This Radical Dispatch Newszine - below - is provided free for all subscribers.
At the top of this post, Resistance Radio presents our WARRIOR CREED video/audio podcast from , with a transcript provided - Why Was Ann Widdecombe MP’s Terror-Related Murder Covered Up?
This podcast can be set to either audiovisual, or just audio, and is for premium members of Radical Media only. To listen, basic members should upgrade to the premium service here:
Read on now for our free Radical Dispatch.
Why Was Ann Widdecombe MP’s Terror-Related Murder Covered Up?
- A Radical Dispatch
1) Former Minister & Reform UK’s Immigration Spokesperson, Ann Widdecombe is Targeted & Murdered
Ann Widdecombe’s bludgeoning to death in her own home, and the subsequent attempted but failed cover up of the killer’s political motives, has shocked Britain.
Ann Noreen Widdecombe of DSG (Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great) 1947 – 2026, was a British politician, television personality and believing Catholic.
As a member of the Conservative Party, she was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Maidstone and The Weald from 1987 to 2010. She then left the Conservatives to join Nigel Farage, first as a member of the Brexit Party from 2019, and as a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South West England from 2019 to 2020. Then, as a member of Farage’s new party Reform UK, serving as the party's Immigration and Justice spokesperson from 2023 until 2026.
Click to play:
Initially, state officials, police and media were all briefing the public that Ms Widdecombe’s murder was a ‘burglary gone wrong’.
Meanwhile reaction to Ms Widdecombe’s death by establishment uniparty media voices was simply abusive.
Click to play:
Adam Boulton for Sky News: “She was very much a spinster. I mean, by the end, I think you’d probably describe her as an old maid. Reportedly, she claimed that she was a virgin. She had a relationship at university. She went to Oxford University into an all women’s college, of course, where people like Edwina Currie knew her as well. She had a chaste but doomed relationship with a man who’s now a banker, and really from that point on, she was not interested in having personal relationships and very much dedicated herself to her activities. And as you say, once she left parliament, she did develop this second career, really as a television personality. I mean, she was pretty unique. There weren’t that many battling old ladies around. She performed in Strictly Come Dancing and in Celebrity Big Brother. And I think she actually got to the semi-finals of Celebrity Come Dancing. I mean, you know, she knew that the joke was partly on her, but she was very happy to play up to that for the attention which it gave her. She also embarked on a fairly successful writing career, writing books, as she put it, with no sex and violence in them. And I think she also wrote a book about her cats as well.”
Alarmingly, this sort of scapegoating and shaming of the dead lasted for three days, while Farage was being blamed for ‘speculating’ about Ann Widdecomb’s cause of death. Such denial and obfuscation around the case quickly subsided after this time period, once counter-terrorism police announced that they were getting involved.
Click to play:
GB News host: “A huge development here. Counter-terrorism police now leading this investigation into Ann Widdecombe’s murder.”
GB News broadcaster Christopher Hope: “Yep. Absolutely huge. This news broke from the Home Secretary after we left our briefing with the Prime Minister’s official spokesman. So that is absolutely huge and goes to some extent almost justifying the concern in recent days, since the murder or the killing of Anna Widdecombe, by Reform UK politicians. I should run you through what was discussed in the lobby briefing just now. You’ve heard before from Charlie Peters that the IRGC is now being prescribed as a terror organisation with two other groups. The Iranian ambassador has been summoned by the Foreign Secretary to be briefed about this today. That is a huge moment, I think, in UK, Iranian and, in fact, widely in the Middle East, in politics. Shabana Mahmoud is going to today, also, amend the 1971 Immigration Act to allow the government to deport Shabir Ahmed. Now, talks are ongoing with the Pakistani government about why they won’t take back this grooming gangs leader. Of course, he’s no longer welcome in this country, that’s been made very clear. Andy Burnham, the Prime Minister, has made clear he wants swift action on that. On the issue of Ann Widdecombe, the government says that they are loath to encourage anyone to speculate about what happened. It’s important, they say, that the integrity of the work is carried out. On MPs’ safety, the government says this, it’s paramount MPs can go about their work and there are rigorous protections for MPs in place. But you’ve heard already from Zia Yusuf concerned about the lack of protection, he says, for Reform’s 8 MPs. And elsewhere, of course, there’s a chat about the Falkland Islands. The government says there’s no way that the Falkland Islanders were implanted there by the UK government to swing that referendum back in 2013. The Falklands will stay British, it’s their right to self-determination. I should say, in terms of the handover of power, it is now all around me. If we can just show you what’s happening in Number 10 around this camera, huge scaffolding is being erected here for the coronation of Andy Burnham as the prime minister this time next week. What is surprising to me is the lack of any scrutiny of Andy Burnham’s plans in government. Today he’ll be addressing his own MPs, in a Zoom online tonight. Questions are being submitted by MPs, they’ve picked out an answer. That is private. We can’t cover it, film it, as GB News. And around here, even tomorrow, with the final cabinet meeting Tom, the Prime Minister isn’t inviting Andy Burnham to be there. So we should never forget that all the other drama happening, of course, in the news, we are about to have a new Prime Minister with little or no scrutiny of what his plans are.”
