PETER HITCHENS: Ordinary citizens are the ones who need greater protection - not MPs or famous people

I know nothing about the death of Ann Widdecombe, and won’t discuss it until after any trial which may result. But I do wish that politicians would not use it as an argument for more security for MPs or public figures. Crime of this kind demands more security for everybody. Many people who have nothing to do with politics no longer feel safe in their homes. Others do not feel safe in the streets or on public transport. The risk of being attacked, quite randomly, by a crazy individual is worryingly high.I am especially concerned with the sad cases in which wholly innocent people are suddenly and severely assaulted by complete strangers. As the dedicated campaign group Hundred Families has been pointing out for years, this is a problem the authorities do not like to discuss.It first became prominent in 1992 when Jonathan Zito was stabbed to death by Christopher Clunis. Clunis was a total stranger (and longstanding drug-abuser) who was severely mentally ill. But say much about it and you will be accused of spreading prejudice against the mentally ill, most of whom would not hurt a fly. Yet these things happen. I know nothing about the death of Ann Widdecombe, but I do wish that politicians would not use it as an argument for more security, writes Peter HitchensJulian Hendy, of the brave and determined Hundred Families, recently described his own experience to the Nottingham inquiry into the killings by Valdo Calocane (whose home, said neighbours, stank of marijuana). ‘My dad went out to pay his paper bill on a Sunday morning in late April 2007 and, as he was walking out of the shop, a man he’d never met before stabbed him in the back and stabbed him in the neck, and he died as I was holding his hand seven days later. They were complete strangers to each other. I found that the man who attacked him had a long history of contact with local mental health services, he had a history of serious mental illness, drug abuse and violence.’Mr Hendy said he had documented 2,468 mental health- related killings since 1993. There are now around 100 to 120 mental health-related homicides in the UK each year. Yet very little is ever done or said about this. Discussion of the subject is frowned on. I believe there are two reasons for this. The first is that our mental health system is hopelessly overloaded, since most residential mental hospitals were closed and sold off after 1985 (the idea came from the late Enoch Powell). The Government does not want to know this, as putting it right would cost billions in building and staff costs.In the same era, the amount of illegal drug-taking in our society was increasing sharply and has now become a pandemic, especially the use of marijuana. The authorities, long-infiltrated by drug legalisers, also do not want to do anything about this, and keep scanty records of the problem.Nothing will happen until public anger about this double folly reaches boiling point. That won’t happen until people grasp what is going on.There is a small footnote to this, which I think worth mentioning. As Shadow Home Secretary, Ann Widdecombe was the last major politician to seek to strengthen the penalties against marijuana in October 2000, proposing a fixed-penalty fine. Her scheme was torpedoed immediately by several Shadow Cabinet colleagues, who leaked to the media that they had smoked dope in their student days (So what? one asks). The result was that a popular plan was wrecked, and Ann Widdecombe’s political career was permanently derailed. No doubt those involved were in the chorus of those mourning her.Scottish Police were quite wrong to arrest and charge (with what offence?) a foolish person for making cruel, crass comments about Ann Widdecombe’s death on anti-social media. Vindictive nastiness is not a criminal offence. It is a moral offence which will be punished in other ways, over time, by the conscience of the person who has committed it. The police have many other things to do. Football is so mad, its players and supporters think it is a kind of war, in which victory and defeat matter. This explains the ridiculous behaviour of some Argentine footballers, holding up a tablecloth, or similar, claiming the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina. Many good, brave men died (on both sides) to establish that this is not so. Kicking a bladder into a net does not entitle anyone to try to reverse that solemn verdict.Inquiry into Lucy Letby can still avoid a disasterLike a giant bulldozer with jammed controls, the Thirlwall Inquiry into the supposed murders by Lucy Letby rolls relentlessly on, smashing through common sense, ignoring warning cries and heading for the cliff edge of a mighty disaster.It has already burned up nearly £19million of our taxes, questioning people at vast length on the basis that Ms Letby is definitely guilty of baby deaths at the Countess of Chester hospital.But she may not be. As Sir David Davis MP pointed out in the Commons on Thursday, recent reports into the NHS provide other more likely explanations for the deaths.‘Two damning reviews of NHS maternity services have now been published. The Ockenden report exposed failures at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust that mirror those at the Countess of Chester: infections, overcrowding, under-resourcing, sustained pressure and overstretched staff.’The inquiry was asked long ago to allow Ms Letby representation and it refused. Its chairman, Lady Justice Thirlwall, rather brusquely dismissed the doubts about her guilt, which were already widespread as her tribunal got under way in 2024. She said they were ‘noise’.Sir David is quite right to call, before it is too late, for Thirlwall to expand its terms of reference to include staffing crises, poor clinical management and environmental risks (there were serious contamination problems in the hospital).If it does, it can swerve away from that cliff edge.