Book Read Free

A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic

Page 14

by Laura Dodsworth


  The very first Clap for Carers was covered in the national media and supported by high-profile figures including the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the prime minister and the Beckhams. How many truly grassroots campaigns have the support of royalty, the PM and major celebrities in the first few days? It’s understandable that the media would support a positive campaign in dark times, but this was an astonishingly fast and resounding public relations success. Friends with someone at Number 10, you say?

  I checked in with Annemarie again, to ask her directly if she had knowingly worked in concert with the government. She told me, ‘my friend was so busy with her job at Number 10 that she did not have the time to even think of Clap for Carers. It was the first days of lockdown. But yes, it is amazing how the world shared it so quickly, given that I made an image on Friday night (with a spelling mistake and no permission to use the NHS logo) and it was picked up by the Beckhams and royalty within the span of 24 hours.’ Did her friend whisper in the right person’s ear? Annemarie seemed vague. I asked outright if she knew whether Number 10 had at least sprinkled PR magic behind the scenes. She said she had no idea. I didn’t think she would, to be honest. It’s not how it works.

  Clap for Carers ran for 10 weeks. There was a muted attempt to revive it in early January. Annemarie Plas received a deluge of negative responses on social media and distanced herself from the campaign. ITV News managed to find a few lone people clapping on their middle-class doorsteps on a drizzly January evening. Then it fizzled out.

  Number 10 tried to revive the clap once more, in honour of the passing of Captain Tom, the 100-year-old veteran who had raised money for NHS charities in 2020 by famously doing laps of his garden, aided by a walking frame. As much as Captain Tom deserved admiration and honour, the idea of being told to step outside and clap by Boris Johnson felt forced and exploitative to many. When did the state start telling people how to grieve and that they should mark respect for a stranger? A state funeral was even suggested. Clap for Carers had evoked a propagandist feeling of deification of the NHS. Clapping for one individual took it a step further. Throughout history, leaders have exploited the propaganda tool of ‘apotheosis’ – elevating someone to divine levels. We weren’t told to bow down and worship, we were told to stand outside and clap, but the exhortation and effect is similar. Boris Johnson was creating a cult of personality by proxy.

  I checked in with my very well-connected anonymous scientist who did nothing to smooth my rising hackles. They told me that in their opinion the clap had felt ‘fast, slick, ready to go. This isn’t how disasters happen. Authentic responses are messy. I’d say this was engineered. If it was a genuine idea then the government engineered it by amplifying the media and celebs involved.’ These suspicions had been shared by one of the anonymous SPI-B advisors I talked to.

  The scientist suggested I put some FOIs (Freedom of Information requests) into various government departments. The first response I received to an FOI said my request would take longer than 3.5 days, the maximum limit. This is a common basis for refusal. Fair enough. I streamlined my request. The second response said there was no communication to share with me as they assumed I only wanted ‘Treat Official and Ministerial Correspondence’. No, no, I wanted all communication, so asked for an internal review of that decision, which was upheld. It is surprising that there is no communication between Annemarie Plas and Number 10 or the Cabinet Office, not least because she was invited to a party at Number 10 for the NHS. At the time of going to print my ongoing FOIs are lost in the back and forth of civil service goop. A civil servant contact who is in and out of Number 10 tells me it looks like I am being fobbed off at politician level and that I shouldn’t expect answers.

  Speculation about Clap for Carers might appear cynical or ungracious. I don’t want to be. It is also not possible to know what happened, at least at this stage. I can’t write a book about these times, while we are in these times, without a dose of speculation. The whistleblowers, the uncovered documents, the testimonies all come later. I must envisage character motivations before waiting for the plot twists to be neatly tied up. However, the government does have form for either initiating or super-charging propaganda to create the ‘desired’ emotional responses in the population. Breaking stories like this often relies on the anonymous sources, the whistleblowers, not official FOI channels, which is why it’s useful to look at propaganda campaigns in our recent past.

  After the terror attacks on London Bridge in 2017, there were bunches of flowers and graffiti messages of solidarity behind the cordons at the scene of the attack. On social media there were outpourings of support and positively-themed hashtags, such as #TurnToLove, #ForLondon and #LoveWillWin. The media resounded with comments from faith leaders and politicians. You probably thought all of this was spontaneous. Some of the flowers might have been – the British public is generous and demonstrative – but much of the response was reportedly pre-planned by the UK government.

  Middle East Eye has broken some important stories about the UK government’s staged campaigns to manage the public response to terror attacks, through RICU, the government counter-terror psyops unit, and Breakthrough Media, an agency which has undertaken various campaigns on RICU’s behalf. All of the tactics are guided by the government’s desire for ‘controlled spontaneity’1 to facilitate recovery and to prevent civil unrest in response to terror attacks.