The Telegraph reports 13th July 2026:
This development was serious enough for the Labour government to resign, though they obviously did not.
Nevertheless, by this time Sky News’ Adam Boulton was forced to apologise for his abuse of a murdered lady.
The Daily Mail reports 11th July 2026:
“Broadcaster Adam Boulton has admitted he was 'wrong and insensitive' as he apologises for labelling Ann Widdecombe a 'spinster' and 'an old maid' on television following news of her murder.”
As an aside, this is why we are taught not to abuse the dead.
It is far better to remember Ann Widdecombe for her strongest moments, such as this one below.
Click to play:
Ann Widdecombe: “Nobody has the right to live their lives being protected from offence or from insult or from hurt feelings. It is an occupational hazard of living in society. And if you really can’t take it, become a hermit. But more seriously, on the opposite end from the snowflakes, poor little darlings, on the opposite end from them, are the totalitarians. And that was how Hitler was so successful, because he did not allow any free speech, whatever. And if you spoke out against that sickening regime, or indeed against the Soviet Union - two minutes more, no I need at least five - or spoke out in the Soviet Union, you would end up in prison, if not worse. Totalitarians like to curtail your right to disagree with state orthodoxy. Now for state orthodoxy, substitute the words social orthodoxy. As exemplified by social media, Twitter and other such places where people decide what is and what is not acceptable. Now I would love to stand in this union and oppose, and argue with, and take to pieces, a Holocaust denier. But if we say no, we can never have the Holocaust denier. Because his views are so offensive that he cannot be accorded a platform, then what happens? That sort of viewpoint is driven underground where it can quite often flourish. And people whisper behind their hands, oh, you know, there’s something in what he says, but we’re not allowed to hear it. Let’s hear it. And by hearing it, we can destroy it. We should also remember..”
2) Farage Was Right, You Were All Wrong
Until counter-terrorism police got involved in the death of Widdecombe, Nigel Farage had been a lone voice in attempting to beseech police to consider all lines of inquiry as to motive. For that he was roundly criticised, including by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
The Times reports 14th July 2026:
“Nigel Farage has been accused of exploiting the murder of Ann Widdecombe for ‘political propaganda’, as policing leaders called for an end to public speculation about the case. The Reform UK leader said that he believed the death of the former Tory MP turned Reform spokesperson was ‘premeditated murder’ and discussed lines of inquiry with reporters after arriving in her village on the edge of Dartmoor on Saturday, at the height of the police’s active murder investigation. Harvey Proctor, a former Tory MP and close friend of Widdecombe, said Farage’s public pronouncements were ‘deeply disappointing..Ann Widdecombe was far too dear to her family, friends and former colleagues for her murder to be exploited as political propaganda,’ he told The Times. ‘The police have expressly asked the public not to speculate about the motive. It is therefore deeply disappointing that Nigel Farage has chosen to do precisely that’. Farage told reporters on Saturday, before police arrested a 28-year-old in South Yorkshire on suspicion of murder, that he did not believe Widdecombe’s killing was ‘a burglary that went wrong’.”
Global’s LBC weighed in too.
“Ann Widdecombe’s death is ‘not an Agatha Christie novel,’ Tory MP Iain Duncan Smith told LBC this morning, as he blasted Nigel Farage for speculating around her death and claiming her killing was ‘premeditated’.”
But as the burglary narrative started to publicly fall apart.
The result was that Nigel Farage was proven right and everyone else was shown to be wilfully wrong.
Such voices had not only been seeking to shut down any other lines of inquiry, but they were also busy smearing the one man who asked them to keep an open mind.
