The FAKE Right Wing Terror Plot (and the Very REAL Murder of Ann Widdecombe)

Whilst the state and the media actively downplayed the assassination of Ann Widdecombe, they eagerly amplified a phantom 'right-wing terror' plot that was later exposed as a complete false flag.

On the morning of Wednesday July 8^th 2026, 78-year-old former Minister Ann Widdecombe had been enjoying a busy morning – she had already made a live appearance on TalkTV and had taken part in a pre-recorded interview with TWR-UK (Trans World Radio), a British Christian radio station. But this wasn’t the end of her busy day, as she was scheduled for a live video interview on the Matt Allwright Show that was set to be broadcast on Channel 5 at 1 PM. At 12:48 PM the show’s producer sent her a WhatsApp message with a Zoom link so she could log in for her scheduled appearance. However, she failed to join the live call and the production team was immediately concerned. It was very unlike Ann to miss a scheduled event, and for her to miss an appearance without giving notice was unheard of. Yet despite being renowned for her punctuality, the WhatsApp message that contained the link to join the show went unread.

The show’s producer called Ann numerous times and sent a follow-up text at 12:55 PM asking, “Hi Ann is everything ok?”. Yet despite his best attempts, all the calls went unanswered and the text messages remained unread. After Ann failed to appear on the live broadcast at 1 PM, the production team reached out to her talent agency, Cloud9 Management, and then to her personal representatives on Wednesday evening and again on Thursday morning to flag her highly unusual disappearance. Following the production team’s persistent attempts to reach her, the show’s team eventually managed to make contact with Ann Widdecombe’s personal assistant. Realising the gravity of her sudden silence, the assistant contacted the family gardener who was scheduled to be near her Dartmoor bungalow on the day following the missed appearance, and asked him to immediately go and check on her welfare.

On arriving at Ann’s home at around 11:30 AM on Thursday July 9^th 2026, the gardener found the front door of her bungalow unlocked and slightly ajar. The gardener pushed the door open cautiously and called out for Ann, but he received no response. After a short while, the gardener entered the bungalow to find it strangely silent. He then made his way toward the kitchen, calling out Ann’s name. As he entered the kitchen, the gardener recoiled at the sight in front of him: Ann Widdecombe lay face down on the kitchen floor in a large pool of dried blood. The kitchen looked like a scene from a horror film, and Ann had sustained horrific, highly visible wounds to the head. The gardener immediately alerted emergency services, and officers from Devon and Cornwall Police were dispatched alongside an ambulance at 11:40 AM. Paramedics attended the scene, but there was nothing they could do, and Ann Widdecombe was officially pronounced dead at the scene at 12:20 PM.

In between Ann’s earlier media appearances on Wednesday July 8^th 2026 and her scheduled 1PM appearance on Channel 5, she had been brutally murdered. At approximately 12:30 PM, 28-year-old suspect Joshua Kerry allegedly pulled onto her driveway in a red Vauxhall Corsa. Kerry had driven all the way from Rotherham – an almost 265-mile-long journey – in order to get to Ann. Wearing black gloves, he entered her bungalow through her open front door and walked through to her kitchen where he found her sitting in a chair eating her lunch. Kerry then proceeded to brutally beat her to death with a hammer – striking her 21 times to the face and head, with prosecutors describing the assault as having a “ferocity of violence”. Kerry then tipped her from her chair, stole her wallet and promptly left the bungalow, with the entire intrusion lasting only two minutes. He then got back in his car and immediately made the 265-mile journey back to his home in Rotherham.

Ann Widdecombe had a 23-year tenure as a Conservative Party MP from 1987 to 2010, and during those years she held three frontbench ministerial roles in government and two senior positions in the Shadow Cabinet. She now lay dead in her own kitchen, the victim of a horrific crime, the severity and ferocity of which drew parallels with murders driven by a personal or sexual motive. What’s more, her murder was the highest profile killing of a politician since the killing of Sir David Amess five years earlier in 2021. The murder would also draw parallels with the killing of Jo Cox who was murdered in the run-up to the referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU in 2016. However, despite the high-profile victim and the brutal nature of the killing the police response to the murder was, to say the very least, confusing. On one hand, it seemed like a clear case of a politically motivated murder of an MP, but it was as if the police and the state were unwilling to admit that.

