Police launch an investigation into Ann Widdecombe death

eazybee

Oh dear.
Would you send a letter or card of condolence starting with, I didn't like your husband's methods of running his business, or I didn't agree with her stance on net zero........but I am very sorry to hear of death of..........?
Perhaps because people post on social media it becomes anonymous, and more about that person's feelings rather than what was the original purpose, an expression of sorrow designed to bring comfort to the bereaved.

Oh dear, it too made me smile.

I am one of those, on AW death, who did publicly post here I didn’t agree with her views etc.

No, I would not say this directly to one of her family of friends, nor would I out this in a condolence card.

Anyone, like me, who has stated this, followed by a short message of condolence, probably (like me) have mixed feelings.

It was said in good faith and a mark of respect.

What AW believed, stood for, spoke about, went far beyond politics.

I guess what I was saying was despite this, I’m sorry she’s died, and later, how horrified I was at the manner of her death.

I would add, that if someone wishes to start a thread of condolences, which this clearly isn’t, I would have no objection and if I wished to contribute would not mention my personal feelings about her views. This is our N&P thread.

Personally, I dont have any objection with people saying "I didnt agree with her beliefs but.."
Much better that than say nothing, or say something horrid. Which appears to be happening elsewhere on social media.

Cossy

I would add, that if someone wishes to start a thread of condolences, which this clearly isn’t, I would have no objection and if I wished to contribute would not mention my personal feelings about her views. This is our N&P thread.

I tried to point out the same, it's quite apparent this is a N&P thread. Ann Widdecombe was known for her very outspoken views and opinions; it was her trademark in politics and in public discussions and debates on various matters - she was a very articulate and forthright person, and - in regards to a comment about one of her colleagues, Michael Howard - quite witty. She was energetic, involved and active, right up to her death.

Posters are entitled to a view - even when expressing their shock - and sadness - that her life was taken in such a horrible way. It isn't disrespectful, this is not a condolence thread - it's a mixture of both. If posters want a thread where views and opinions are muted - start a condolence thread. I'll post on it leaving out my thoughts other than the single one that I am genuinely sorry to have heard about her death.

AW was a defender of free speech, and that is what we are exercising on this thread. No-one, as far as I can see, has been disrespectful to her.

I believe that when John Smith died she said that people shouldn’t change the opinion they had of them when they were alive just because they’re dead.

fancythat

Personally, I dont have any objection with people saying "I didnt agree with her beliefs but.."
Much better that than say nothing, or say something horrid. Which appears to be happening elsewhere on social media.

Which appears to be happening elsewhere on social media.

I've had to curtail my daily visit to other SM sites, for that reason.

Some of the comments are so shocking that it's hard to comprehend these are made by your fellow human beings. I think, for me, the worst are those that indicate a casual attitude towards brutality and violence, where the poster treats this as a joke - often adding lines of laughing emojis at the end of their - frequently illiterate - observations.

Social media is both a blessing and a curse. It's given everyman a voice - which is a wonderful concept, but I'm not sure how intellectually and emotionally ready society was prepared for it.

I've said enough on this thread now. I hope the police can soon officially make a charge against the perpetrator, what AW's family are going through now must be pretty horrible, trying to come to terms with the manner of her death.

MartavTaurus

Padstow13

The current police information is very confusing: the murder has "not been declared a terrorist incident" and yet the counter-terrorist police have taken charge of it all.

It either is or it isn't. Or is there some odd kind of rivalry as regards who is running any investigation?

I'm confused too, flabbergasted even.
And the Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police said over the weekend, This is clearly British policing at its very best.

It's not "rivalry". it's two distinct arms of legal enforcement with different rules of engagement, working together to a common end.

Like different medical specialties working on the same patient in theatre have different roles with a common aim.

It's been explained multiple times on GN that the initial arrest was under PACE, whose powers of detention and investigation are different from the range of enquiries and length of detention under counter-terrorism. It's apparent that after his arrest the preliminary searches by police uncovered one or more grounds to engage counter-terrorism's extra powers.

So, butterandjam, would Devon and Cornwall Police have referred the case to counter-terrorism, or would counter-terrorism have said, oi, we're taking this one off you? If the latter, does that not then imply they were already aware of potential criminal activity?