Click to play:
Maajid Nawaz for WARRIOR CREED: “And you can see the Daily Mail on your screens now. It wasn’t just the Times. The Daily Mail says: ‘Reform UK Faces Backlash From Commons Speaker Over Claim of Inadequate Security Amid Anger at Nigel Farage Exploiting Ann Widdecome’s Murder’. This is how desperate they were to not only refuse to investigate lines of inquiry that clearly indicated this killing had been targeted, but they were smearing the one politician who was raising the alarm that this looked like a targeted attack. Not just the press, of course, the Daily Mail and the Times getting involved, but in this instance here we’re speaking of the very speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, deciding to reprimand Farage for being correct prior to, of course, them having to admit that he was correct. That is what Farage had been saying all along…This was Farage 100% certain. They were all mocking him at the time, attempting to steer the public away from the idea this was a premeditated murder. Well, of course, Farage was right and you were all wrong. That’s the point. The Speaker of the House of Commons was wrong. The Times was wrong. The Daily Mail was wrong. Harvey Proctor was wrong. All of those voices that came out telling Farage to stop suggesting this was a premeditated murder were wrong.”
Nigel Farage was right, and they were all wrong.
3) Signs of Terror Attack
The signs that this case bore the hallmarks of targeted terrorism were all there, despite what certain security experts rolled out by media were saying.
Click to play:
Talk TV host: “We can talk about this being isolated. We know it’s not quite, whilst not common, it’s not sadly isolated. What is your sense as somebody who’s worked in this area that was going on there? Have we just arrived in an era of extremism where everyone’s losing their mind because someone has a different political view? Is there something else going on?”
Philip Grindell: “So, no, and I’ve actually written on this subject and studied it. So we actually go back before Joe Cox, in actual fact. Because things changed around 2010. 2010, Stephen Timms was attacked. And that was a terrorist attack by an Islamist extremist, who attacked him because of her beliefs around what was going on in the war in Iraq and everything else. What we need to be looking at is, you know, we’ve got 650 MPs. Over the last 26 years, arguably five of them have actually been attacked. So the likelihood of a Member of Parliament being physically attacked is still pretty low. And, you know, within that we’ve had two or three fatalities and then that’s not to be dismissed. The interesting thing when you look at attacks on MPs is they have never been personal. You know, Jo Cox wasn’t attacked for something she said. Stephen Timms wasn’t attacked for something he said. David Amess wasn’t attacked for something he said. They were attacked because what they represented, which was the state. And to the person that’s attacking them, and if you take out the David Amess scenario for a moment, every attack is being conducted by a local constituent. So it’s not about politics either, it’s about: ‘you represent the state, and I’m unhappy around, I’ve got a grievance with what’s happening geopolitically’. So we need to be quite clear around the motives around why the politicians have been attacked. What we then have, which is the whole separate piece, is the abuse, the threats, the intimidation of MPs, which is what, when I went in 2016 post-Jo Cox, we were investigating all of those, and they were horrific, they were epidemic in terms of the volume, but they’re not physically threatening. And where people get very confused, and sometimes use it to manipulate the story, is that what we know is that people who make threats very rarely pose threats. If we look at all the people, the MPs that have been physically attacked, none of those people were threatened by the person that attacked them. The people that make threats are doing it for very different reasons. Whether it’s, they could be saying, we hear very often, not just politicians, but other public figures and celebrities saying, ‘I’ve had a death threat’. The reality is those people rarely, if ever, do anything. Because they’re, if you look at a threat is our intent and capability. When they’re making those threats, it’s not because they are coming to, they’re not telling you, their intention is not to warn you they’re coming to kill you. Their intent is around intimidation, causing you fear, causing you anxiety. Certainly when I was there, when it was the Brexit debates, some of the MPs that were getting all those threats would be saying to me, ‘we’ve got a Brexit debate this evening and a vote. I’m thinking about not voting with my conscience because of the abuse I’m going to get’. So you can see there how the intimidation has worked. You can see how the intimidation has caused lots of MPs to stand down from being MPs.”
Below is our response to this security expert.
And we elaborated in this week’s WARRIOR CREED livestream.
