Anthony Stinson: Categorising a Killer

 

As regular readers know - some would say only too well - I have an abiding interest in the all-too-common murders of innocent members of the public by mental health patients. And there are far too many, as I have recorded and the "100 Families" website has meticulously catalogued for a number of years. For this reason, I took an interest in the horrific killing of the young lady in the photo above: Charlotte Wilcock. 

In previous posts on this topic, I have been truly shocked by details of the murderous attacks. The cases of Nicola Edgington and Jonty Bravery spring to mind, but nothing matches the horror of the unprovoked attack on Charlotte Wilcock in Blackburn on March 3rd, by  31-year old Anthony Stinson.

The details of the attack, related briefly, are staggering in their horror. As the BBC says: 

"Anthony Stinson, 31, kicked and stamped on Charlotte Wilcock at her Blackburn home just after 21:00 GMT on 3 March before stabbing her multiple times."

Exactly how long this assault lasted is unclear, but Charlotte was left with about 100 injuries, including many wounds to her hands from where she attempted to defend herself. Even by writing these sparse details, I felt a sudden chill. Ms Wilcock had been peacefully smoking a cigarette, sat on her front doorstep, when Stinson, a passer-by, had launched his attack. As the Lancashire Telegraph says:

"The pair had never met before that night, and Stinson then continued the attack inside the address, eventually leaving her body behind the front door".

Ms Wilcock's 15-month baby daughter was asleep upstairs and was not found until next day.

When I first stumbled across this story, I assumed that Stinson was yet another psychotic killer who should have been sectioned under the mental health acts. In fact, after his arrest, that was the tenor of his defence. Lancashire Police said Stinson changed his clothing and buried Charlotte's phone after the attack, before walking away and using a passer-by's phone to call the police. When interviewed, he claimed to have had a psychotic episode and - perhaps significantly - seen the devil. In fact, he said that he thought Charlotte was the devil. The BBC comments: "a defence he maintained until the first day of his trial, when he changed his plea to guilty after psychiatric reports failed to support his claims".

I found this remarkable. After all, surely his unprovoked attack on a complete stranger indicated mental disturbance - didn't it? Apparently not. An hour before the attack, Stinson recorded a rap video, in which he and a friend described killing someone. And, as the Manchester Evening News says:

"CCTV footage also showed that just 15 minutes earlier, he had been well enough to make conversation with a local shopkeeper while buying alcohol and cigarettes".

Assuming Stinson's defence was calculated, and he was not undergoing a psychotic episode, then what motivated such a horrific crime? How else can we explain it? Stinson had been taking drugs and was drunk, but that is neither an explanation or an excuse. As the Lancashire Telegraph says:

"Despite Stinson telling police he saw the devil that night, doctors could find no determinate underlying mental health conditions to back up his claims, save from delusions brought on by cocaine use".

Perhaps we need to know more about him, and that's worth looking at in detail.

Stinson, a former chef, has a history of violent, disturbing crime. In 2013, aged 21, he raped a teenage girl as she slept after a house party.
In April 2014 he was sentenced to five years in prison for the attack.
Stinson pleaded not guilty to this offence, but in an act that would be replicated some 10 years later, he changed his plea on the day of his trial, admitting to what he had done.
 In 2019, he was spared jail for throttling his new partner.
In April 2019, Preston Crown Court heard how on two separate occasions, he attempted to strangle his partner, following arguments which happened after evenings of heavy drinking.
At the time of those assaults, Stinson also headbutted a window belonging to a cinema, causing £265 of damage. Perhaps he didn't like the movie?
The couple remained together despite the victim telling him she wanted to end the relationship, but on February 3, Stinson once again tried to strangle his partner.
For this, Stinson was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years. He was ordered to attend a six-month alcohol treatment programme, complete 15 of rehabilitation activity requirement days, attend the building better relationships programme and pay £265 compensation to the cinema.
Prior to killing Charlotte on March 3, Stinson had 11 convictions, comprising 26 offences.
His suspended sentence for the assault on his partner ended in April 2021, just two years before he carried out his attack on Charlotte.

It's difficult to categorise this kind of behaviour, even more difficult to prescribe a remedy. Stinson is clearly a violent man, with a propensity towards violence against women. Put (very) simplistically: is he mad or is he evil?

Whatever we think, we can breathe easily at the fact that he has been sentenced to 24 years and two months. He will be 55, if and when he gets out. Assuming, of course, that he isn't released early on licence like Colin Pitchfork. 

Charlotte Wilcock will not see 55. Her two children will grow up without her, and her family will mourn her loss for the rest of their lives. As Charlotte's mum, Carole Smalley, quoted in the Manchester Evening News, said after Stinson was sentenced:

"I loved her deeply and miss her terribly," Ms Smalley said. "I don’t think the feeling of loss and missing her will ever stop. I often think that I may be slowly moving forward and then I will hear a certain song or there will be a familiar smell and I am right back where I started with the most intense feelings of grief and sadness as I realise that she has gone forever."

Speaking, yet again, on behalf of all readers of this blog, I send condolences to the family of Charlotte Wilcock.

As for Anthony Stinson, he remains uncategorised.

Lee Anderson, Double Standards and TTH

 I have to thank Nick Ferrari and his team at LBC. At 7.00 am, I was listening to Nick's programme. He was discussing Lee Anderson's use of the F-word about migrants refusing to take up residence on the Bibby Stockholm barge. As we know, Mr Anderson uttered these edifying words:

“If they don’t like barges then they should f*** off back to France,"

As I would have expected, the calls to Nick Ferrari were generally supportive of Anderson, but I decided to make a contribution by way of a text message. To my surprise, Nick Ferrari read it out on air. A surprise indeed, as mine was one of the few contributions that did not support 30p Lee's outburst. I said this:

"If any further proof were needed that the Tory party has changed into UKIP, 30p Lee's outburst proves it conclusively"

I have to admit, I was pleased with that, as all the other callers were giving Anderson fulsome praise, so I was glad to sound a note of dissent. And indeed, Anderson's remark is the type of comment I'd expect to hear from a UKIP, English Defence League or National Front member. 

So - how has it been received in wider politics?  Natasha Tsangarides of Freedom from Torture said: “Time and time again, we’re seeing Government ministers amping up the cruelty of their anti-refugee rhetoric to distract from their own catastrophic mismanagement of both the asylum system and of this country. The dehumanising and inflammatory language used by certain politicians is putting people seeking sanctuary in this country at real risk.”

Senior Tories, however, have rallied round their Vice Chairman. As the Independent says:

 Justice secretary Alex Chalk defended his colleague Mr Anderson’s “f*** off back to France” comment – arguing that it was “salty” language but his point was “not unreasonable”.

