) It is an offence to send a message via a public electronic communications network (such as social media) that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing.
Malicious Communications Act 1988 It is illegal to send any communication that is indecent, grossly offensive, conveys a threat, or contains false information, provided it is done with the intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.
Hate Speech & Public Order Abusive or offensive speech that stirs up hatred or harasses someone based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, or transgender identity is strictly prohibited.

While free speech allows for unpopular or offensive views, you can face criminal prosecution or police investigation if your posts target an individual to cause distress, make threats, or promote hatred.




Vintagewhine

Jenrick on the news this morning saying this murder demonstrates the need for Farage to have more police security. Is this horrible murder of an old woman with strong links to Reform being used to bolster Farage's need for the £5 million from Christopher Harborne? I sincerely hope not. If I was advising Reform or Farage I'd say keep well away from going down that particular road.

It’s absolutely clear, at least to me, that (imo) certain factions will sadly use her murder, whilst genuinely condemning it, for political ends.

It’s this what our politics have become??

One hopes that the Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) will be used swiftly against Heather Herbert for his deeply offensive, and disturbing, comments concerning Ann Widdecombe's death.

eazybee

Why do so many people find it necessary to point out how much they disliked Ann Widdecombe's political views before
writing condolences about her tragic death.
Surely there is no need to refer to her political stance?
It seems almost an apology for expressing sympathy.

I disagree, her order does appear to be politically motivated. Those of us who are expressing our dislike of her views, (and she was a very strong woman with very strong views and unafraid to shout them out as loudly as she could), can also condemn the nature of her death.

eazybee

One hopes that the Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) will be used swiftly against Heather Herbert for his deeply offensive, and disturbing, comments concerning Ann Widdecombe's death.

I too hope so.

fancythat

Farage is a man who so far
has survived being hit by a car, testicular cancer, a wheel coming off his car on a French motorway and a plane crash.

Now the very sad murder of Ann Widecombe has happened.

No one can hardly blame the man for being a bit alarmed for his safety, going forward.

I think all MPs should be very aware of their own safety.

Are you suggesting, that all those events you’ve mentioned are somehow deliberate politically motivated acts? Surely not?

No.

Do you think the more outspoken , and the MPs more in the public eye should have better security than the others?

This may well be better talked about on a new thread, so as to take it off the Ann Widdecombe one.

eazybee

Why do so many people find it necessary to point out how much they disliked Ann Widdecombe's political views before
writing condolences about her tragic death.
Surely there is no need to refer to her political stance?
It seems almost an apology for expressing sympathy.

I agree, it's odd. But people often do here on Gransnet - 'I don't often agree with your views, XX, but on this occasion. . .'

There is no reason why someone can't have views that don't fit neatly into 'left', 'right' or whatever, is there? So many people think they are in the centre, but that's because they are judging what is right or left from that standpoint.

I might more usually agree with some people than others, but I take each topic as it arises and decide based on what I think, not what my politics dictate. I'd worry if my viewpoints were 'dyed in the wool' - I prefer to think for myself.

Cossy

eazybee

One hopes that the Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) will be used swiftly against Heather Herbert for his deeply offensive, and disturbing, comments concerning Ann Widdecombe's death.

I too hope so.

That is one route of possible prosecution. The CPS would only ever prosecute if they assess a likelihood of success of securing a conviction ie 51% or more chance of a jury finding a verdict of guilty.

My next comment is to explain legal defence not to express a personal view about AW.

HH's line of defence may be:
1) to draw attention to comments AW has made in public and online that similarly may be construed under the same Communications Act 2003 (Section 127) as grossly offensive etc and HH's case is their comments were made in that context and in response.
2) Free speech laws apply to HH exactly as they did to AW and she did not face prosecution.

Can you imagine the public horror of AW's family and loved ones if the trial, reading the detail of lines of defence and verdict (i.e. jury may find not guilty on the basis HH was expressing free speech, albeit vile and offensive as did AW) was luridly reported in the media day by day?

A jury would be less likely to convict if any of jury members found AW's opinion's offensive. That impacts on likelihood of conviction success which the CPS must take into consideration. Secondly and importantly the CPS must consider is it in the Public Interest to prosecute, in context of AW's death and awful circumstances thereby bringing her communications history into media spotlight?

My view would be to allow AW to RIP. HH to face public condemnation and employment disciplinary process- ie gross misconduct- bringing her employer into disrepute - dismissal without benefits- hard to seek similar employment.

Someone upthread asked if people were apologising for expressing sympathy.

I think we are actually saying that in spite of some of her ideas and beliefs we wouldn't wish this on her and those who loved her.

It seems to be a normal reaction to me.

NotSpaghetti

Someone upthread asked if people were apologising for expressing sympathy.

I think we are actually saying that in spite of some of her ideas and beliefs we wouldn't wish this on her and those who loved her.

It seems to be a normal reaction to me.

It seems to be a normal reaction to me.

- and me.

I would've thought it's fairly obvious that we are counteracting some of the pretty vile comments made on various social media sites and pointing out that it's normal and human to strongly dislike someone's politics and ideology and, at the same time not wish them harm and be sorry that they met such a horrible end to their life.

I agree Dickens and NotSphagetti. None of us wished AW harm and all have been shocked at her murder- which AW, indeed no one, despite their opinions, ever deserves.

That AW was a prominent public figure, who previously was an MP and has remained outspoken on contentious political matters, who voiced orally and online her strongly held opinions that may have upset the subjects of her opinions STILL does not warrant her death.

It does explain however how people can abhor her murder but want to engage in the various Gransnet posts that raise all manner of interesting issues from the law to state funded security etc.

AW would be the first to allow and encourage free speech and debate.

I feel it is inappropriate at the first acknowledgement of death, particularly one that was so unexpected, before we knew the horrible details.
Time and a place for debate, certainly, but an expression of condolence is not the place for it.

*Why do so many people find it necessary to point out how much they disliked Ann Widdecombe's political views before
writing condolences about her tragic death*

Because it is possible to think and feel more than one thing concurrently.

The same way people say X has died suddenly, he was a great actor.