  Disaster and recovery planner Lucy Easthope wrote for The Guardian that ‘the “I heart’” messages that appear in cities in the wake of a terrorist attack are not always spontaneous’ but ‘carefully planned in advance’.2 We spoke a few times during the course of researching this book. She told me she herself has penned the pre-emptive plans which include staged displays of positive emotion and resilience. However, after the Manchester bombing, she had a change of heart about the level of guided response when she realised that people needed a window of raw grief: ‘I was wrong to insist in my training that the first message should be “we will overcome” as if the enemy was on the beaches and weakness would be letting someone or something win. Yesterday I realised that the fight rhetoric has gone too far and instead what we need to do is to admit how much this hurts.’

  In our recent history, propaganda efforts have so far been largely turned towards attitudinal and behavioural change among Muslims – in other words, changing the way that British Muslims think and act. But perhaps there has been a redirection of efforts towards all of us because the government feared that totalitarian lockdowns would cause riots, as we know from SPI-B papers dedicated to the subject. Is it such a leap of imagination to think that the government either instigated a ritual of ‘controlled spontaneity’ to support the NHS we were purportedly saving, or that it heard of an idea (through a friend of a friend who works at Number 10, say?) and pushed it along with behind the scenes PR help?

  Posters and a website were produced by a creative agency pro bono in a generous act of support. As you know, the media lapped up the Clap for Carers story. Very, very few grassroots campaigns go so well, so quickly, unaided. I approached the agency to talk about their involvement but I was triaged and denied an interview. That, in itself, is a little suspicious.

  Fortuitously, I managed to track down someone who had worked on multiple propaganda campaigns for RICU. Again, this contributor has to be anonymous to protect their reputation and new career, but also because they signed the Official Secrets Act.

  According to my source, propaganda is outsourced from RICU to external agencies who then work with other parties. This enables the government to stay distanced from the propaganda and deny direct involvement. It also means that the parties involved and the people they are trying to influence, who might otherwise be suspicious of the government, are more easily hoodwinked.

  My source confirmed the tactics described in the Middle East Eye article. They knew about the bunches of flowers which were organised for the terror scene and the graffiti inside the cordon. They worked on the propaga
nda hashtags and the videos with positive messaging made by grassroots organisations, who had no idea they were working just one step away from the UK government. ‘How many times can you say #Lovewins?’, they mused, ‘before it starts to lose all meaning?’ They told me that they would be ‘very surprised if the government wasn’t involved in Clap for Carers and putting rainbows in our windows’.

  I posed my constant question: was it right for the government to use fear and behavioural psychology techniques to encourage compliance? ‘I think it’s wrong for the government to try and change how we think and feel,’ they said.

  My source was keen to stress that all of this propaganda work came out of a well-intentioned government desire – fuelled by pressure from the public and the media – to do something about radicalisation and extremism after the war on terror. However, the efforts became ‘bloated’ and the unit and agency were producing campaigns to ‘justify their existence’. This is the ratchet effect described by Robert Higgs. My source was reluctant to name agencies or individuals they had worked with – even just to satisfy my curiosity and not for the book – because they are ‘good people’ trying to do good work. Also, there’s that Official Secrets Act.

  Over time though, my source said the work felt dishonest: ‘Even if the political project is “nice” it’s political and it’s trying to change the way people think. And it’s paid for from government money.’ Hang on a minute, government money? You mean our money – this is funded by the taxpayers, isn’t it? They concurred. When you think about it, it’s quite amazing that we’re paying to be subconsciously manipulated by our own government.

  Adil Ray, a British actor and presenter, launched a video3 to promote vaccine take-up in ethnic minorities on 25 January 2021. It was rapturously received and shared by celebrities, politicians and the media. The video made strong claims about the vaccine. It also followed on the back of two relevant SPI-B papers that I had just read.

  There are issues with the take up of vaccines among ethnic communities in Britain and the video obviously aimed to dispel myths and encourage confidence. According to a government paper, Factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among minority ethnic groups,4 published on 17 December 2020, ‘white groups’ are 70% likely to take various vaccines, whereas only 50% of ‘Black African and Black Caribbean groups’5 are likely to be vaccinated.

  The paper suggested ‘culturally tailored communication, shared by trusted sources’, such as ‘educational videos’ to ‘increase awareness’ and ‘address misperceptions’. Importantly, such communications should not be ‘affiliated with government or formal healthcare services’ in order to be ‘more trusted by some groups’. The report also recommended providing immunisations in community-based settings and religious sites. Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government, also talked about the importance of this as he visited the UK’s first vaccination centre in a mosque6 – the plan clearly put into action. As Dr Daisy Fancourt had told me, it ‘mustn’t look like it’s propaganda. It needs to come from… influencers’. The key word is ‘look’ – it mustn’t look like propaganda, even if it is.

  A report, Role of Community Champions networks to increase engagement in context of COVID-19: evidence and best practice,7 published on 22 October 2020, recommended the use of community champions in health contexts where trust is low. Since that report, over £23 million of funding has been allocated to 60 councils and voluntary groups across England to expand work to support those most at risk from Covid-19 and boost vaccine take-up.8

  Was Adil Ray’s video part of a government-initiated campaign to increase trust and confidence in the vaccination programme? It seemed to tick SPI-B’s boxes. The video finished with an end credit saying that it was ‘recorded independently from the government’. The word ‘recorded’ is telling. Could it have been conceived by the government, or scripted by the government, or given PR support by the government? And if not the government, could an intermediary agency employed by a unit like RICU at the Home Office have kickstarted it? If it was created at an arm’s length from the government, the people involved with the video might have no idea there was any government connection at all.

