Ann Widdecombe Thread 2

[dapsnotplimsolls]

Continue ...

People are going to chat shit online regardless (including on platforms not owned by the UK). If otherwise strong cases are regularly getting thrown out because someone might have seen commentary online (just as they might have chatted with their neighbours over the fence in the past) then perhaps we should raise the bar for what's considered prejudicial.

You should certainly start a campaign for legal reform if that is important to you.

As it is we have the legal system we have, and anyone truly concerned about AW's killer being brought to justice should understand the consequences of on-line speculation.

What is the current bar for prejudice of a trial?

Let's discuss some recent cases that were thrown out

Mumsnet likes to imply that anything more than "RIP Ann" might be risky (hmm, is that a bit much? it might be implying she's the victim of the crime, maybe it was a fight that she instigated and Mr 300 Miles killed her in self-defence?). Discussing articles published in the Times is definitely too far according to this thread.

So where is the current bar?

If R4 and The Times have mentioned the trip and cctv footage then posters who don’t want to see it mentioned are probably better off hiding the thread.

Mn monetises chat too and engagement on any topic makes someone money. The only way for someone to avoid doing that is to just not look and engage.

If it’s in the media it’ll be on mn.

I wonder how much the neighbour got for selling the CCTV footage? It seems very mercenary.

What happens if it turns out not be him, like the previous person the police questioned

They aren’t looking for anyone else, and the other guy was released quickly.

i would assume that as much as its to be proven in court they likely have the guy, and are right now compiling all the evidence, from cctv to dna, prior to charging.

and cctv won’t just mean him getting in his car, it will be following his car the full 300 miles and back again. Following his car on ring door bells uo her lane etc.

there will be a lot the police are not saying, from the motive to the murder weapon, to the cctv to the dna, to even if he’s admitting or denying it.

to drive 300 miles to go and bludgeon Anne widdecombe to death is really fucking shocking, I clearly don’t know but I’m going to guess this man is not super smart. It’s no professional hit man or master criminal, the fact they have him so quickly would indicate potentially he left a lot of evidence, he may even have confessed, who knows.

but the police won’t issue details as they won’t want to prejudice the case. The most we will hear is he’s been charged or released, fit for trial or not, remanded in custody or not, what he pleads at pre trial, until the trial itself.

Whatever happens next, there will be huge pressure - rightly so - on Abderdeen University terminating Heather Herbert's employment. I can't type what I really feel about that person.

I understand what you say. 'Party political' is not the same as remembering, for instance, what an MP said in a debate 30 years ago.

if it's not him the police will release him. Can I ask you what you think would happen if it turns out not to be him?

I’m just thinking about the video and other information about him being shared in the newspapers etc if it turns out not be him. We’ve seen it before where some innocent has been hounded/‘convicted’ when their image etc has been plastered across the papers

People don't care about that, as we have seen on this thread. We are told not to look if we don't like it.

The police will have to charge him soon or apply for an extension to keep him in custody.

You were complaining about people reading articles and monetising the issue. You do know that applies to mn too? It makes money from your posts on AW as any media does.

They will get up to 96 hours with the severity of the crime. It’s a formality.

I didn't complain about people reading articles. People can read what they want. I simply agreed with the poster who pointed out clicks equal money.

And yes I know MN makes money out of these and all other threads. If I was a better person I'd leave.

Ok, thanks.

Do you live under a rock? You know there’s a thing called Google, right?

Of course the left has become more violent, especially in the US and UK. Just the Jew hatred alone tells you that.

Of course clicks equal money including on here with this thread titled AW 2. There’s no moral high ground in engaging on the topic on here v wider media, as previously claimed.

Contemptible. I read a great quote about the hard left:

"The underlying values of leftism are envy, hate, unequal treatment under law and order and violence"

That suitably describes Herbert and the rest of the Greens.

And the right who incite riots every week?

There’s no moral high ground in engaging on the topic on here v wider media, as previously claimed

I have never said there is and I actually acknowledged that in my post, which you have quoted, but possibly not read properly. But I can choose who makes money put of me and I choose to not allow the Mail to do so. (Mostly🤭). No moral high ground, just a personal choice.☺️

Every week? Nope. Every week is the left walking alongside antisemites

The issue below was the DM monetising AW crime in particular, you and the other poster felt strongly no one should monetise the topic. Mn are due to this thread.

You’ve gone in strong on an article without considering your posts on AW are making someone money anyway.

I have acknowledged that MN makes money out of me posting here. More than once. I am not sure why you are making this so personal.

I wish nobody was monetising Ann Widdecombe's murder or making political capital from it. But sadly we don't live in that kind of world.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jul/13/ann-widdecombe-counter-terrorism-police-investigation