In the immediate days following the discovery of Ann Widdecombe’s body, Devon and Cornwall Police went as far as to explicitly rule out political or ideological motives for the murder. Local authorities then doubled down on this, repeatedly assuring the public that the killing was an isolated incident with no terrorist or political involvement. This was a lie. The police and the state were trying to convince the public that a man from Rotherham drove 265 miles and randomly ended up at Ann Widdecombe’s isolated bungalow, before brutally beating her to death in order to steal her wallet. However, this lie did not do a good job of convincing the wider public, and immediately there was a widespread outcry on social media. But it wouldn’t be long before the lie would be publicly torn to shreds and the truth would start coming out.

On Monday July 13^th 2026 – just days after the initial statements – Counter Terrorism Policing South East took complete operational control of the case from the local Devon and Cornwall Police. Whilst Joshua Kerry was already in custody for the murder, counter-terrorism detectives officially re-arrested him under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism. Later that day, in a press briefing outside New Scotland Yard, Counter Terrorism Policing Assistant Commissioner Laurence Taylor confirmed that Ann Widdecombe was killed in a “targeted attack” – the very opposite of what the police had stated earlier. He went on to state that officers were currently in the process of determining a potential political motivation – specifically investigating whether the suspect was intentionally targeting Reform UK political figures.

Ann Widdecombe had been a long-standing member of the Conservative Party, but she had resigned in April 2019 ending her 55-year-long tenure with the organisation, immediately following her resignation she joined Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party. Since then, she was elected as a Brexit Party MEP and then became part of Reform UK. Interestingly, Joshua Kerry had a very different set of political beliefs to Ann. In fact, according to both media disclosures from the Daily Mail and official court briefings, officers recovered “Russian communist literature” and books focused on left wing politics from Kerry’s home. What’s more, alongside this literature, detectives found newspaper clippings and media snippets pinned to Kerry’s bedroom wall specifically focused on Reform UK, Nigel Farage, and the party’s immigration policies. A source noted that the material suggested a “profound dislike” of Reform UK and its leader, Nigel Farage.

This “profound dislike” was mirrored in the way that Ann was brutally murdered. The “ferocity of violence” involved in the killing of Ann which manifested in multiple strikes to the face and head with a hammer is often referred to in criminology as overkill. This sort of killing suggests a deep-seated emotional or personal connection between the killer and the victim. Overkill is a hallmark of domestic or relational murders, as when an attacker has a direct personal relationship with their victim, an outburst of intense, localised passion, anger, or rejection can drive them to strike repeatedly. However, in cases where a killer has an extreme political, religious, or ideological aversion to their victim, the attacker often transfers their intense personal hatred onto the public figure which they have selected as a target – often resulting in a crime scene that bears the hallmarks of a crime of passion.

Because a personal relationship between Joshua Kerry and Ann Widdecombe was non-existent, Counter Terrorism Policing is now treating the excessive violence witnessed in the murder as an indicator of ideological obsession. Historically, when individuals carry out lone-actor assassinations fuelled by political or religious motivations, the attacks are frequently marked by extreme violence and ferocity. For example, the murder of Jo Cox involved multiple stabbings and gunshots, and Sir David Amess was stabbed over 20 times when he was brutally killed by a man of Somalian heritage. In these cases, the multiple strikes reflect the intense, internal rage felt by the perpetrator toward what the politician represents. The discovery of Soviet communist literature and pinned newspaper clippings of Reform UK figureheads on Kerry’s bedroom wall strongly suggests that his “passion” was directed entirely at Widdecombe’s high-profile ‘right-wing’ and anti-immigration political views and affiliations.

This all prompts the question: if armchair detectives can piece all of this together from a distance, using only the limited information leaked out through the press and media, how could the police initially get it so very wrong? The idea that Ann Widdecombe’s murder could have been an ‘isolated incident’, maybe a botched burglary, is even more insulting. It would be highly unusual for a burglar to use such force against a homeowner, mainly because burglars seek to avoid confrontation and understand that if caught, they would likely receive a prison sentence that is only months long, whereas murder carries a mandatory life sentence. But most importantly, Ann’s bungalow wasn’t disturbed, only her wallet was stolen and nothing else at her home had even been touched. But there is one other rather crucial piece of evidence: the entire attack was caught on CCTV.