Chalk told LBC that Anderson “expresses the righteous indignation of the British people” and said his “indignation is well placed”.

But what of the Prime Minister? Was he not shocked at this senior party official using an obscenity in public? Er... not quite. Downing Street endorsed Chalk's defence of Anderson, saying: “The justice secretary was speaking on behalf of the government. That is the response."

Which leads me to the "double standards" and the "TTH" of the title. This whole disgraceful affair has shown yet again, how, according to this government, there is one rule for Tory MPs and another for the rest of us. Had a Labour or LibDem politician uttered this obscenity in public, the Prime Minister, cabinet and the whole Tory Party would have been simmering with outrage, calling for the miscreant to be hounded out of Parliament. No sign of that. Instead, we have seen what I call "TTH" - Typical Tory Hypocrisy. 

What a shame that Keir Starmer is not leading the call for such measures to be taken against Mr Anderson. As "The National" says:

"Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s home affairs spokesperson, said: “Keir Starmer's silence on Lee Anderson’s despicable comments speaks volumes for the state of the Labour Party.
It shouldn't be so difficult for Keir Starmer to call out this shameful and racist language. But as we have seen too often, Keir Starmer seems incapable of doing the right thing"

I don't want to get bogged down in the details of the Bibby Stockholm barge and its facilities. Tabloid journalist, Carol Malone was making a major issue of it (shouting like a fishwife - no disrespect to fishwives) on the Jeremy Vine TV programme this morning. Rather, I think I discern a wider issue emerging. From the Evening Standard: 

"Labour MP Rupa Huq accused the Tories of “desperate gutter politics”, adding it “looks like they are trying to regain their reputation as the nasty party”.

Rupa Huq's words could well be prescient. The number of calls to LBC and Jeremy Vine this morning showed that there is a bigoted, anti-migrant section of opinion out there, who really believe they are part of a majority in this country. This "lobby", if they deserve that term, range from people who want to stop "illegal" immigration to the extreme Right who want to expel all minorities from our shores. As the Tories will enter the next election with absolutely nothing to boast about, becoming the Nasty Party towards migrants might be worth their while. Instead of focussing on real issues, scapegoating may be seen as a way to attract votes - rather like during the Brexit campaign. In other words, the Conservative Party could become a sort of diluted National Front.

The next General Election campaign could be very nasty indeed. 

Lee Anderson has expressed no remorse for his foul-mouthed outburst. The leading anti-fascist organisation, Hope not Hate, has issued this statement:

"Words have consequences. HOPE not hate has recorded a huge increase in far-right anti-migrant activity. When will the Government recognise their language matters?
The Conservative Party is rapidly adopting dangerous and divisive tactics. This has to be challenged".

Agreed.

Andrew Malkinson and Innocent Prisoners

 Miscarriages of justice occur regularly in our justice system. The list of victims is lengthy: Timothy Evans, The Birmingham Six, The Bridgewater Four and Stefan Kiszko are just a few that come to mind. Lately, the name of Andrew Malkinson has been added to the list. 

The facts of Mr Malkinson's case are well enough known by now. He was jailed in 2003 for the brutal rape of a woman, then aged 33, in Salford. The victim had been walking home when she was dragged down a motorway embankment and attacked in the early hours of July 19, 2003.She had been walking home from her boyfriend's residence when her attacker, wrongly identified as Malkinson, started following her. The woman was strangled until she was unconscious. Upon waking, she ran to the nearest road to get help.

Even at the time, the evidence against Malkinson was questionable. The Bolton News, reporting during the trial, noted:

"Forensic scientists tested 29 samples, including swabs from various parts of the victim's body, her clothes, and grass from the scene, but no DNA evidence was found".

There were other discrepancies in the case against Malkinson. As The Guardian said in May:

"His case was referred to the court of appeal in January after another man’s DNA was found on the victim’s clothing. The victim said she recalled causing such a “deep scratch” to her attacker’s cheek that she broke her nail, yet Malkinson was seen by police the next day with no marks on his face".

The prosecution’s case relied on unreliable eyewitness testimony and the victim choosing Malkinson in a video lineup - despite several key details not matching the victim's description of her attacker. Incredible though it seems now, the lack of DNA evidence was explained by saying that Malkinson was “forensically aware” and had purposely left no trace.

Greater Manchester Police have apologised for their "mistakes" over Mr Malkinson. With commendable restraint, Mr Malkinson told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "The Greater Manchester Police apology... it's meaningless to me, absolutely meaningless. An apology without accountability, what is that? It's nothing, it's nothing, it means nothing."

Besides having suffered a monstrous injustice, Malkinson might be charged for his incarceration. The Mirror says here:

"Mr Malkinson has now revealed that he may have to pay for the cost of food and accommodation while he was behind bars from whatever compensation he receives. It is understood that is has been standard practice in miscarriage of justice cases since the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 came into force".

Surprisingly to me, even a senior Tory has spoken out against this. As LBC says: 

"Sir Bob Neill, the senior Tory MP who is chairman of the House of Commons Justice Committee, said: "I think any fair minded person thinks this is just wrong...:To say it's adding insult to injury is probably to put it more mildly than it deserves".

That is well said, and let's hope that a man who has suffered enough already will be spared from paying for his unjust imprisonment.

But there is one aspect of this case that has wider implications. It is something that I knew nothing of, and find it disturbing. It began with Malkinson's refusal to confess to a crime that he did not commit. The Mirror again: 

"Although he could have been let out after serving seven years if he had admitted the offence, he went on to serve a further 10 years because he insisted on his innocence".

To me, that was mind-numbing, though admirable. To languish in prison on grounds of principle is very brave. But the idea that an innocent man should be punished with more than twice the sentence length of a guilty man is beyond appalling. It has led me to an awareness of what is called the Innocent prisoner's dilemma. The innocent prisoner's dilemma is a consequence of a legal system in which confession of guilt can result in reduced sentences or early release on licence. When an innocent person is wrongly convicted, legal systems which need the individual to admit guilt punish an innocent person for their honesty, and reward unrepentant criminals. Wikipedia comments here: 

"There have been cases where innocent prisoners were given the choice between freedom, in exchange for claiming guilt, and remaining imprisoned and telling the truth. Individuals have died in prison rather than admit to crimes that they did not commit".

it seems to me that a radical rethink of the system is needed. It is intolerable to think that innocent people are in prison for crimes they did not commit - and, to his credit, Andrew Malkinson says that there are more like him. I don't pretend to have the answer. I am not a lawyer , but the Malkinson case has exposed a gross injustice that must be remedied. 

