Bishop Auckland man jailed for threats to murder MP Sam Rushworth
A man who made repeated "vile" threats to murder his MP has been jailed for one and a half years.Benjamin Clarke, 31, bombarded Sam Rushworth with abuse online before threatening to burn the Bishop Auckland MP's house down with the Labour politician inside, Teesside Crown Court heard.Mr Rushworth said he initially wanted his tormentor to get help for his obvious mental health issues but, fearing Clarke's ongoing "hatred" and the recent killings of other MPs, had had to boost his and his family's security.Having been deemed "dangerous", Clarke, who admitted making threats to kill and sending offensive communications, will also have to serve a further 18 months on extended licence.
Clarke first contacted Mr Rushworth, who had been elected in the 2024 general election, on Facebook in the aftermath of the riots following the murder of three girls in Southport, prosecutor Susan Hurst said.Starting on 1 August, Clarke sent direct messages to the MP calling him abusive terms and blaming Mr Rushworth and the government for the violence, the court heard.
Clarke, of Durham Street in Bishop Auckland, escalated to threats, telling Mr Rushworth: "I can't wait until your next public appearance, you'll be lucky to leave in one piece."The MP reported the threat to Durham Police but asked officers to visit Clarke and give him a warning rather than prosecute him, the court heard.But the abusive comments about Mr Rushworth did not stop and on 17 September, Clarke told a social worker he would "smash [the MP's] head off the pavement until he dies," adding he would firebomb Mr Rushworth's office or home and block the doors so he could stand outside and hear his victim's screams, the court heard.Asked if he actually meant to carry out the threats, Clarke said he was "going to do it and it's just a matter of time", the court heard.
The social worker reported the comments to police and Clarke was arrested, telling officers he had received no support for his mental health issues and it was the "political landscape where he lives which was causing him concern", Ms Hurst said.Clarke told police he had no political allegiances but had a "personal grievance" against Mr Rushworth, before adding he had not intended to cause any harm and his comments were because he was "desperate for help".Having been released on bail, on 27 February Clarke called emergency services to report he was having thoughts of suicide and self-harm, Ms Hurst said.As paramedics tried to help him, Clarke told them Mr Rushworth had "ruined his life", said he "could kill" the MP and mentioned burning down his home.Clarke said he would harm Mr Rushworth's wife as well and showed "considerable knowledge" about the MP's home life, Ms Hurst said. In his ongoing "diatribe", Clarke said if he was sent to prison he would kill the MP and then himself, the court heard.The comments were reported to police and Clarke was arrested again, making no comment in his interviews.
In a statement read to the court, Mr Rushworth said he did not know whether Clarke was "capable" of following through on the threats but it was apparent he had a "strong and irrational hatred" for the MP.Mr Rushworth said he bore "no ill will" towards Clarke, adding: "I have tried at every step to balance the needs for security with compassion for a man I deem to be mentally unwell."But, Mr Rushworth added, Clarke had seemed to "double down" on his hatred and it had become "increasingly clear" he "had a fixation to kill me for reasons only he knows".He said he had had to boost security at his home and his wife and children had been majorly affected by the threats.Mr Rushworth said he liked to be open and accessible to people, regularly holding meetings with constituents and attending events, but, in light of the murders of MPs such as Jo Cox and David Amess, he had to have have security guards with him.
'Democracy would be eroded'
Mr Justice Cotter said Clarke's "vitriolic" messages and threats were "vile", with Clarke "obsessed with killing" Mr Rushworth causing the MP and his family "very serious harm".The judge condemned people online who had "approved" Clarke's criminality and made "highly inappropriate comments" on his hate-filled Facebook posts about the MP.Mr Justice Cotter said legitimate criticism of politicians was an important part of society but "no MP should ever face personal threats, harassment or intimidation", adding the "democracy of this country would be eroded" if people felt unable to work in the "vital public roles".The judge said Clarke was "dangerous" and had "entrenched views" in which he blamed others for his own problems and the country's issues, which he "viewed through a racist lens".A restraining order banning Clarke from contacting the MP or his family, or making any reference to them on social media, was made to last indefinitely.Should Clarke need to contact an MP in future, he would have to clear it with the court first, the judge said.
Follow BBC North East on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram. Send your story ideas here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
17 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting own child at any stage of pregnancy under changes to the law set to be passed next week
Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby under changes set to be passed by MPs next week that would herald the biggest overhaul of abortion law for half a century. Under the proposals abortion would effectively be decriminalised and women would no longer face prosecution if they ended their own pregnancy after 24 weeks or without approval from doctors. The changes are said to have the backing of more than 130 backbench MPs meaning it is likely to be approved when MPs are given a free vote on amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill next week. Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy outside abortion law - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Last month Nicola Packer, 45, was acquitted of taking abortion medicine at home when she was about 26 weeks pregnant. Under the new proposals she would not have been prosecuted for this. The MPs behind the proposed amendments say that reform is long-overdue as the current law leads to vulnerable women being prosecuted, some of whom may have had a miscarriage or stillbirth. However anti-abortion campaigners have criticised the proposals, which they warn would be the most extreme liberalisation of the law since the 1967 Abortion Act and could allow abortion 'up to birth'. Abortion is a criminal offence in England and Wales unless it takes place under strict conditions, including that it is before 24 weeks into a pregnancy and with the approval of two doctors. New laws passed during the pandemic allow abortion pills to be taken at home in a system known as 'pills by post', however this is only allowed up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. There are very limited circumstances allowing a woman to access an abortion after 24 weeks, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. But two amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill would radically alter abortion law in England and Wales. One of the amendments, by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, would mean that a woman would no longer be committing an offence by ending her own pregnancy. However under this amendment anybody else, including a medical professional, who assisted a woman in accessing an abortion outside the law could still be prosecuted. Ms Antoniazzi has described it as a 'small change to the law but one that will have a huge impact on the lives of women', adding that it would protect women from prosecution while retaining the criminal law against abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent. A second, rival amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, goes further still and would repeal swathes of legislation and make it a human right for a woman to have access to an abortion. The decision to select one or both amendments for a vote, expected on June 17 and 18, lies with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. However it is expected that Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would receive the backing of MPs after a leading pro-choice group yesterday came out against Ms Creasy's plan, warning it is being rushed through without enough scrutiny. Rachael Clarke, head of advocacy at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said Ms Creasy's amendment does not have the backing of abortion providers whereas Ms Antoniazzi's is supported by more than 50 pro-choice organisations. 'Abortion law is incredibly complex. It governs 250,000 women's healthcare every single year,' she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'Because of that, it is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered. 'That means involvement with providers, medical bodies, regulators - and proper debate time in Parliament.' 'For us, unfortunately, although we truly believe that we need overwhelming and generational change for abortion law, Stella Creasy's amendment is not the right way to do it,' she added.
The Independent
20 minutes ago
- The Independent
What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows
It would be an exaggeration to claim the nation eagerly awaits the invention of 'Badenomics' but Conservatives are certainly impatient with Kemi Badenoch 's apparent inability to create a narrative on the economy, land blows on a weakened Labour government, or compete with Nigel Farage's Reform UK on a key electoral issue. This week's Labour announcements on winter fuel payments and the spending review offer some prime opportunities to 'punch through'. What is the problem? It's hardly confined to today's Conservatives; every political party that has been in power and badly loses an election finds it difficult to get a hearing. Policies the party are most closely identified with are the ones recently and decisively rejected by voters. How far should a heavily defeated team try to claim that they were right all along and that the electorate made the wrong decision? This might be termed the 'blame the voters' approach; while some buyer's remorse may have set in, it's rather futile to attack the electorate. Alternatively, a party can admit mistakes as a means of resetting voter appeal, but that means upsetting former colleagues and handing your enemies an easy win. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Making speeches, for now, rather than policy… and trying to plot a path to redemption. Last week, perhaps in response to internal concerns, shadow chancellor Mel Stride came as close as possible to apologising for the Liz Truss mini-Budget without actually saying 'sorry'. 'Contrition' is the preferred term. Truss has proved to be a potent political weapon, but for the Labour Party, scarcely a day goes by without Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves making a scathing reference to that disaster. Stride was critical of it at the time, having left the government and as chair of the Treasury select committee; his apology-adjacent speech won't stop Labour deploying Agent Truss (and she keeps popping up, unhelpfully) but it might blunt the attacks somewhat. What are the Tories saying about the rest of their record? Still fairly proud of it. Badenoch says the Tories made 'a lot of good things happen', such as reforms to social security, plus 'near full employment' and raising school standards. 'But people remember the most recent period … and I think the most recent period was the most difficult,' she concedes. So it is Rishi Suank's fault for 'talking right, governing left' as she has put it. So Badenoch is sorry-not-sorry? The Tory mistakes she points to, such as on Brexit and net zero, actually come from the right, not the centre, and don't necessarily chime with public opinion. A passionate and now obdurate Eurosceptic, she seems to want more Brexit at a time when the voters have concluded it was a flop; as the years go on, she'll need to say if she would reverse Starmer's 'Brexit reset' that builds closer, easier relations with the EU. She will also be asked if she would scrap planning reforms that boost growth, stop skilled migration, bring back zero-hours contracts, reduce VAT on private school fees, and so on. She will also need to eat many of her own words as a minister on climate change and green growth, now she's a 'net zero sceptic'. She may hope to win back some Reform voters by tacking to the right, but she can never out-Farage Farage. Indeed, she's ridiculed him for promising economic fantasies, so how can she now embrace them and return to Boris Johnson-era cakeism? Where are the Tories with winter fuel payments for pensioners? They are demanding an apology from Labour. But Labour's present policy is identical to Badenoch's – restore the payment for all now, but try to means-test it later – so she is disarmed, and cannot even claim credit for forcing the U-turn, which was obviously down to Labour panic after local election losses. And what do the Tories say about the spending review? Badenoch's line is that there would not be a black hole in public finances if they'd won the last election, and taxes would be lower. The latter part is true, but equally a hypothetical Tory government would now be imposing an even more painful squeeze on social security and public services, to the point where the numbers would simply not be credible, leading to strikes. Voters sensed this unreality last July, and as time passes the Tories will have to come up with credible plans of their own rather than relying on Jeremy Hunt's pre-election claims. Anything else? Plenty. Stride may be doing his best, but Badenoch seems more interested in 'culture wars' than macroeconomics, which is a problem. Her shadow frontbench team is surprisingly lacking in talent and Labour ministers, despite their relative inexperience, mostly run rings around their opponents. Can the Conservatives forge the 'Right Approach' again? In truth, the Tories are on a long march back to the centre and sooner or later will have to accept climate change and exorcise the ghosts of Truss and Johnson. They need to show themselves trustworthy and realistic, and willing to compromise with their lost voters. These are the kinds of radical, symbolic 'unthinkable' things Tony Blair had to do to make Labour electable in the 1990s, and Starmer did afresh in recent years. Only then will voters lend their ears. Badenoch isn't the leader for that task.
Telegraph
23 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The SNP's blockade of nuclear power in Scotland is out of date
In a last throw of the dice, the SNP tried to undercut the UK Government's plan for a nuclear energy future by insisting that they would concentrate on wind and solar power to keep the lights on in Scotland ... without nuclear power. It was all a bit pathetic. Even before Ed Milliband, the Energy Secretary, had finished his oration on the UK's welcome new energy policy, the 'flat earthers' in the SNP and Greens were out in force denouncing what they claim were the dangers of nuclear power. And what was most pathetic was the fact that renewable power will probably always play a part in Britain's energy needs – after all, Mr Milliband is a fan – alongside a new £14-billion nuclear programme. But with an SNP Government, only renewables will count; no nuclear allowed is to be their policy. What's wrong with both, asks the man and woman in the street? The answer is simple: John Swinney's 'die in a ditch' dislike of nuclear power may be legendary but it is also outdated at a time when the Russian invasion of Ukraine has threatened the world's oil and gas supplies. And the recent power shutdown in Spain, which also affected Portugal and parts of France, has raised serious questions about renewables such as wind and solar power. In spite of this, the First Minister has often declared that he 'never had and never will' support investment in nuclear power plants. This puts him in direct opposition to the UK's energy plan, and also without a cogent policy for how he would keep Scotland's lights on. His view, however, is not just opposed by Labour and Conservatives, but even by SNP supporters. A recent opinion survey suggested that a majority now believe that their party's stance is, at the very least, 'unrealistic'. It has always looked hypocritical for Scotland to benefit from nuclear power when its SNP Government continued to oppose it, and the rest of the UK shouldered the burden, But this attitude now looks perverse. UK energy policy the preserve of Westminster, but the Scottish Government retains power over planning – SNP ministers have used planning controls to block the construction of any new nuclear plants in Scotland. They did this despite one of Scotland's two ageing nuclear power stations, the Hunterston B plant in North Ayrshire, shutting down in January 2022. And Torness, which still accounts for around 15 per cent of Scotland's electricity generation, is due to close in 2030. Ian Murray, Labour's Scottish Secretary, posted on X: 'The SNP block on new nuclear is costing Scotland jobs and investment.' Michael Shanks, the energy minister and twice recent victor over SNP candidates in Rutherglen, echoed Mr Murray's pledge that an incoming Labour Scottish Government next May would abolish the SNP's opposition to nuclear. First of all, however, Labour must win that election to the Holyrood Parliament. Around 20,000 Scottish jobs were already dependent on the nuclear power industry and 150 Scottish firms were working on the Hinkley Point C plant. Mr Shanks added that many more jobs would be in the pipeline for Scotland with a Scottish Government that 'unashamedly backs nuclear power'. The energy situation is bound to play a massive part in next year's Scottish Parliament election. How strange that Labour will be saying that both renewables and nuclear will play a part in keeping the lights on, while the SNP will insist that only half of that equation is enough.