Click to play:
Maajid Nawaz for WARRIOR CREED: “You remember what you heard there. He specifically said, ‘let’s put the David Amess case aside for a minute’ and then carried on talking and didn’t return to the David Amess case. You can’t put aside the one case that disproves the rest of your argument, and then not return to why you don’t think it disproves the rest of your argument. And then add to that, that the David Amess case and the Ann Widdecombe case, as we’ve just mentioned, were both similar in that the attacker travelled across the country to target them. Unlike in the case of Jo Cox. Yes, unlike in the case of Stephen Timms. But, you know, at the end of the day, the exceptions to the general rule that you’re putting out must be addressed. And if you don’t address them, then you cannot use your general argument to refute those who are saying that it does appear as if those on the political right have been targeted. And you’re telling us that he wasn’t specifically targeting Ann Widdecombe. It is all looking incredibly suspicious. We reminded Mr Grindell, the apparent security expert, that of course his idea that murderers don’t threaten you and then kill you, if they threaten you they’re unlikely to murder you because they’re all mouth, is basically what he was saying. Fine, that applies if it’s some random angry bloke online acting like a troll. But with ideological factions, jihadist terrorists, far left anarchist terrorists and others, they indeed do announce, pre-announce, who they’re going to target. That is exactly what a Fatwa is, Mr Grindell. And so, of course, it’s no surprise to us, as the Daily Mail then subsequently reported on the 14th of July, as we said and reminded Mr Grindell, this particular attacker does appear indeed to have had ideological motives. Now, if this is correct, as the Mail is reporting, ‘Ann Widdecombe murder suspect, had communist literature at home. Terror cops believe attack was political’. Of course, that provides some more of an angle to it being an ideological attack, and of course undoes a lot of what Mr Grindell, that security expert, was saying to downplay this particular targeted attack on Anne Widdecombe.”
Indeed, ideological literature was subsequently reported to have been found in the suspect’s home.
The Daily Mail reports 14th July 2026:
“The brutal murder of Ann Widdecombe was last night being treated as a suspected politically motivated terrorist attack. In a dramatic escalation, counter terrorism officers yesterday took over the investigation into the killing of the former Tory minister. It came after the discovery of Russian communist literature and other items of political ideology at the home of the suspected killer. And it marked a U-turn after the local force, Devon and Cornwall Police, spent days insisting that there was no link to terrorism. Officers, it is understood, are probing whether the 78-year-old may have been bludgeoned to death in a premeditated attack on Reform UK.”
Combine this with the fact that the suspect is reported to have driven nearly 300 miles across the country with a large stick, to reach Widdecombe’s home, and this certainly looks like a case of premeditated and targeted murder.
Click to play:
Today, that s the conclusion counter-terrorism have publicly announced.
Click to play:
Head of Counterterror Police for Sky News: “We have also been granted a warrant of further detention, which means the suspect can now be held for questioning for up to seven days under the Terrorism Act. He remains under arrest on suspicion of commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, as well as on suspicion of murder. This is a complex investigation, and there are multiple lines of inquiry that we are pursuing expeditiously, including digital forensic examinations. I am very aware of the significant levels of public interest in this case, given that Ms. Widdecombe was such a high-profile political and public figure and familiar to many. I do not intend to address every bit of speculation we have seen. But I would like to use this opportunity to remind the public that investigations of this type are complex and new information can emerge as officers progress their inquiries. And we intend to release further information when it’s available and when it is appropriate to do so. So please allow us to do our job thoroughly and carefully. And think before sharing any unverified information.”
Which is why the original police denial of this fact is so inappropriate and quite baffling.
The Times reports 14th July 2026:
“It was just before midday on Sunday when a senior police officer revealed the arrest of a 28-year-old man over Ann Widdecombe’s alleged murder, saying there was no information to suggest terrorism. Matt Longman, an assistant chief constable at Devon and Cornwall, added there was ‘nothing to suggest it was politically motivated’, while James Vaughan, the chief constable, said the response was ‘clearly British policing at its very best’.”
The government’s independent reviewer of terrorism Jonathan Hall KC used typical British understatement to label that original police decision as ‘slightly regrettable’.
The Times reports 14th July 2026:
“But the force’s decision to suggest publicly that Widdecombe’s death did not have a terrorist element has inevitably resulted in criticism. Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism, told Times Radio that Devon and Cornwall police ‘probably broke one of the golden rules of investigations’. Hall said: ‘I don’t understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case and I don’t know why they didn’t simply say they had an open mind as to the motivation. I think they probably broke one of the golden rules of investigations, which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge. So that aspect is slightly regrettable’.”
4) Security Review For Reform Party
Revelations that this was a targeted attack have provided a boost to Reform party claims that they need security.