To conclude, I wish Andrew every happiness and good luck with further struggles against the system. Good luck, also, to other wrongly convicted people in jail who are fighting to prove their innocence.

Rip-Off Degrees - Halfwit Government?

 

I suppose we should all be used to diversionary tactics by this present government, but the recent "Rip-Off Degrees" controversy, stirred up by Rishi Sunak, could well be compared to dumping a load of dead cats on a table, rather than the proverbial one. Sky News reported it on the 17th of this month:

"The government has said it wants there to be a cap on the number of students who study so-called "rip-off" university degrees. The limits will be imposed on courses that have high dropout rates or a low proportion of graduates getting a professional job."

The PM was quoted as saying: 'They're (students) being taken advantage of with low-quality courses that don't lead to a job that makes it worth it, leaving them financially worse off. That's what we're clamping down on today."

Now, it does not take much thought to see that terms like "rip-off", "low-quality" and "Mickey Mouse courses" are vague and conceal more than they reveal. The government themselves do not appear to be clear on what they mean, as was shown in a remarkable Good Morning Britain interview of the minister seen above: Robert Halfon. Tory politicians are prone to making themselves look stupid, but this interview is a classic, and I recommend it for watching (click on the link). He could not define a "good job", a "Mickey Mouse degree" or a "Rip-Off course". Under exemplary questioning by Susannah Reid and Richard Madeley, Mr Halfoff  made a complete prat of himself. Even the Spectator commented adversely on his dismal performance: 

"In an interview on Good Morning Britain, higher education minister Robert Halfon couldn’t name a single degree, salary threshold or ‘good job’ against which the criteria for a ‘Mickey Mouse’ degree could be set."

The article continues:

"Studying law – a more vocational, supposedly ‘employable’ degree – at the University of Wolverhampton is not necessarily a ‘better’ idea than studying philosophy at Durham: the former has a progression rate of only 56 per cent. According to OFS, only 35 per cent of graduates who study Computing at London Metropolitan University ‘proceed’ to a positive graduate destination, and yet you rarely hear Computing being called a ‘Mickey Mouse’ degree."

This whole government "initiative" is nothing more than an attack upon social sciences, humanities and the arts, despite 58% of FTSE executives having degrees in those academic areas. And of course...as in many things, there is a good deal of Tory hypocrisy involved - in this case quite blatant. Boris Johnson gained a degree in Greek and Latin Studies (" Literae Humaniores"). Penny Mordaunt has a degree in Philosophy, while Tom Tugendhat has a degree in Theology. None of these degrees have a vocational or "practical" application; they don't prepare you for the world of high finance or train you how to lay bricks. And yet these three Conservative politicians (as well as others) have become stars in the political firmament (to our cost, but you get the picture). Robert Halfwit, the star performer on breakfast TV, has a degree in Politics and an MA in Russian and Eastern European Politics - hardly entrepreneurial qualifications.

While it is amusing to ridicule this latest Tory folly, I believe that there is an underlying populist attitude to which they are seeking to appeal. This is the pub loudmouth/white van man/Daily Mail reader prejudice against the arts, humanities and social sciences ("all bloody waffle"), which, on a political level, leads to a demand for more "practical" courses - in other words, turning universities into glorified occupational training centres. According to this view ( still extant ) there is too much of what they call "theory".

Discerning readers will guess correctly that holders of this view have similarly unenlightened views on immigration, social care and Brexit.

This "view", which 19th century thinkers would describe as "Philistinism", despises culture, art and the love of learning for its own sake. But it has a significant weakness. Suppose, for example, in any given year, our universities produce 1500 graduates in (say) Sports Centre Management. Yet, in the whole of the UK, there are only 300 vacancies for these graduates. That means 1200 unemployable Sports Centre Management graduates, possessed of skills that are of no value anywhere else.

Philistinism, espoused by so many "practical" people, is theoretically unsound, as is this latest Tory government folly.

Facebook comment by Have I Got News For You.

Violence Against School Staff: A Worsening Problem

 Jamie Sansom, a 27-year old mathematics teacher at Tewkesbury School, Gloucestershire, was stabbed by a 15 -year old pupil on Monday. Thankfully, his wounds were not life-threatening and he has been discharged from hospital. Quoted in Gloucestershire Live, Mr Sansom said yesterday:

 “On police advice, I can’t comment in detail about what happened, but I do want to address some misinformation which has been circulating in coverage of yesterday’s incident. It is simply not true to say that I was intervening in a fight between students. In my view, there was no point at which Tewkesbury students faced any direct threat."

In time, we will learn why the pupil turned so violent, and we all wish Mr Sansom a full recovery. However, this shocking attack has highlighted once again an abiding problem in our schools: that of violence against teachers.

Back in April, 2014, while still working as a supply teacher, I wrote of the murder by stabbing of Ann Maguire, a Leeds teacher murdered in school by one of her pupils, Will Cornick. At the time, I said that a Rubicon had been crossed, by which I meant that we could expect more lethal attacks on teachers, like that on Jamie Sansom. 

Some people, no doubt, will scoff at this, pointing out that these two attacks are separated by nine years. Superficially, it could be said that the Rubicon has only been crossed twice in nine years, so there's nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, such complacency is misplaced. Violence against teachers has worsened since the murder of Ann Maguire, even if there have been no fatalities. 

BBC Wales reports that there were  at least 5,000 recorded violence cases against school staff in Welsh schools from 2018 to 2022. NASUWT Wales says this was the tip of an iceberg. One anonymous teacher said:

"Colleagues have had hair set on fire. Pupils have violently attacked staff. Not just a single punch, but have continually gone at them".

Significantly, the teacher went on to say:

"Not all management will admit what is going on in their school."

SoloProtect says that 72,173 violent students were either excluded or suspended in England in 2019/20 due to physical assault against an adult or pupil. They go on to say:

"Moreover, a Labour Force Survey reported by the BBC stated that staff working in secondary education are "three times more likely to be physically attacked at work than the average UK employee".

I wonder how long it will be before parents realise that violence and other factors are affecting their children's education. Schools Week says the rate of teachers leaving the state sector for reasons other than retirement grew to a record high in 2022, with nearly 40,000 departures. They go on to say:

"New school workforce data, published today, shows that 39,930 teachers (8.8 per cent of the sector) left state schools in the 2021-22 academic year, up 7,800 on the previous year when 6.9 per cent left". 

The Rubicon might not be running red with blood, but it has definitely been crossed. Violence is an ever-present occupational hazard for secondary school teachers and, increasingly so, in primary schools. 

