Police investigating death of Ann Widdicombe

[GoodHonest]

Very strange

They had 8 until Farage's latest drama, so now 7. The only coalition possible to make a majority would be with Labour, which isn't needed because Labour already have a majority on their own. No idea where this idea of a possible Reform coalition came from but it's not happening.

🤣🤣

It’s being risk assessed now. Including death threats.

My point was about stereotypes that "Reform nutters" (presumably such as myself) hold - not a statement of fact regarding the case, but information that may be useful to you to update your mental model of how we think :)

You can find posts by me from several days ago talking about people with uncertain/unclear political ideology but radicalised online. This is probably still my current hypothesis.

Death threats are obviously terrible, but not uncommon. It is a terrible state of affairs. How did we get here?

Has Farage said a single word about the fact that many MPs recieve threats of death and rape (600 in one night for one MP) or is he just making it all about him?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/14/mp-death-threats-daily-reality-increasing-climate-abuse-intimidation

From that article:

Jess Phillips has received so many death threats she has to remind herself not to be blase. One night she received more than 600 rape threats. In 2019, a man forced his way into her office. The same year a white supremacist sent her a picture of Jo Cox, her friend and fellow Labour MP who was murdered in 2016, accompanied with the message: “I will have you dealt with.”
[...]
In recent days parliamentarians have spoken about the impact of threats on their lives. Nigel Farage revealed he is receiving more than 300 threats a month, with Reform UK recording 1,577 threats against their leader since February.

The trade minister Chris Bryant said he had received countless death threats, while in the Commons on Monday the longstanding Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin said MPs were “more likely to meet a violent death than a member of His Majesty’s armed forces or a member of the British police forces”.
[...]
Protection for MPs has improved, said Phillips, but the threat to MPs had to be tackled at its source.

“Everybody who’s ever attacked me has read a load of untrue stuff online that they had been fed by their algorithm,” she said. “We need to have a very serious conversation about the algorithmic curated content [...]"

I caught much of the parliamentary debate after Shabana Mahmood's statement to the House about the death of Ann Widdecombe. It was a combined celebration of her life (many very touching things said) and discussion of the huge increase in threats to MPs and consequent security issues.

The one thing that was mentioned again and again was that social media is being used to drive these threats.

On the regular occasions that the shit hits the fan, the social media companies try to pretend they're invisible, and to keep the focus solely on the human who wielded the real-world weapon.

But the companies' profits depend upon engagement. So they farm our attention with whatever grabs it most. Emotions of anger, hatred or outrage are strong, reliable drivers of engagement, so that's what they farm. Whether it's a story about a cheeky fucker next door neighbour, or death threats against this week's Hate Target, it's all creating profit for the companies.

So no, they're not invisible. They're curating what we read in order to manage us, to manage our emotions, to keep us right where they want us: glued to their sites.

I'm saying all this on Mumsnet, so clearly I'm not against the existence of social media. But there are some behaviours by social media companies which are a massive, massive problem for those of us who have to live in the world they now dominate.

So no, they're not invisible. They're curating what we read in order to manage us, to manage our emotions, to keep us right where they want us: glued to their sites

So maybe the answer is we stop using the sites? Or at least perhaps stop engaging with certain types of discussions, the ones which get people arguing and angry (and obviously earn the most revenue for the sites) and are frequently started in less than good faith.

I honestly don't know what to do.

We don't have to be posting on a site to be earning it revenue – we just need to be looking at it. That's why outrage-farming is so valuable to the companies which do this: even when we don't say anything, they profit from the click.

BTW I don't think MN is a particularly awful actor in this space. Although they've now added that list of "if you liked that you might like this", the list doesn't seem to prioritise outrage-driven stuff, and it isn't constantly in your face desperate to suck you in to the next thread. Anyway MN being a heavily managed site rather than near free-for-all gets rid of a lot of the worst stuff.

So apart from the silly attempt at ascribing a political position to me, the real answer to my question is that AFAYK that evaluation was made before the murder of a high profile member of Farage's party.

It's pretty obvious that the risk evaluation since then has changed massively.

I remember learning that when Herbert Asquith became Prime Minister in 1908, the king was holidaying in Biarritz and so wasn't available to do the naming stuff: So rather than interrupt the king's holiday, Asquith secretly caught the boat train (alone AFAIK) for Paris and travelled to the king instead.

I'm not usually much for nostalgia, but it's tragic that that would now be unimaginable.

You stated that I was apparently obssessed with Farage so my response was a bit of tit for tat.

With regards to security, the updated risk assessment has undoubtely been carried out by now, as stated in my last post. Had the risk to Farrage been assessed as greater, he would have been offered better security. So I think it safe to assume that there is not such threat as his security has not been upgraded.

LOL that's so childish that there's no point in me continuing the "discussion". I mistakenly thought it was all adults on this site.

It hasn’t concluded yet.

Do you have inside information to state that? The risk assessment is the first thing to be carried out in such occasions to rule out a threat to others. So as things stand now there is no greater thread than before the murder.

People like Andy Burnham?

It’s not inside it’s in the news. Look up Ravec and the current situation, it’ll be there for you too.

The only thing which comes up is Jenrick frothing. So I don’t believe there is any change. However, you can always post a link if this really exists.

Count Binface

How are you missing it even on looking?

On 13 July 2026, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood formally offered Farage a meeting with the chair of Ravec. The offer followed heightened security concerns after the death of Reform UK politician Ann Widdecombe. about:blank 1, 2]

Farage publicly accepted the invitation on X the same day. He stated he intends to use the session to discuss security measures for all Reform UK politicians, including those who are not sitting MPs. about:blank 1, 2]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/13/mahmood-offers-farage-security-meeting-after-ann-widdecombe-death

Is Google limited for you? Not sure why you couldn’t find it easily.

She offered him a MEETING. Not increased security. To discuss concerns, no doubt raised by him and his supporters.
This is so predictable.
Farage faces scrutiny over the £5m.
He resigns and enters by election to show that his voters don’t care.
To his disappointment it turns out that Binface can win the seat.
Surprise, surprise Nigel now states that £5 m was his security as his life is at risk. The same Nigel who turned down the offer of armed security.
All to pull wool over his faithful believers’ eyes. And it is working.

What will come next? Is he going to pull “a Prince Harry” and take them to court?

I said already the outcome isn’t yet known. Wait for after the meeting.

If there was a threat they wouldn’t have waited for a meeting but acted immediately. This suggests it is to ‘calm his nerves’.
I think discussing this with you is pointless so I will stop here.

Ok if that’s what you think go with that. You seem embedded in whatever and not able to google stuff so happy to leave it there.