A matter that was then raised again in Parliament.
Click to play:
Robert Jenrick (Ref) MP: “In paying tribute to Anne, a woman who was brave, principled, kind and generous. I, like many others, will miss her enormously. Even though on my first morning as a Member of Parliament, when I was the youngest MP, I met her in Westminster Hall and she asked me, am I here on work experience? I think I eventually shed my..nappies. The Home Secretary is the ultimate arbiter of what happens in the Home Office. She isn’t powerless and no one would pretend so. Would she agree that it was unwise of the government to heavily reduce the security offered to the member for Clacton (Nigel Farage MP), given all that we know about his particular danger that is posed to him and to his family? Would she agree that, frankly, it shouldn’t have taken the murder of Ann for him to be offered a meeting with the committee? And that many will conclude, perhaps unfairly, but nonetheless, that it is only because of the political views of the member for Clacton that he is placed in this position? And will she use her power as Home Secretary to make sure that the security that he and his family needs is put in place immediately?”
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood: “Let me say to the honourable gentleman he will know that it is an independent process within the Home Office that deals with the risk assessment and risk management of those in public life. I’m not going to compromise the integrity of those arrangements by commenting in any detail on specific instances.”
Labour Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood did finally take action.
The Times reports 14th July 2026:
Click to play:
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood: “I recognise the particular concern that the Reform Party will feel today, and of course Nigel Farage, the party’s leader. I’m happy to offer a meeting for Mr Farage with the Chair of RAVEC, the independent body within the Home Office that manages the security of those in public life. And I will also be looking at what security guidance can be provided to former members of Parliament, which I hope to work with you on, Mr Speaker, as well as those who serve a party outside of this place.”
For which Nigel Farage thanked her.
5) What’s Really Going On?
So what is really going on? We remind our regulars of last week’s Dispatch and the way in which the establishment uniparty ganged up on Nigel Farage.
Radical Media reports 8th July 2026:
Farage’s argument was that the funding scandal was a ‘stitch-up’ by ‘the establishment’ to oust him.
After publishing the weekly Radical Dispatch, we also took that view on GB News last week.
Click to play:
Maajid Nawaz for GB News: “I think Zahawi is onto something. There is generally an establishment consensus against Nigel Farage. We see that in the way in which all of the establishment parties of government have allied against him when it comes to this investigation and also the by-election, refusing to stand in the by-election and then proceeding to mock Nigel Farage after these allegations have been made. So I think he is onto something. What I’d like to say is actually it’s reminiscent of the Trump playbook. We see with President Trump’s experience that there was a combination of establishment media, legal and institutional lawfare, and billionaire backing (for) the Anyone But Trump or Never Trump movement. We have that same pattern here. We have the media establishment in this case with the investigation, which is actually a storm in a teacup, turning on (Farage). We’ve got billionaire backers supporting subversives such as Rupert Lowe against him. That’s Elon Musk I’m referring to. And we’ve also now got lawfare and institutional lawfare being used against Farage. In this case, it’s the National Crime Agency leaking documents to the press.”
GB News host Michelle Dewbury: ”Yeah, well, that’s the allegation as well that’s come out today, isn’t it? I mean, this is more gripping than some kind of serial drama thriller on TV. It’s almost getting to the point now where it’s... becoming more unbelievable and bizarre by the day.”
Maajid Nawaz for GB News: “Yeah, there’s one more thing I’d like to say, that the Telegraph on the 7th of July, that’s yesterday, reported a little acknowledged fact, and that is that a spokesperson for Nigel Farage informed the Telegraph, the reason this is a storm in a teacup, and this is a quote from the spokesperson for Farage, is that ‘we had already told the parliamentary standards representatives that Farage had received these personal gifts from both Christopher Harbourne and George Cottrell, and Farage was advised that he did not need to report them. Now, if that’s true, what The Telegraph reported yesterday, then it does indicate that Nigel Farage already knows that this will result in his exoneration. He will win the by-election. And that those who are going for him at the moment, the uniparty, will be exposed and having fallen into the trap. And that is that Farage did absolutely nothing wrong.”
In her final published interview before being murdered, and into the context of ‘the uniparty establishment’ hounding Farage out of politics, Ann Widdecombe confirmed her belief that there is such a thing as ‘the establishment’ and that they were targeting Farage.