Violence against teachers is rightly covered frequently in the media. What is not highlighted, and should be, is violence against those essential support staff in schools: Teaching Assistants. UNISON, the union sets it out in stark terms: 

"Teaching assistants have reported being kicked, punched and spat at by pupils in mainstream primary and secondary schools, according to new research released today (17/10/22).
The analysis is the first to look at the violence and aggression faced by teaching and classroom assistants in England, Scotland and Wales. Extensive data already exists into pupil-on-pupil violence and aggression towards teachers and senior managers".
Members questioned described being the target of student aggression in a range of ways, including being hit in the face, punched, kicked and bitten. Researchers found that in several cases staff reported receiving death threats from pupils.
Physical injuries included cuts, a black eye, a dislocated thumb, a broken finger and ripped ligaments. Staff also reported a range of psychological problems, including stress, anxiety and depression. Two workers were diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. Disturbingly, the report went on to say:
"The report also noted that the response of schools to attacks was sometimes inadequate. Teaching assistants felt the message from their employers was that it was their job to manage pupil violence. This, combined with their low status, normalised violence against them".

When we discuss violence in schools, we must focus upon all school staff in the future. 

This is not the place to discuss solutions, nor am I suggesting that all our schools are hellholes - if any. There are many fine schools in all areas with robust policies for dealing with this problem. But if the problem of violence against school staff is not tackled more widely and more comprehensively, the school staff exodus will get worse.

By way of a footnote, I have been reminded that Ann Maguire was not the first educationalist to die violently at school. Philip Lawrence, seen above, was the head of  St George's Roman Catholic School in Maida Vale, London. The BBC radio presenter, Edward Adoo, a pupil of Mr Lawrence, wrote in glowing term of his old head in 2020, describing Mr Lawrence as

"...  a strict but approachable head who was utterly committed to his job, his staff and the kids in his school."

On 8 December, 1995, concern for his pupils cost Philip Lawrence his life. He was fatally stabbed in the heart as he tried to break up a fight between a 13-year-old from St George's and a gang of teenage youths. He left a widow, Frances, and four children. His killer, a 15-year old gang member named  Learco Chindamo, was released in 2014, the year that Ann Maguire was murdered. 

28 years separate the stabbings of Philip Lawrence and Jamie Sansom. It is a sobering thought that things have not improved during that time - and it's difficult to be optimistic for the future.

Colin Pitchfork, Murder and the Risk of Reoffending

 Much as I hate to praise the present government for anything, I welcome the Lord Chancellor's decision to ask the Parole Board to reconsider their decision to release Colin Pitchfork (seen above). The Parole Board's decision to free Pitchfork was met with great anger and opposition - understandably so, as Pitchfork is a convicted double murderer. As is well known, Pitchfork received a life sentence in 1988 after admitting to raping and murdering two 15-year-old girls, Lynda Mann (murdered 1983) and Dawn Ashworth (murdered 1986). He has the distinction of being the first person in Britain to be convicted of rape and murder, thanks to the use of DNA profiling.
Arrested in September 1987, he owned up to the two murders and rapes, as well as to exposing himself to over 1,000 other women. His sentence of 30 years was reduced to 28 years in 2009, and Pitchfork was released on licence in 2021. After two months, he was back in prison for 'approaching young women', in a violation of his licence conditions. 

It is not clear as yet what the Parole Board's decision will be, but, speaking personally, I hope that Pitchfork will never be released. I have seen a number of articles about Pitchfork the murderer, but I would like to look at what is known about his long-dead victims. Lest we forget.

Lynda Mann was 15 when she was murdered on November 25, 1983, in her home town of Narborough, Leicestershire, on her way home from babysitting. Her parents and others searched all night for her when she did not return home. Next morning, she was found dead. She had been raped and strangled on a lonely footpath, known to locals as the "Black Pad".
Pitchfork had murdered Lynda after dropping his wife off at an evening class and - sickeningly - while his baby son slept on the back seat of his car. The Sun comments here: 

"After sexually assaulting and strangling the schoolgirl, the killer drove home and put his baby to bed."

If not for Pitchfork, Lynda would be about 55 years old now.

Pitchfork struck again, three years later. On 31 July 1986, Dawn Ashworth left her home in Leicestershire to visit a friend. Her parents had expected her home at 9:30pm.
She failed to return, so her parents reported her missing to the police. Two days later, her body was found in a wood near a footpath called "Ten Pound Lake".
Like Lynda, Dawn had been viciously beaten, raped and strangled.

Had she not fallen foul of Pitchfork, Dawn would also have been in her 50s today.

Understandably enough, the relatives of these two girls, like many of us, are outraged at the possibility of Pitchfork being released - especially since Pitchfork was previously freed in 2021. Two months after his release, he was arrested and sent back to jail after he approached a lone woman in breach of his licence conditions.

I must here acknowledge the efforts of media outlets and individuals whom I have often disparaged and condemned. I have previously spoken unkindly of Nick Ferrari of LBC and have expressed my contempt for the tabloid press on numerous occasions ( and will again, no doubt ). However, I thank them for alerting me to this matter which - surely? - transcends political affiliations. After all, be ye left, right or centre, murder is still murder.

But is it right to say that Pitchfork cannot be stopped from reoffending, as has been suggested? It may be that he has simply contrived an elaborate cover to deceive the Parole Board (and others). Anyone who doubts the fact that he can be manipulative and highly cunning should watch THIS VIDEO. Here, he can be seen as plausible enough to convince another man to take a DNA test in his place during the police investigation. He was also skilful enough to substitute this man's photo on his passport - no easy task. He may well have spent his time in prison researching ways to deceive the authorities.

And yes, there is always the possibility that he will kill again. As I have noted on many occasions, mental health patients with histories of lethal violence often do commit more murders. As for "ordinary" killers, statistics give no comfort.

In 2012, the BBC reported that:

"Over 30 killers killed again after being freed from prison between 2000/1 and 2010/11, statistics show.
Figures released by the Home Office show 29 people with homicide convictions went on to commit murder and six went on to commit manslaughter.
Of those 29 murderers, 13 previously committed murder and 16 manslaughter.
The government says it does all it can to protect the public from offenders "but sadly risk can never be eliminated entirely".

Well, that's reassuring - is it not? It makes me wonder if all repeat/serial murderers should be classified as having mental health issues. But I digress.

The Daily Mail, in 2021, reported:

"Dozens of killers, rapists and paedophiles released from prison have been given second life sentences for further offences. Over the past decade 129 criminals who were jailed for life have been handed the same sentence again".