Here's the timeline.

www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/timeline-ann-widdecombe-rollercoaster-murder-11058721

Some of the comments are so shocking that it's hard to comprehend these are made by your fellow human beings. I think, for me, the worst are those that indicate a casual attitude towards brutality and violence

Some peoples' attitudes, and I presume then their actions, are of a very low standard.

Thank you. Yes, Devonlive is my daily, as I live in the county. It is easy to read (!), whether it is 100% accurate, I'm not so sure because it often lacks depth.

Anyway, I was looking for the answer as to how counter-terrorism police instigated the take over of the case. It says, Counter-terrorism officers take over the investigation and rearrest the 28-year-old on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Did they take over because THEY knew something D & C P were not privy to? In which case should they not have been involved from the start instead of our girce arresting the wrong person, and quite frankly being made to look a bit inept.

* force not girce!

Brutality and violence against women

MartavTaurus

Thank you. Yes, Devonlive is my daily, as I live in the county. It is easy to read (!), whether it is 100% accurate, I'm not so sure because it often lacks depth.

Anyway, I was looking for the answer as to how counter-terrorism police instigated the take over of the case. It says, Counter-terrorism officers take over the investigation and rearrest the 28-year-old on suspicion of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. Did they take over because THEY knew something D & C P were not privy to? In which case should they not have been involved from the start instead of our girce arresting the wrong person, and quite frankly being made to look a bit inept.

I’m guessing they were contacted, and when their initial search revealed he was not known to PREVENT, in the absence of that the local force led, until his devices were checked and it was found that he did have red flags. I could be completely wrong though.

There is still too much that doesn’t add up. The suspect’s neighbours report that he was a recluse who rarely left his house and whose car was so seldom used that there were weeds all around it. Yet he manages to drive nearly 300 miles in a very short time.

Just read that Police are considering “left wing motive” in the murder investigation.

Last night I heard this dreadful crime described as an assassination.

MayBee70

I believe that when John Smith died she said that people shouldn’t change the opinion they had of them when they were alive just because they’re dead.

And she was right of course, it’s amazing how many people, both public and private individuals are suddenly almost saints after they’ve died.I’ve been at funerals where I don’t recognise the person who’s died as their eulogies have been so OTT.

Tho I do think, where someone has been murdered or was a suicide more care should be taken with what is said or written about them.

Ditto.
Except one which I wasnt there.
It was done in all reality.

Of post 9.01am

Oreo

Tho I do think, where someone has been murdered or was a suicide more care should be taken with what is said or written about them.

Sometimes those can be private.
Known two.
One was where the family had already had a lot of recent deaths, and I dont think could cope with another public funeral.
The other one, there were several autopsies involved.

if he was a recluse and not much is known about him, I suppose it would be difficult for him to be on PREVENTs radar anyway

I am sure that the police are doing their best and co-operating with any branch of law enforcement that might be able to help. This man is out of circulation and I am very pleased about that.

They have acted speedily and I am grateful for that.

The full details will come out as the investigation proceeds.

Oreo

MayBee70

I believe that when John Smith died she said that people shouldn’t change the opinion they had of them when they were alive just because they’re dead.

And she was right of course, it’s amazing how many people, both public and private individuals are suddenly almost saints after they’ve died.I’ve been at funerals where I don’t recognise the person who’s died as their eulogies have been so OTT.

Only saints die apparently!

Luckygirl3

I am sure that the police are doing their best and co-operating with any branch of law enforcement that might be able to help. This man is out of circulation and I am very pleased about that.

They have acted speedily and I am grateful for that.

The full details will come out as the investigation proceeds.

I expect the police are doing their best, now.

But that was not the case at the beginning, especially hearing today on Radio 4, Jonathan Hall KC, the government's independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, saying that he was "slightly surprised" the Devon and Cornwall Police force had guided the public away from the idea of there being a potential political element in the first place.

I am not knocking the police in general without reason, but this is my police force, and along with others in the constabulary, I feel the error needs to be addressed fully. We need to trust our local force.
Of course, the investigation will have more answers.

Interesting discussion about this on The Rest is Politics.