From the moment that Joshua Kerry arrived at Ann’s bungalow he was being filmed. A camera positioned outside the home – including a Ring doorbell – captured Kerry’s red Vauxhall Corsa pulling onto Widdecombe’s driveway at approximately 12:30 PM. The footage clearly shows Kerry, wearing black gloves, walking up to the bungalow and entering directly through her unlocked front door. What’s more, when officers arrived at the scene, they immediately spotted a security camera positioned in the hallway of Ann’s home. This internal camera was angled directly toward the entrance of the kitchen, where Widdecombe was sitting at a table eating her lunch. The camera captured the entirety of the brutal murder. Footage clearly shows Kerry walking into the room, hitting Ann 21 times with a hammer, knocking her from her chair to the floor, stealing her wallet from her handbag, and leaving. Finally, additional domestic security footage from neighbouring properties captured Kerry fleeing the scene immediately after the murder.

Not only did all the evidence released by the press point to the incident being a targeted attack that was motivated by a deep-seated hatred, but police had clear video evidence of everything that took place. This not only proves that police lied, but raises the important question over why they chose to knowingly mislead the public. But the whole case also presents another very obvious question: had a leading ‘left-wing’ or pro-migration politician been brutally murdered with such ferocity that the killing appeared to bear all the hallmarks of a crime of passion, and following this, the murderer was found to hold what the police could describe as ‘far right’ views and had the pictures of potential targets pinned all over his bedroom walls, would authorities have ever made the bold move to ‘rule out’ a terrorist motive?

Conveniently, the answer to this question can be found rather easily – not by looking at cases that took place years or even decades ago, but by looking at a case that occurred just days after the murder of Ann Widdecombe. Less than a week after the brutal killing of Ann Widdecombe, another case came to prominence that was dealt with very differently. This case was immediately and very publicly branded as a ‘terrorist incident’ by the media and authorities. Such was the apparent gravity of this case that the Home Secretary even raised it in Parliament, and both the outgoing Prime Minister, Keir Starmer and his soon-to-be replacement, Andy Burnham both commented on the case. That is before the case spectacularly collapsed and was revealed to be nothing more than a ‘false flag’.

From Thursday July 9^th until Sunday July 12^th 2026, the UK Ijtima Islamic gathering took place at Shrubland Hall in Barham, near Ipswich, Suffolk, the event attracted an estimated 15,000 attendees. During the weekend, counter-terrorism intelligence analysts intercepted what they termed a “credible threat” and in the early hours of Sunday July 12^th 2026, senior police officers met privately with the festival organizers to brief them on a “credible risk of disorder”. It was agreed to let attendees complete their morning prayers and then immediately afterward, at 7:00 AM, the event was abruptly halted – seven hours ahead of its scheduled 2 PM closure. Armed police officers then swarmed the rural estate, setting up immediate roadblocks on all approach routes. Attendees were ordered to pack up their camps and leave and police declared the operation a “Major Incident” as they coordinated the logistical challenge of safely escorting 15,000 guests off the site.

In the immediate aftermath, Suffolk Police and Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) issued formal public statements aimed at reassuring the public whilst at the same time ensuring people knew of the severity of the incident that had been averted. A Suffolk Police spokesperson announced: “The decision to end the event early was taken with event organisers as a precaution and there is no wider threat to the public. A full investigation into the nature of the threat is now under way.” CTP London Commander Helen Flanagan then announced that a major nationwide operation was active, going on to officially state that the threat was “extreme right-wing terrorism related”. Assistant Chief Constable Alice Scott later announced that all 15,000 festival attendees had “safely departed” and that a highly visible police presence would remain around Barham to reassure local villagers.