Of course, none of this means that Pitchfork would kill again, should he be released. There is a possibility that he has changed. Dr Scott A. Bonn, in "Psychology Today", asserts:

"There are serial killers who stop murdering altogether before ever being caught or killed.
Although not completely understood, in such instances, there typically are events or circumstances that occur in the offenders’ lives that inhibit them from continuing a life of murder. These events might include an increased participation in family life, substitute sexual gratification, an alternate method of experiencing power/control, or another diversion".

And of course, active surveillance by the authorities and the wider community would also help in Pitchfork's case.

 However, we must remember that should Colin Pitchfork murder once more, it will be his third time killing, while for his victim, or victims, it will be their first time dead.

"She's a Cat!" - Serious Matters Overlooked

 

Perhaps unwisely, I was listening to Nick Ferrari on LBC the other morning. He is considerably to the Right of James O'Brien, whose programme follows that of Mr Ferrari. Consequently, the subjects they cover differ radically. James O'Brien, described by James Marriott in yesterday's Times as "the world's angriest centrist dad", covers matters that could broadly be described as Guardian issues - human rights, the follies of the present government - rather like those covered by this blog (in all modesty). Ferrari tends to focus at times on what I would describe as Daily Mail issues - cross channel migrants, the misdeeds of the Left and the madness of political correctness. It is the last of these bete noirs that Ferrari was banging on about the other day.

The issue that concerned Mr Ferrari, as might be expected, was covered in the Daily Mail issue of June 19. As far as can be ascertained, a Year 8 girl pupil in Rye College, East Sussex, was scolded by her teacher for contesting a fellow-pupil for identifying herself as a cat. It seems (I stress "seems") that the teacher branded the girl "despicable". The Mail goes on:

"The teacher at the school - who is now facing a huge backlash - can be heard in a secret recording calling her view that gender is binary 'really despicable' and 'very sad'."

Please note - the conversation, as such, was secretly recorded - but more of that later. Back to the Mail:

"In the three-and-half-minute recording, the angry teacher is heard speaking to two girls and says they would report the children to a senior colleague, and they needed a 'proper educational conversation about equality, diversity and inclusion'."

In a predictably gloating tone, the Mail goes on to tell us that the girl's parent has expressed "fury online" and Rye College is facing a social media onslaught.

When we face a cost of living crisis, inflation and a war in Ukraine, it is amazing that a relatively minor incident in one of thousands of UK schools merits such prominence. It is far less amazing that neither Nick Ferrari or the Mail gave the school much of an opportunity to reply. Instead, conservative pressure groups have joined the cries of outrage. Andrea Williams, of Christian Concern (CC). which has called for an investigation, declared: 

'Teachers who raise Christian and conservative views at school, or who raise real safeguarding concerns about gender transitioning children, are being sacked and banned from the profession indefinitely...
Thousands of children in primary and secondary schools are being forced to absorb extreme LGBT ideology without their parents' knowledge.
Students are having to resort to recording what is being imposed on them in the classroom to protect themselves and expose to their parents and wider world what is happening."

At this point, I must step in. 

Firstly, I seriously question that Christian and conservative teachers are being sacked for their views. I know of no such sackings, and Williams & co offer no evidence ( neither does the Daily Mail ) of these purported events. Having paid a cursory look at the CC website, they offer no such examples, preferring to disseminate anti-abortion propaganda. 

Next, while the Mail, Ferrari and others express such concern for the rights of children to express binary views (which, by the way, I agree with) no such concern has been shown for the "anonymous" teacher involved. The Mail sanctimoniously proclaims:

"MailOnline has chosen not to name the teacher".

Of course not. Why should the Mail  do that, when it can be left to social media? That teacher now will be facing pressure from all quarters. Metaphorically speaking, the hostile media attention has left her with a target painted on her back. There have been calls for her to be sacked, without benefit of a fair investigation. The recording lasted for three and a half minutes, and hardly constitutes evidence for dismissal. If parents have a complaint against a member of school staff, there is a procedure to be followed, and it is for the Head, along with school governors, to take appropriate action to resolve the parental grievance. Whatever mistakes the teacher is alleged to have made, she should not face trial by social media, which would be a kangaroo court of anti-teacher bigots. Er..who was the Conservative ex-PM who objected to what he called a "kangaroo court"? 

What the Mail did not do, has been done by "Schools Week". They comment here:

"In a statement to Schools Week, the trust said it wanted to “clarify that no children at Rye College identifies as a cat or any other animal”. 

Put another way, this charge against the school has no foundation. Officials from the Aquinas Church of England Trust, which runs Rye College, met with Dame Kate Dethridge of the DFE recently. Schools Week continue:

“We have now met with the DfE to share an update on the events which took place before, during and after the recording,” a spokesperson added.
This meeting was a positive step and we will continue working closely with them to ensure any appropriate action is taken."

Such balanced discussion is in welcome contrast to the near-hysteria expressed by the Mail and others.

Unfortunately, there is a an angle to this story that has not been covered, or even noticed.

As a retired teacher, I am extremely concerned at the fact that a recording, made surreptitiously by a pupil, has caused such a massive controversy. An internal school matter, which could have been dealt with discreetly, has been blown out of all proportion by the tabloid press and so-called "interest groups". This has created a precedent for other pupils, faced with similar situations, to do the same thing. And, given the technical expertise of pupils with mobile phones, there will be scope for malicious activities by a minority to make fake recordings of teachers they dislike.

 I wonder what Christian Concern would make of that.

Murder, Psychosis and Day Release for a Killer

 

The young man in the photo above is named David Fleet. On 16 September, 2019, at the age of 20, he was detained indefinitely at a secure psychiatric unit. With good reason - on 28 February that year, without any provocation, he repeatedly stabbed a retired butcher, Lewis Stone (pictured below), 71 years old, out walking his dog. Mr Stone died of his wounds three months later.

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that the murder of innocent people by mental health patients is a topic which I have returned to a number of times. I haven't written about it for a while, but I knew it would happen again. All these murders have similar features: a psychotic mental patient randomly murders an unsuspecting victim in a public place; the killer pleads guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility; the killer is sent to a secure unit where he or she may, or may not, respond well to treatment. If he or she does respond well, then he or she may be released, perhaps to kill again. All these cases are horrific and disturbing. What is particularly disturbing about this case is that David Fleet, according to Staffordshire Live, is already being allowed out on unaccompanied visits: 

"... relatives of Mr Stone - who was holidaying in Borth near Aberystwyth when he was stabbed, dying three months later in hospital - say they have been horrified to learn Fleet has been allowed to leave the secure unit alone and without supervision".