  As with Clap for Carers, I don’t want to denigrate the intentions of the campaign or the people involved, but to draw attention to possible covert psychological manipulation, which I believe deserves public scrutiny.

  Like Clap for Carers, the video was also instantly and positively shared by celebrities, the media and politicians, which indicates helpful hands behind the scenes, although it’s possible that the famous faces in the video may have propelled it into the spotlight on their own. But as with Clap for Carers, I found obtaining answers difficult, which is suspicious. And I’m told by those on the inside that this is one of the hallmarks of a government propaganda campaign.

  I tweeted Ray to say I was going to write about the video and that I had some questions. I asked if it had been produced independently or by an agency, and he said ‘we produced it with lots of help, but no agency’. Nevertheless, when I said I had questions, he passed me on to an agency – Samir Ahmed, founder of Media Hive agency. On the agency website it says Ahmed has worked with ‘Bollywood stars and YouTube sensations to UK politicians and global philanthropists’. (Politicians?) Ahmed said he couldn’t help with my questions either.

  I tried to fact-check the claims in the video with the NHS, MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency), Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care. They aren’t the easiest press teams to deal with, but in a really poor show, I only received opaque responses to my fact-checking questions from the MHRA – the others ignored my emails and calls. The Cabinet Office did reply to tell me that the video was ‘not part of a government campaign’.

  As I was finding it hard to make headway, I contacted the anonymous scientist for an opinion. ‘Ah yes, this video is Nudge 101,’ they sagely observed, ‘and the fact that no one is answering you and you are being fobbed off means it’s come out of the government.’ I called the ex-government propaganda contact: ‘I only had to watch the first few seconds to see it’s come out of a government department. It’s an openly discussed problem that the Muslims don’t trust the government and this is their solution. Put it this way, white people sit around in a room saying brown people are the problem, then they use brown people to fix the problem. It’s not sophisticated. If you approached the people who made it and they bounced it around and wouldn’t answer you, that’s typical of something that’s been done with government in the background. It’s the kind of thing we used to do when I worked at the agency.’

  I emailed Samir Ahmed at the agency in ‘one last try’ as my book manuscript deadline was looming. His reply was interesting: ‘Hi Laura, I believe you’ve been in touch with Cabinet Office comms etc as well so you should be able to get something from them. Unfortunately I’m just not the best person to direct questions to as I’ve mentioned before. Thanks, Samir.’ I’d been told by Adil Ray that the film was not produced by an agency, but he’d referred me to an agency for answers. According to the end credit the film was ‘recorded independently’ from the government, but the person at the agency knew I’d been in communication with the Cabinet Office. Hmm. I hadn’t mentioned that to him. If nothing else, this was a breadcrumb trail of communication between the video creators and the Cabinet Office. We might call it circumstantial evidence. And these breadcrumbs might lead us towards a heftier collaboration.

  I understand the need to improve trust in vaccines in ethnic minority communities, but if this film has been created at arm’s length by the government through the filter of RICU, or an agency or a ‘community champion’, does that ultimately deal with the real issues and improve trust? Call me a crazy idealist, but surely the best way to improve trust in the government is for the government not to use covert propaganda? Richard Shotton concludes his book The Choice Factory by saying that ‘if a nudge doesn’t help the l
ong-term health of your brand it is worth reconsidering using it.’ What is the government doing to its own brand by trying to manipulate us? There will always be whistleblowers even if they are anonymous. Eventually, the truth will out. As my contact said, he left the agency because the work was ‘fundamentally wrong’.

  I was also worried about what the strength of the claims in the video might do to engender long-term trust in government, healthcare and vaccines. Here are some of the claims:

  ‘Soon we will be reunited with our friends and family provided we do one simple thing. Take the vaccine.’

  ‘How can you save someone’s life? Take the vaccine.’

  ‘There are no cases of significant side-effects among the millions of people who have received this vaccine.’

  ‘The vaccine does not include pork or any material of foetal or animal origin.’

  There were several exhortations to ‘take the vaccine’ in order to be reunited with people. Emotional manipulation could be seen to interfere with someone’s ability to provide informed consent, which is an ethical bedrock of medicine. This type of messaging was literally promoted by the NHS in a document entitled Optimising Vaccination Roll Out – Dos and Don’ts for all messaging, documents and “communications” in the widest sense,9 published in December 2020. It advises healthcare workers on using messaging such as ‘normality can only return for you and others, with your vaccination’ and ‘this vaccine is effective in your age group and will allow you to return to normality, which means freedom to do what you enjoy, such as group classes, swimming, seeing friends and family, and getting your life back’. Behavioural psychology seems to have left reflective consideration about influencing informed consent in the pre-pandemic golden days of medical ethics. I talk more about this in Chapter 18, ‘Happy endings are not written in the language of coercive control’.

 

‹ Prev