According to authorities, a “major incident” involving “extreme right-wing terrorism” had just been thwarted by a multi-agency task force including local police and counter terror officers, as a result 15,000 Muslims had been safely evacuated. Such an unprecedented and successful operation could not pass without comment and leading high-profile politicians – including the Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood – were quick to take to X and congratulate officers and make their thoughts known on the dastardly perpetrators and their abhorrent ideology. Keir Starmer said in a post on X: “Shocking news that Counter Terrorism Police are investigating a credible, serious threat targeted at an Islamic event in Suffolk. Thanks to the quick action taken by police and the organisers, nobody was hurt. My message is clear: I will not tolerate any attacks on our Muslim communities, or any form of anti-Muslim hatred.”

The media was now all over the story and the public was left in no doubt – this was a very serious and potentially deadly threat brought about by “extreme right-wing terrorism” and it was only thanks to the dedicated counter-terror officers that lives were not lost. But now it was time for justice – and on the very same day as the Islamic event was brought to an early close, the arrests began. On Sunday, July 12^th 2026 ten arrests took place across Ipswich, Essex, Greater Manchester, Surrey, and Stoke and suspects included men aged 27, 29, 35, 42, 55, 60 and 82. Of the ten arrested, seven men were officially detained under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, allowing the police to hold them without charge whilst searching their properties. A further three men (including the 82-year-old) were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to commit murder. But this was not the end of the matter, police and counter terror officers were widening the net.

The following Monday, July 13^th 2026, two further arrests were made in London after forensics teams recovered evidence from 35 seized electronic devices and multiple properties that had been searched during the previous day. The Metropolitan Police then arrested a 48-year-old woman in East London on the suspicion of assisting an offender. A 42-year-old man was then arrested in Southeast London and during searches of his vehicle, police discovered extendable batons and a stun gun. The government believed this to be a massive victory, and as a result Shabana Mahmood made a speech in the House of Commons in order to praise the rapid and heavy police response, saying officers had “undoubtedly saved lives”. In a statement online, she added categorically that the Ijtema festival had ended early “after a credible extreme Right-wing terrorism-related threat to the lives of those present”. Mahmood then continued in her post on X: “I thank Suffolk Police, Counter Terrorism Policing and the organisers for their swift and effective response that undoubtably [sic] saved lives... I know this is deeply concerning news for British Muslims. We must stand against hatred.”

But before the celebrations and back patting had concluded, the entire case began falling apart. By the following day, Tuesday July 14^th 2026, the 12 suspects who had been arrested were already being released. The 82-year-old man (from the group arrested for conspiracy to commit murder) was the first to be released on police bail due to his age and the low risk that he presented, he was then joined by four more of the suspects who were systematically released on bail over the next 48 hours as the murder conspiracy narrative collapsed. Yet despite these clear indications that the whole ‘terror plot’ was nothing more than a false alarm, a thirteenth individual was tracked down and arrested on Thursday July 16^th 2026. The final suspect, a male, was detained under Section 5 of the Terrorism Act 2006 on suspicion of the preparation of terrorist acts. But by the weekend, the case had collapsed entirely.

On Saturday July 18^th 2026, Counter Terror Police London and the Metropolitan Police issued a joint statement giving a final case update confirming that there was no actual threat to the Islamic festival and the supposed ‘terror’ plot was totally fictitious. All 13 of the suspects were cleared of any involvement in either terror offences or any plot to commit murder and 12 of the group were released without charge. The only criminal charge brought against any of those arrested was in relation to the possession of offensive weapons and a stun gun. The individual charged was remanded to appear at Reading Magistrates’ Court on Monday, July 20^th 2026. The man charged with the weapons offences was 42-year-old Darren Brown from Basildon, Essex. Darren promptly pleaded guilty at Reading Magistrates’ Court and received a six-month prison sentence that was suspended for 12 months. An unprecedented counter-terror operation that was praised by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary had been revealed to be nothing more than a false flag. But that leaves one question, what actually took place in order for the state to justify such a massive police response?

In short, three men who were standing in the field adjacent to the Muslim gathering had flown a drone over the festival. Members of a small group called the British Security Project had arrived at a field directly adjacent to the UK Ijtima festival at Shrubland Hall. The men, some of whom were wearing military-style camouflage clothing, had begun launching and flying a commercial drone over the estate. The group later claimed they were merely conducting an unannounced “surveillance and mapping exercise” to monitor the perimeter of the 15,000-strong Muslim gathering. At this point, an obvious and rather glaring disparity can be observed between the way this non-event was handled and the way the brutal murder of a 78-year-old female politician was dealt with by the police. But it wasn’t just the police who dealt with the two cases so differently, in the wake of Ann Widdecombe’s murder the response from the government was muted, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood being quick to warn the public: “The police have cautioned against speculating in this case.”

