Police Scotland reopen investigation into trans activist Heather Herbert over graphic Ann Widdecombe “painful death” posts
The criminal investigation divisions of Police Scotland have officially reopened their inquiry into online statements made by a transgender activist and Aberdeen University web developer celebrating the death of Ann Widdecombe. Law enforcement authorities confirmed on Monday, July 13, 2026, that “additional inquiries” are actively underway regarding the public social media posts, reversing an initial police assessment that concluded no direct criminality had occurred. The regulatory escalation matches the rapid transformation of the wider homicide case, which has since been classified as a targeted, politically motivated terror investigation.
The harrowing core of the digital controversy traces back to graphic statements written by 33-year-old Heather Herbert—a former election candidate for both the Scottish Greens and Scottish Labour—on the social media platform Bluesky. Immediately following initial public announcements of Widdecombe’s death on Thursday, July 9, Herbert published a post stating, “Some good news for once. I hope it was an extremely painful death”. She immediately followed this up with: “And I hope she was handcuffed to the bed as she screamed in agony”. While Herbert originally defended her comments by pointing out they were posted before police publicly declared a murder inquiry, the intense backlash has forced both her employer and state prosecutors to execute a complete disciplinary and legal review.
At the absolute center of the reopened police inquiry is the severe, escalating nature of the primary homicide investigation. Devon and Cornwall Police initially managed the crime scene at Widdecombe’s remote Dartmoor bungalow before yielding primacy to National Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) on Monday. Detectives confirmed that a 28-year-old white British male arrested in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, was formally re-arrested under the Terrorism Act on suspicion of the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism. Counter-terror assistant commissioner Laurence Taylor publicly declared that the fatal bludgeoning of the 78-year-old former Conservative minister and Reform UK spokesperson was a “targeted attack,” with forensic teams actively analyzing the suspect’s digital devices to establish connections to extreme leftwing or single-issue anarchist networks.
The logistical tracking of Herbert’s professional and public standing indicates that she remains entirely defiant. Speaking to the Aberdeen student newspaper The Gaudie, Herbert stated, “I don’t want to see anyone murdered, but I’m still glad she is dead. I’m not a hypocrite… Ann Widdecombe was able to and made the lives of ordinary people hell.” In a subsequent statement to The National, the activist claimed the national backlash was “hugely overblown” and suggested that her critics were hypocritically abandoning their stance on free speech. However, administrators at the University of Aberdeen have confirmed their own priority internal disciplinary review remains highly active, while local political figures continue to demand her immediate termination.
The tactical shift by Police Scotland to initiate “additional inquiries” suggests that investigators are reviewing the posts under updated digital communications and hate speech frameworks, which carry severe criminal penalties for the online incitement of violence or celebration of indictable offenses.
This definitive update delivers a permanent reality check to political commentators who believe extreme online statements are insulated from retroactive police prosecution, proving that the state will rapidly re-evaluate digital rhetoric when linked to active counter-terrorism investigations. While the terror suspect remains detained under extended warrants in Yorkshire, the dual pressure of police inquiries and university disciplinary hearings continues to mount against the Aberdeen activist. As the mechanical schedules of the parallel investigations advance, the legal boundaries of political free speech remain under intense judicial scrutiny.