Mr Stone's stepdaughter, Vicki Lindsay, has described this astonishing leniency towards Fleet as "a kick in the teeth". As Fleet was incarcerated a mere three years and seven months ago, this is highly understandable. No such privileges would be awarded to a murderer without "diminished responsibility" and rightly so. But, besides the totally understandable outrage of Mr Stone's family, there are other reasons to be disturbed at David Fleet's being granted unsupervised trips out.

Fleet grew up in Borth, Credigion. He was diagnosed autistic at the age of 15. He smoked cannabis and self-harmed so badly that he was prescribed anti-psychotic drugs. He was sectioned under the Mental Health Act in 2018, but (shade of the present) was allowed home for visits. During those visits, his mother, Sharon Lees, says that he was still buying cannabis and (ominously) buying knives.

Despite his mother's warnings to staff,  David Fleet was released into home care after four months. Ten days after returning home, Fleet left home with a knife. Walking through the Welsh countryside, he encountered the unfortunate Lewis Stone, a man he had never met. The BBC comments here:

"Mr Stone, from Staffordshire, was walking his dog Jock along the bank of the River Leri while visiting his nearby holiday home which he and his wife had plans to retire to.
Fleet later told psychiatrists if he had not stabbed Mr Stone, the voices in his head "were going to kill him".

BBC Wales says it has seen a confidential report from three weeks before Fleet's release in which a doctor cautions against the release as Fleet had a worsening mental state and was a risk with knives. The BBC go on to say:

"Just days later, he was sent home without anyone updating his risk assessment and staff were meant to contact him the day before the attack, but did not because of their workload.
He also did not receive a dose of his anti-psychotic medication".

Please note: staffing of the Mental Health sector was a crucial factor here. Also note: Fleet is being allowed unsupervised visits once again, as he was in 2018. We can only hope that history does not repeat itself, but there is every reason to be concerned. Like Lewis Stone's family, I find Fleet's lenient treatment an outrage.

Manchester University researchers suggest that between 2010 and 2020 there were 5,876 homicide offenders in the UK, of which 610 (11%) were under the care of mental health services.
However, while there was a fall in the overall homicide rate in England and Wales since 2008, the percentage of murders carried out by schizophrenics actually rose.

The Mirror reports:

"His (Fleet's) mother Sharon Lees is now calling for Hywel Dda University Health Board to issue a public apology to both her and the victim's family, after an unpublished report seen by BBC Wales Investigates suggested she had warned them over her son's mental state only three days before the incident".

I totally endorse this call for an apology by Sharon Lees. I hope that any such forthcoming apology will be more constructive and not simply a rehashing of the perfunctory bland expressions of sympathy that usually follow these killings. I further hope that David Fleet does not return to his murderous ways and slay more innocent people. I hope that I am not simply hoping against hope; previous experience warns against it.

Nigel Farage, Nonsense on Stilts and Forgotten Casualties of Brexit

 

 Well, it came as a welcome source of amusement to learn that the Godfather of Brexit and one-time Christmas Message contributor to this blog, Nigel Farage (NF), has woken up to the fact that we Remainers were right all along.  Brexit has been a failure.  NF admits this, and we have been vindicated. Of course, NF attaches no blame to himself. It's all the fault of the Tories, according to him. 

Speaking to BBC's Newsnight presenter, Victoria Derbyshire, on Monday, NF admitted that the country had "not actually benefited from Brexit economically" and blamed this on "useless" Tory politicians "mismanaging" the Brexit departure.

This is not to say that NF is now a Remainer. Despite Victoria Derbyshire pointing out that a recent poll shows that around one in five Leave voters saying that they now regret their choice, he still clings to his delusions. Derbyshire said:

"The OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] forecast a 4% hit to the economy over the medium-to-long-term - that's £40bn in tax revenues. Economically, the UK would have been better off staying in, wouldn't it?"

Now, for us "Remoaners" who were pointing out during the referendum campaign that this would happen (and worse), we remember how our doubts were dismissed as "Project Fear". Nonetheless, NF can't quite admit to the obvious. Replying to Derbyshire, this was his response: 

"Mr Farage said he "doesn't think that for a moment" - and blamed the "failure" on the Conservative government's handling of Brexit. He said: "We haven't benefited from Brexit economically when we could have done." "What Brexit has proved, I'm afraid, is that our politicians are about as useless as the commissioners in Brussels were."

It's a shame that Farage does not reflect on his own uselessness, as there is much to be said on that score. John Bercow, the former Commons speaker, lambasted NF on GB News: 

"Why not start by admitting first that people are poorer, wages are down, foreign direct investment has slumped, sterling has taken a permanent 10 per cent hit.
The economy has been hit to the tune of about £100billion a year.”

If a right-wing channel like GB News can screen such an attack on Farage, then he is in trouble. The recent local election results bear this out. UKIP was wiped off the electoral map. Brexit has been shown to be what John Bercow has said of Farage's beliefs: "It is nonsense on stilts".

Indeed it is, but there is another aspect to the failure of Brexit that has not been noticed. Besides the admittedly dire economic impact, there are the human consequences of the referendum and the forgotten casualties in the title. I wrote on this issue back in February, 2021 and perceive the need to do so again.

Firstly, there was a rise in hate crime following the start of the referendum campaign. Reports of hate crime rose by three fifths at that time, exhibiting itself in all manner of nasty and hurtful ways. The principal targets for this surge in hate were, of course, EU nationals, living and working here in the UK. James O'Brien, of LBC, highlighted the case of a French lady psychiatrist, who had worked in the NHS for 20 years. She was subjected to pro-Brexit inspired abuse from her own patients. She was so hurt that she has returned to France.

Another case I know of was that of a Spanish nurse, married to an Englishman, with two English children, who received similar abuse from patients. She, along with her family, returned to Spain. And these were but two examples of many such incidents which have been well documented, the latest authoritative study being published in 2021.

Then there were the social consequences of the campaign, again, not being mentioned in the media. This was so bad that the New York Times wrote about it: 

"Like the election of President Trump, the 2016 Brexit referendum vote crystallized divisions between cities and towns, young and old, the beneficiaries of globalization and those left behind...in the aftermath of the referendum, Relate, a counselling service, said that a fifth of the 300 relationship support practitioners surveyed had worked with clients who argued over Brexit."

But the human consequences are not limited to the shameful rise in hate crime, xenophobia and the harm of social division.  The EU referendum led to two violent deaths, those of Jo Cox, M.P. , and Duncan Keating. Jo Cox, as we know, was murdered by the Fascist Leave campaigner, Thomas Mair. Leave voter and pensioner, Duncan Keating died after a fight with Graham Dunn, a fellow pensioner and a Remain voter, during an argument over Brexit. 

