On 19 October the far right were granted their post-Southport riots martyr when Peter Lynch died at Moorland Prison. Lynch, aged 61, was just eight weeks into a sentence of two years and eight months for his part in the riot at the Holiday Inn Express in Manvers, Rotherham, on 4 August.
The cause of Lynch’s death was not revealed at the time, and indeed remains under investigation as Searchlight goes to press nearly three weeks later. There was, however, no mystery as far as many right-wing commentators were concerned. They had the answer, all right. Well, actually they had three answers, all of them mutually contradictory.
According to the most paranoid, he had been murdered by the state. Other explanations were that he had committed suicide as a response to state persecution, or that he had succumbed to fragile health, proving that it was monstrous that he had been sent to jail in the first place.
Many of the usual rogues’ gallery of fantasists, conspiracists and seedy apologists weighed in one way or another. But the lead was quickly assumed by journalist Isabel Oakeshott, who ostensibly lent an air of respectability to the hysteria.
In an article in the Daily Telegraph headlined “Was Peter Lynch Britain’s first political prisoner?” Oakeshott more or less answers that with a “yes” (she’s a woman who is, we must conclude, ignorant of cases such as those of Sir Thomas More or the Tolpuddle Martyrs), and concludes the piece by stating: “Lynch’s death shames a Government that sacrificed him… on the altar of its own inadequacy.
“Lynch did not physically harm anyone; nor set anything alight; nor cause thousands of pounds worth of criminal damage. His comments were unpleasant and may have contributed to tensions, but they were just words,” she argues. Which oddly ignores the fact that he pleaded guilty to engaging in violent disorder.
We said earlier that Oakeshott “ostensibly” added respectability to the soiled claque of online agitators. By that we mean that her journalistic credentials are not as shiny as they might be. Some readers will recall that she betrayed Matt Hancock’s confidences, although many won’t care because he’s not greatly liked.
But it was surprising that Hancock shared his secrets with her in the first place because, some years earlier, she horrified many journalists by coaxing Vicky Pryce into statements that landed the economist with a prison sentence, just in order to nail Pryce’s ex-husband, LibDem MP and Coalition cabinet member Chris Huhne.
And of even those who do recall these episodes many will be unaware that Oakeshott is the partner of Richard Tice, the Reform UK MP who was, until swatted aside by Nigel Farage, leader of the party.
Despite her lack of an official position in Reform, Oakeshott was regarded by many as one of the party’s five leading figures earlier this year, nicknamed the Posh Pentagram (two have since been ditched). Floating above the hoi polloi, this was the privately educated quintet of Nigel Farage (Dulwich), then leader Richard Tice (Uppingham), deputy leaders David Bull (Framlingham)and Ben Habib (Rugby), and Isabel Oakeshott (Gordonstoun). The “voice of the common man” Reform UK very much ain’t.
Gordonstoun is arguably the poshest alma mater of the lot. “I went to the same school as Charles III, Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward” trumps “I went to Framlingham College” any day of the week.
Among the far right’s Twitterati, Lynch is described as a grandfather, a family man, someone who had recently suffered a heart attack, a diabetic and so on. All of which is likely true. His medical issues are unfortunate, but no one with an axe to grind seems willing to answer the question: if his health was so damn fragile, what the hell was he doing in the front ranks of a riot?
Lynch’s death is, in a sense, peak “two‑tier policing”, an extended argument that the rioters are being treated more harshly than… well, take your pick: blacks, Muslims, lefties, Gaza protesters, whatever the moan of the day may be.
The rioters’ crimes are often downplayed as “just exercising free speech”, and violence or arson are not mentioned, even when they plead guilty to it. The most petty or bizarre aspects of their behaviour on the day are picked out and isolated, so that the case can be ridiculed as “jailed for shouting at a police dog”. Their families are often mentioned, used as an opportunity to say: “The state is punishing his three-year-old son.” But wasn’t it the responsibility of a man with a three-year-old son to stay at home and not try to burn down a hotel?
And we hear time and again that they didn’t mean to cause trouble, they just somehow got caught up in it, and they really shouldn’t be in prison for an accident like that. Oakeshott says that the Prime Minister has “allowed the machinery of the state to be used to ruin the lives of a handful of foolish individuals, who (in the heat of the moment) allowed their emotions… to overcome them”. As if anyone ever travelled miles to a riot “in the heat of the moment”. Bizarre excuses.
Perhaps the most fatuous contribution of all was from Reform MP “30p Lee” Anderson, who grumbled on GB News that the rioters were “young lads that are going out, probably had one too many, they’ve got involved with the wrong crowd”.
He said that, rather than see these exuberant kids prosecuted, the Prime Minister “needs to sit down with them, find out what the problem is and try to come up with some solutions rather than just banging them away”.
For a while in August, crime reports from the Notting Hill Carnival were the focus of the far right’s “two-tier” ire. “Notting Hill Carnival 2 day event seen 8 stabbings,” howled Tommy Robinson. “A dozen sexual assaults. 3 guns seized. 50 police officers injured.”
No exact count can be kept of people taking part in the Notting Hill Carnival, but estimates for this year were in the ballpark of two million. That is a simply enormous crowd. In total, about 330 people were arrested across the span of the carnival, which rather makes a mockery of the assertion of far-right megamouths that police are too timid or “woke” to arrest black people.
And the false equivalence here should be obvious. The vast majority of people who went to the carnival did so to dance in the street, dress up as goodness knows what or feast on jerk chicken, rice and peas. The majority of people who went to the riots did so in order to… er… riot. Of course the proportions arrested will be wildly different.
So, Searchlight is completely writing off the idea of two-tier policing, then? Well, not exactly. We do in fact get the impression that there’s some picking and choosing going on – just not in the way that the pearl-clutchers of the far right would have you think.
As far away as Pakistan a man was arrested for repeating the invented Arab-sounding name that was recklessly circulated online as being that of the Southport murderer. How do we see any two-tier policing in this? Because right-wing rentagob Katie Hopkins did exactly the same thing – published the fake name without any attempt to check that it was correct. And has “Hatie Katie” appeared in court over this? No.
How about the man who was arrested and charged over an online post calling to “stop the spread of evil Islam”. That’s very similar to Reclaim Party leader Laurence Fox saying: “We need to remove Islam from Great Britain. Completely and entirely.” Have we seen “Looza” in court over this incitement to hatred? No.
We don’t really need to find comparisons for Stephen Yaxley-Lennon sidekick Daniel Thomas’s message to his 68,000 followers that “It has to go off in different cities” and that “Every city has to go up”. Has he been brought to book? No.
Nigel Farage weighed in with: “I just wonder whether the truth is being withheld from us.” This suggestion was like throwing a bucket of petrol on a smouldering fag end. Has he even been questioned by the police about this? No.
Instead of desperately trying to conjure up fantasies about how white people are being persecuted, the rank-and file far right should perhaps be asking themselves how come the small fry are being sent down in droves over the riots, while the major “influencers” seem to enjoy immunity.
Are their Twitter numbers really that intimidating?