Two cases, yet two very different responses. One case involved the brutal targeted execution of one of Britain’s most famous political figures. But Ann Widdecombe was not only murdered, but the evidence the police immediately had at hand was overwhelming – the whole murder was captured on CCTV, her killer’s home was littered with far-left literature and his bedroom walls were covered with pictures of political figures he despised. This was clearly a murder that bore all the hallmarks of a well targeted and premeditated crime that was motivated by an ideological hatred. By any reasonable assessment, the murder of Ann Widdecombe should at the very least have been categorised as a potential act of terrorism. Yet initially it was not, quite the opposite in fact; the police lied and claimed it was an isolated incident, and politicians warned the public against any form of speculation.

The second case, which involved nothing more than three men capturing footage of a large Islamic gathering, most likely to create social media footage and commentary, triggered one of the largest evacuations and counter terror operations in recent years. 15,000 people were evacuated, and high-ranking police and counter terror officers were quick to immediately and definitively brand the incident as terrorism, but they went further still, stating that the ideological cause of the terror incident was “far-right extremism.” This led to 13 arrests – eight of which took place under terror legislation, allowing officers unprecedented powers to hold and interview the suspects, as well as being granted expanded powers to search their homes and gain access to any electronic devices. What’s more, politicians were not calling for calm or warning against speculation: they were openly talking about the threat level and stating that “undoubtedly” lives had been saved, before congratulating officers and squarely laying the blame at the door of the “extreme right-wing”. Yet this entire case was nothing more than a false flag.

Worse still, when the BBC initially reported on the evacuation of the Islamic festival on Monday July 13th 2026, they reported on the incident by stating that Suffolk Police were dealing with a “suspected right-wing terror threat”. Local social media posts and early television reports similarly used the baseline phrase “right-wing” to describe the group that had been intercepted with the drone. Later the BBC was forced to issue a correction, updating the terminology to include the word “extreme”. In stark contrast, the media – and most noticeably the BBC – had been reluctant to use comparable ideological labels in the immediate hours following the brutal murder of Ann Widdecombe. It appeared that the media was in lock-step with both the police, other state authorities and politicians when discussing these two events.

But it isn’t just the stark contrast between these two events and the way in which the police, politicians and the media chose to treat them; it is also interesting how both events just happened to occur within days of one another. The odds of two such events taking place within the same week must be astronomical – for one of Britain’s most notable political figures to be brutally murdered just days before a supposed terror plot was foiled and a major evacuation took place is an incredible coincidence. It’s almost as if one of these events was contrived specifically to draw attention away from the other. Almost as if the British state was desperate to play down a murder that was motivated by extreme left-wing ideology by inventing an extreme right-wing terror plot. Then it seems as though the state knowingly ensured that the news of this false flag “extreme right-wing terror” incident was amplified by police, Counter Terror chiefs, politicians and the media.

Ultimately, these two cases display a stark disparity between the way in which different incidents are approached by the state and the media depending on the political ideology of the suspected perpetrators. It is clear that when the label of ‘right-wing’ can be attached to a suspect, police, the media and politicians are eager to openly brand an incident as an act of ‘terrorism’. Conversely, the opposite is true when a suspect has ‘left-wing’ views, and instead the establishment will do everything in its power to avoid categorising an incident as ‘terrorism’. But when looking at these two cases, an even more concerning issue can be observed: the establishment will happily play up, or even go as far as to invent, a fake ‘right-wing terror’ threat in order to create an incident that fits the prevailing political narrative. And this could be an especially useful tactic for the state to deploy in order to distract the public’s attention away from a very real terrorist incident that was committed by a group or an individual that the state wishes to protect. But of course, everything you have just read would be branded as a ‘dangerous right-wing conspiracy theory’ by those within the establishment and the media.