To conclude, Nigel Farage is getting off lightly, in my opinion, despite the admirable efforts of Victoria Derbyshire and John Bercow. I believe that Farage, Johnson and all the other Brexit con-artists should be held to account for the devastating adverse social and human results of their misconceived and dishonest campaign several years ago.

Coronation Reflections: Age, Protest and Tom Paine

 Yesterday, my wife and I went early to Trafalgar Square intending to watch the journey of the new King and Queen as they travelled in their coach along The Mall and turned into Whitehall. We found what we thought was a good observation point, and began our long vigil. On the corner opposite, anti-monarchist demonstrators had gathered to protest against the Coronation. When the republicans chanted "Not my King!", the "royalists", who outnumbered them, responded with loud "Boos" (I didn't join in on either side).. Having said that, there was very little ill-will. In fact, one anti-monarchist carrying a placard walked among the crowd near us, and suffered no ill effects. It came as a surprise to learn that 52 republicans had been arrested, as we saw nothing of it. We saw little of the parade either, but I'll come to that. 

This was an unusual experience for me. Had my younger self seen me, he would have been aghast. Back in the 70s, as an SWP member, I participated in the SWP's "Stuff the Jubilee" campaign in1977. 46 years later, I was standing among royalists.  My younger self would have been outraged.

Nonetheless, we waited. As you might expect, time passed slowly. Frequent downpours of rain did not help the situation. Shortly after 10.30, there was a burst of excited cheering in the section of the crowd in front of us. Those of us at the back, which included my wife and myself, wondered what was going on. In fact, the Royal coach had passed by, and we had seen nothing. The crowd in front was too dense. After hours of waiting and getting soaked, our feelings can well be imagined.

Curiously enough, I didn't feel that we'd wasted our time. Even in our small section of the crowd, there were a number of different nationalities: British, Irish, Americans, Australians, Filipinos, Sri Lankans, all mixing well together as friends. Friendships have been forged during the preparations for the Coronation, all along the parade route, and that's a positive thing. As we left the Square (it wasn't easy), we felt positive about what we had experienced, despite the disappointment and the rain.

Now, I am well aware that coming away with a feeling of positivity does not justify the whole Coronation event in the eyes of sceptics and republicans. One republican, were he with us today, who would be scathing about the Coronation rituals and pageantry, is Tom Paine, the 18th century English radical author and Founding Father of the USA. As might be guessed, he was a fervent anti-monarchist, one of his quotes being:

"Vice and virtue, ignorance and wisdom, in short, every quality, good or bad, is put on the same level. Kings succeed each other, not as rationals, but as animals. It signifies not what their mental or moral characters are".

After assisting the American colonists to achieve independence, he returned to England for a while to build a bridge. Nowadays, he would have been arrested as a traitor, or, like Shamima Begum, had his citizenship removed. The authorities left him alone until he published "Rights of Man" - a rebuttal of Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France". Paine was lucky to escape to France, where he was elected to the National Convention. Now, it might be thought that Paine would have supported the execution of the French king, Louis XVI, but he didn't. Like the Girondins, he supported the abolition of the monarchy, but opposed the Terror and the king's beheading. In fact, Paine wanted Louis XVI to be sent to America, where he could learn to become a good citizen. This enraged the Jacobin faction, led by Robespierre, and Paine found himself in the Luxembourg Prison, where he was lucky to avoid execution. For those interested, this is how he escaped: 

"The evening before his death a physician came to visit Paine and for the duration of the visit his cell door was kept open. During the visit guards came through and dutifully marked his door with an “X.” But without thinking they drew the “X” on the inside of the door that had been swung open. When the doctor left and the door of Paine’s cell was shut, the “X” was concealed. The next morning guards passed over his cell since no “mark of judgment” appeared. An open door to a visiting physician had saved his life."

Paine survived to see the fall of Robespierre, but not before most of the Girondins had gone the way of so many in revolutionary France.

So, what's this got to do with the Coronation, or anything else? Well, it goes some way towards clarifying my view of today's monarchy. A friend asked me if I'd ever imagined standing in  a royalist crowd and I found myself harking back to the French Revolution, the Girondins, the Jacobins, Paine and Robespierre. I said that I might have lined up with the Jacobins when younger, but would have supported the Girondins, had I attained to middle age or older. 

While I support the right of Republic to demonstrate against them, I cannot bring myself to bear malice towards the monarchy in general and the King in particular. So many people, including the Labour MP, David Lammy, have spoken in his favour that, were the monarchy to fall tomorrow, I would not send Charles to the USA to learn good citizenship. I think he is a good citizen already.

I know that there are many other issues involved. I thought that the the police action against Republic was heavy handed, and there needs to be a full investigation. And there is always the matter of royal expenditure at a time of economic crisis. But, an American friend asked me the crucial question: do I believe in the monarchy? My answer, influenced no doubt by age, is that I have no wish to campaign for their abolition while so many of my fellow citizens want to keep them. I save my energy for campaigns against Brexit and the far right. The situation might change over time, but that is for future generations to bring about.

I just wish it hadn't rained so much yesterday.

OFSTED and the Power of Delusion

 For the first time in a long time, I had to stop myself from shouting at the TV. The OFSTED supremo, Amanda Spielman, seen above, was on the BBC about a week ago, defending the inspection results of Caversham Primary School. These results, as we know, contributed directly to the suicide of the much-loved headteacher, Ruth Perry. Ms Spielman's comments had wider connotations, and I think them worth commenting upon here.

Quoted in The Mirror from the BBC interview, Spielman said:

"I think the findings were secure and I think the inspection team worked with the professionalism and sensitivity I would expect from our inspectors. Pressed on whether she had any concerns at all over the downgrading of the school from outstanding to inadequate, she added: "From what I've seen I don't have any reason to doubt the inspection".

Let's ponder that. When we examine the reason for the school's downgrading, we find that the school was performing well in most areas. OFSTED, however, were not impressed. They found the school: “welcoming and vibrant”, staff/pupil relations “warm and supportive” but there was lack of “appropriate supervision during breaktimes” so pupils were “potentially at risk of harm."

Quite what is meant by appropriate supervision is not made clear. Professor Julia Waters, Ruth Perry's sister, quoted on WSWS, elaborated:

"Apparently, Julia told BBC South, an altercation in the playground between two boys and another incident involving a boy performing a floss dance, was the “scant” and “sensationalist” evidence for inadequate safeguarding. The playground fight was interpreted by Ofsted as evidence of child-on-child abuse and the dance as the sexualisation of children."