Click to play:
Ann Widdecombe: “Very little trust left now in parliamentary processes. And if you look at this government, which has a majority on that committee, if you look at this government, you know, look at the way that it’s reacted when it’s felt vulnerable, you know, changes to political donations, cancelling local elections, we all remember that, you know, going for votes at 16, loosening the voter ID requirements, you know, you just name it. They react in such a way that is geared all around self-preservation that Nigel is challenging that establishment. And he’s called this the establishment versus the people. And I think that just about sums it up. And I’m delighted that he’s taken this because the attitude previously of politicians was that you just had to endure it. You gritted your teeth and, you know, if you were being subject to claim after claim after claim, it wouldn’t go away. He just carried on until your position became untenable. He’s taking, and I drew the analogy with policy positions earlier, he has taken this position because he wants an end one way or the other. And he’s right to do this. They’re going to lack credibility. If there’s a by-election and a huge majority for Nigel, there’s going to be a great lack of credibility if he’s still hounded and pusued.”
Host Mark Dolan: “Does this establishment of which you and Nigel speak actually exist?”
Ann Widdecombe: “Yes, I believe it does. Now, I didn’t always believe in that theory, but I do think now that different parts of the establishment act in ways which I think are extremely questionable, you saw it over the debanking stuff, something other than just Nigel, a whole load of other people who don’t even have the ability to publicise and fight, so yes, I think the establishment is there, in that sense, yes.”
Host Mark Dolan: “However, Anne, it’s not clear what will we achieve from this by-election, particularly given that the other parties are not standing. So therefore, if it’s just Farage versus Count Binface, this is not serious politics, is it? It’s student politics, and it’s a pantomime.”
Ann Widdecombe: “No, it’s very serious politics. It’s up to the other parties whether they stand or not. We know why they’re not. They know darn well they can’t beat Nigel. They don’t want him to spend the resources, campaigning and all the rest of it. And they know they can’t beat him.”
Host Mark Dolan: “Farage versus Binface is not serious politics, Anne.”
Ann Widdecombe: “Can I finish? So that’s why they’re not standing. Now, it’s their decision not to stand. Not Nigel. Their decisions. And this is serious politics. In this sense, Binface isn’t serious politics. Forget it. But what Nigel will spend that campaigning period doing is what he told us he will do. He will clear his name and he will ask the peaceful people of Clapton to express a vote of confidence in him. That is not pantomime. That is taking the initiative, thank heaven.”
The fact that such a senior former member of the British political establishment spoke in this way to media once, would have been dangerous enough for the Westminster uniparty.
Click to play:
Maajid Nawaz for WARRIOR CREED: “And so the entire thing, right down to who is suspected of being involved here, does look and feel very suspicious. So in summary, what’s going on? Well, what’s certainly going on is that this was not some accidental death. It was not some burglary gone wrong. Ann Widdecombe appears to have been targeted. Now, of course, the authorities are acknowledging that. Ann Widdecombe’s last two interviews, one published before her death, one published posthumously, were both in defence of Nigel Farage and the Reform Party and both stated her belief that there is a Westminster uniparty establishment that is coming after Nigel Farage and Reform, in an attempt to stitch up Nigel Farage and make sure he cannot become Prime Minister of this country. Then Ann Widdecombe was killed. You draw your own conclusions as to exactly what’s going on here.”
But then, in a surprising twist, it was revealed that Widdecombe had done so again. In what was to be her actual final interview - not yet published, but was done so posthumously - Widdecombe had doubled down on her claim that there is indeed a uniparty ‘establishment’ that is out to get Farage.
The Times reports 14th July 2026:
“Ann Widdecombe defended Nigel Farage during a pre-recorded radio interview just 20 minutes before police believe she was killed. Footage of her last interview, which was never broadcast, has been given to Times Radio with permission from Widdecombe’s family. It showed the former Tory minister in typically ebullient and forthright form. In it she defended the former Clacton MP’s decision to call a by-election after facing criticism for not declaring a £5 million ‘gift’ from a cryptocurrency billionaire, and characterised the investigations into his financial conduct as being part of the ‘politics of personal destruction’…She said: ‘There has been a game now for a very long time, a game of personal destruction, not just for Nigel, for lots and lots of politicians that face this’…Times Radio broadcast a four minute-long excerpt of the interview on Tuesday morning with the blessing of Widdecombe’s family, in which she defended Farage and rubbished the parliamentary standards system.”
Here is that posthumously released interview.
Click to play:
