Can a 19th Century assassination of a UK Prime Minister help stop the next attack?

The recent attack on former President Trump is the latest in the line of violent political attacks.

Political attacks are not a new phenomenon, and they are not unique to the US, however the common denominator is that they are targeted, not spontaneous.

In May 1812, Spencer Perceval became the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated. Percival was shot at close range in the lobby of the House of Commons by John Bellingham. A brief review of this case identifies several of pre attack ‘proximal indicators’ to be present, much as they are present in today’s attacks, suggesting that they are ingrained in human behaviour. The question is: have we learned the lessons from history to prevent attacks in the UK today?

In 2016, following the assassination of Jo Cox MP, I was tasked with setting up and running a new Metropolitan Police to be based in the UK Parliament. Contextually, this was the beginning of the debate into the UK leaving the European Union, referred to as Brexit. My task was to investigate the abuse, threats and intimidation, build the national intelligence picture and lastly, stop the next attack.

Countering politically motivated violence was new to me, and mindful of the potential consequences I set out to research the subject as part of my dissertation for my security Management MSc. In doing so, I identified that the subject had been widely researched, and that those involved in the research were extremely generous in sharing their knowledge.

In 1997 Dr Robert Fein, a forensic psychologist and Bryan Vossekuil, a US Secret Service agent published a seminal research paper titled Preventing Assassination: Secret Service Exceptional Case Study Project. The paper was the result of five years of research with full access to the files of individuals engaged in assassination-type behaviours directed at prominent public officials in the United States since 1949.

Their research identified that these attacks are not spontaneous, they are purposeful and targeted, and the perpetrators exhibit specific ‘attack related’ behaviours.  These ‘assassins’ rarely make direct threats towards their target, but they often leak their intentions to other people. They carefully plan their attacks, usually behave quite rationally, and usually attack after a downward spiral in their lives. One of the key elements of any attack plan is predictability.

Another key discovery was they were driven by a grievance, real or perceived or a desire for infamy to counter their feelings of insignificance. This research has progressed and Dr Reid Meloy introduced a typology of warning behaviors was into the violence risk and threat assessment literature as a “useful means of conceptualising behavioral patterns.  These ‘behaviours’ are now well established and termed ‘pre attack or proximal indicators’, and the methodology referred to as protective intelligence is practiced by threat assessment professionals globally.

The ‘proximal indicators’ include:

• Pathway to Violence – defined as any behaviour that is part of research, planning, preparation, or implementation of an attack.
• Fixation – defined as behaviour that indicates an increasingly pathological preoccupation with a person or a cause. It is typically accompanied by social or occupational deterioration.
• Identification – This can be evidenced on either or both of the following two elements. Firstly, any behaviour that indicates a psychological desire to be a “pseudo-commando”, have a “warrior mentality,” closely associate with weapons or other military or law enforcement paraphernalia, and secondly, identifying and emulating with previous attackers or assassins, and/or identify oneself as an agent to advance a particular cause, belief system or ideology.
• Leakage – communication to a third party of an intent to do harm to a target through an attack.
• Last Resort – This evidence increasing desperation or distress through language or actions suggesting that person of concern is now at or approaching into a position of last resort. There is no alternative other than violence, and the consequences are justified.
• Directly Communicated Threat – The communication of a direct threat to the target or law enforcement.
• Novel Aggression – An act of random unrelated violence which may be to test the ability of the subject to commit a violent act.
• Energy Burst – A sudden burst of activity usually in the days or weeks before the attack

The Assassination of Prime Minister Spencer Percival.

John Bellingham was a businessman who in 1804, was preparing to return to England from Russia, Bellingham was detained due to an unpaid debt. He argued that the debt was not his, petitioning the British Ambassador who declined to help. Bellingham was imprisoned, until 1809, when he finally returned home to his wife and children. Over the next 3 years Bellingham petitioned the Foreign Office, the Treasury, the Privy Council, and Prime Minister Spencer Perceval himself.

On 18 April, Bellingham met with a Treasury official to whom he said that if he could get no satisfaction, he would take justice into his own hands. (Leakage) His words were not considered to be a threat, and he was advised that he should take whatever action he deemed proper.

Finally, driven by his injustice (Fixation) and his feeling of being treated unfairly by the British establishment (Grievance) with the establishment he purchased two firearms and instructed a tailor to sew a hidden pocket into his coat. (Pathway to Violence).

On 11 May 1812, John Bellingham waited in the House of Commons lobby. He had made several visits over the preceding weeks, so no one thought it odd that he was there. Spencer Perceval walked into the lobby and was subsequently shot in the chest by Bellingham.

Bellingham sat down and waited to be arrested. When asked about why he assassinated the Prime Minister, Bellingham explained that he had exhausted every official avenue of redress and felt justified in his actions. He was tried and executed a week later.

Bellingham’s case identifies the presence of several of the proximal indicators.

Following the attack on former President Trump, political violence is firmly back on the agenda. Lord Walney, the government’s adviser on political violence said the apparent attempted murder of Donald Trump was “a vivid reminder of the vulnerability of all politicians”.

British Members of Parliament (MPs) are afforded a series of protective security measures under the national protective security Operation Bridger, which they should all be encouraged to take advantage of. It is for this reason that Stella Creasy MP was wrong to suggest that Operation Bridger was “non-existent”.

All too often MPs confuse being abused in public as an indicator of an impending threat, this is a mistake.

Since 2000, there have been seven significant planned and successful attacks, and when we map these against the identified indicators of concern, there are clear patterns which are also consistent with the attack on Spencer Percival back in 1812.

In 2017 I was handed a note which described the conversation leaked by Jack Renshaw to the charity Hope Not Hate, which referred to a planned attack on Rosie Cooper MP. Using the proximal warning behaviours, I was able to identify that this threat should be treated as genuine.

As a result, I was able to share this threat as being credible with the head of the Domestic Counter Terrorism Unit, who initiated a successful investigation, preventing an attack.

The research identifies the following patterns:

1. None of the MPs attacked have been outspoken, high profile or high risk.
2. It is the location of the attacker not the MP that matters.
3. Attacks are planned, not random. Attacks are conducted at predictable places and times, usually at the MPs surgery. None of the attacks occurred at an MPs home.
4. Mental Illness is a poor indicator of a person of concern.
5. Directly communicated threats, abuse, or intimidation is a poor indicator of an attack. None of the attackers had previously communicated any threat to the MP they attacked.

Understandably, MPs are feeling increasingly vulnerable to the hostility they experience, and I am acutely aware that with incidents such as the attack on former President Trump, their safety fears will be at the forefront of their minds. What is needed now, more than ever, is for them to properly understand the methodology behind political violence, and to follow the advice and guidance provided by the police.

MPs may well be confronted and abused in the street, and it is right that such behaviour must be treated seriously. However, is highly unlikely that an MP will be attacked in the street