Speaking as a retired primary school teacher of 34 years' experience, and having done more playground duties than Spielman has had hot dinners, I can say that I have seen and intervened in an abundance of playground altercations, some very violent indeed. I don't know what a floss dance is, but I have seen numerous manifestations of what can be termed inappropriate behaviour. If fights and dances in the playground were grounds to fail a school, then half the schools I have ever taught in (full time and supply) would be judged "Inadequate". I note that OFSTED did not ask whether these incidents were  commonplace or not - nor if the pupils involved had special needs. And, of course, no positive or supportive measures were put in place by Ms Spielman's merry men and women. Downgrading was the order of the day, and a popular, caring headteacher was driven to take her own life. And Spielman has no doubts that her team did the right thing. Such is the power of delusion.

In a previous post, on March 24,  I have looked at previous teacher suicides related to OFSTED inspection,. WSWS notes another:

"Perry is not the first tragic victim of Ofsted inspections. Carol Woodward was the head of Woodford Primary School near Plymouth and took her own life in 2015 after a negative Ofsted inspection".

Even the normally anti-teacher Daily Mail reported on this case: 

"A popular headmistress hanged herself after Ofsted inspectors rated her school 'inadequate' when they visited ...Carol Ann Woodward was found in the garage of her home in Plymstock, Devon in July following a 'swift decline' in her mental health".

Ms Woodward's tragic death was not widely reported in the media.

 Research by the Hazards Campaign charity and University of Leeds has implicated Ofsted in coroners’ reports into the deaths of 10 teachers over the past 25 years. It reports teachers suffering cardiac arrests, strokes and nervous breakdowns due to the stress of inspections.  Andrew Morrish, a former head and inspector and founder of the helpline Headrest, said most calls from stressed heads are about Ofsted. "Inspection is a sensitive process", says Spielman. Yeah, right.

Another comment of Ms Spielman's delusional comments is of particular interest to me. She said, relating to inspections: "For the vast majority of schools, I know that it's a positive and affirming experience."

I found that statement hilarious. I have been in a school that failed its inspection, gone into Special Measures, been inspected by HMI inspectors every term for two years, emerging to a variation of educational parole. I can attest that none of us staff found it positive and affirming. We were just heartily glad that it was over.

On the other hand, as a school governor, I have played a part in a school previously rated as Good being inspected again after five years, and again being graded as Good. This time, all staff, governors and children breathed a huge sigh of relief. Positive? Affirming? Maybe - but I did help the the sole inspector leave through the school gate after the final briefing, which was surely an affirmation of a caring environment in the school. The most positive aspect for all staff is the knowledge that OFSTED won't be back for a while.

Ms Spielman has said that Ruth Perry's death was a "tragic event" and told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg show she was willing to speak with the family. As Ruth Perry's family have been justifiably outraged at the consequences of the inspection, the meeting, if it happens, should be a lively event.

Labour's Mistake: Tactical, not Strategic

 

Putting it simply, the Labour Party's Twitter post pictured above has not been well received. As we know, it has been condemned by Tory politicians and commentators, Labour politicians and supporters and a number of celebrities of various political hues. 

John MacDonnell, a veteran Labour M.P., quoted in the Daily Express said: "This is not the sort of politics a Labour Party, confident of its own values and preparing to govern, should be engaged in. I say to the people who have taken the decision to publish this ad, please withdraw it. We, the Labour Party, are better than this."

SNP MP John Nicolson said: "This is absolutely nauseating. Politics cheapened and debased. The Labour Party wants to win, of course, but like this?"

Actor and director Samuel West wrote: “Please withdraw this. It’s lower than low and I’m embarrassed to be a member when this is the way you campaign.”

With breathtaking hypocrisy, Tory MP Robert Largan said: "I'm not going to quote tweet it. But that Labour Party post about the Prime Minister is in the gutter. Really shameful stuff."

With rather less reservations than Largan, and no hesitation about launching personal attacks, an anonymous Tory source said: "Labour HQ (??) have highlighted Sir Keir's appalling record at keeping children safe. During Sir Keir's controversial tenure as director of public prosecutions, less than 30 percent of child pornographers saw the inside of a prison cell".

The source went on to say: "criminals want a Labour government." No evidence of this remarkable claim was provided by the anonymous Tory spokesperson. We can only wonder if the source is close to our late and unlamented prime minister, Boris Johnson, who launched a highly personalised attack on Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons in 2022. Johnson claimed that Starmer, when Director of Public Prosecutions in the previous Labour government, "spent most of his time [as DPP] prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile". This was widely condemned as the slur that Starmer said it was, and was decisively refuted by many commentators, including the BBC Reality Check.

Returning to the Labour tweet, and more factually based, Rob Powell, on Sky News, pointed out that:

"Rishi Sunak was elected as an MP in 2015 and only became prime minister six months ago, so pinning this all on him is a stretch."

Conservative commentator Iain Dale echoed all other right-wing commentators by saying Labour's attack on Sunak was 'a new low in British political attack ads'.

For myself, I have to admit that I did not like the personalisation of the Tweet, if only because it places all the blame for the figures on one man. A group photo of the government or a general statement ("It's all the fault of the Tories") would have been more accurate, and less open to criticism. The Labour Party - which I support - have made a tactical error in trying to emulate Tory methods by appealing to populist anger.

However, I have heard some interesting statements from people who support the tweet, One caller to LBC said that he was happy to see the Tories get a taste of their own medicine. As he went on to say, Tory politicians, and their allies in the right-wing tabloids, unfairly target whole groups of people. The list grows by the week. Asylum seekers, refugees, trade unionists, teachers, Remain voters, Remain politicians, human rights lawyers, civil servants - and these are just a few that we can expect to see vilified in the Daily Mail and the other right-wing tabloids. The caller to LBC might have included individuals too: Harry and Meghan, Gary Lineker, Sir Keir Starmer, Stephen Fry, all of whom have faced tabloid hostility. And who can forget the relentless tabloid campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, which lasted during the whole of his tenure as Labour leader? This reached its pinnacle in a Daily Mail article of 2019: "Fifty infamous moments that shame Jeremy Corbyn". There is even a test you can take to see if you are likely to be hated by the Daily Mail. The Labour tweet was a mistake, but Labour have a long way to sink before they are in the gutter with yer actual gutter press.

In conclusion, let's hope that the Labour Party does not resort to this tactic again. There is no need. This present Tory government is digging a pit for itself daily, and we should focus upon that. Personalised attacks miss the whole target and are, as we have seen, counter-productive.

A better Labour Party creation - strategically, tactically and factually correct.