Examining a Threat

Nullius in verba applied.

There has been a considerable amount of commentary surrounding the L’Affaire Doyle. One piece came from senior Herald writer David Fisher in a piece entitled “Anatomy of a Scandal”. I wrote a commentary on that piece on 3 April 2025 entitled “The Righteous Face of Mainstream Media”.

Mr. Fisher has undertaken a consideration of another aspect of L’Affaire Doyle in an article under the headline “Expert security report says Green MP Benjamin Doyle faces physical violence, stalking threats” which was dated 15 April 2025.

The premise of the article is that Benjamin Doyle faces violence and stalking threats. A global security company gave a 15-25% likelihood that these might be realised and the biggest threat is “lone-actor vigilante violence” or some other form of “radicalised justice-seeking”. The threat activity, it is suggested, is driven by what is described as a “hostility network”.

The expert organisation referred to in the article is the GRC Group. GRC is the acronym for Global Risk Consulting.

Global Risk Consulting Limited is a New Zealand company whose sole director and shareholder is Christopher Robert Kumeroa. The registered office of the company is at 12 Jade Court Rosedale, Auckland. The company was incorporated on 6 November 2015.

There are three other companies that use the Global Risk Consulting name. They are Global Risk Consulting (GRC) System Ltd (incorporated 12 January 2021), Global Risk Consulting – Secintel Limited (incorporated 26 March 2021) and Global Risk Consulting – Crisis Management System Limited (incorporated 26 March 2021).

Mr. Kumeroa is a director and shareholder of each company. GRC -Secintel Ltd has three shareholders – Mr. Kumeroa, Andrew Richard Jackson of Papamoa and Jackson Huner Calder of Meadowbank. Mr. Jackson is also a director.

GRC – Crisis Management System Ltd has two shareholders – Mr. Kumeroa and Jared Victor Lance Stanger of Christchurch. Mr. Kumeroa is the sole director.

All this information is readily available from the New Zealand Companies Register

The GRC website contains information about the GRC team. The entry for Mr. Kumeroa contains the following information:

Chris spent a number of years in the Military with a primary focus on Counter Terrorism, Human Tracking and in particular Mountaineering and was deployed with the Special Forces Mountain Troop.

Chris spent time in Mt Cook, Mt Ruapehu, Southern Alps and numerous other climbing mountaineering roles. Chris completed the Special Forces Tactical & Civilian Technical Mountaineering Courses and Avalanche Awareness Course run in the Southern Alps.

Recently Chris has been actively involved with Schlumberger, a global Oil Field Service Provider to large multi-nationals such as BP, Chinese National Petroleum Company (CNPC) Iraq's Southern Oil Company etc as a Country Security Risk Manager in Pakistan, liaising directly with state agencies and other major oil and gas providers within the region.

Chris has studied towards a Masters in Science in Risk Management; Loughborough University, United Kingdom, is a Security Industry Authority (UK) license holder, a member of the New Zealand Special Air Services (SAS) Association and a member of the Institute of Directors, New Zealand.

The other person named on the GRC team is Mike Skellern – also ex military. The entry for Mr Skellern reads as follows:

Mike spent over 33 years as a Combat Field Engineer within the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), for seventeen of those years he worked within the special forces community. Over that time, he filled all senior management positions within what was then known as the Specialist Search Team who were assigned with locating and clearing Improvised Explosive Devices in high threat environments and as part of hostage rescue situations; in that capacity he spent eight years as a member of the Counter Terrorist Group.

He then transferred to the units Training Development Cell where he was one of a three-man team assigned with creating the countries current counter terrorist capability for which Mikes role was to design their training.

Whilst in the Training Development Cell he initiated and developed a holistic training management system. Part of which was an electronic Training Management Plan (TMP) design process, achieving large gains in efficiency that drastically reduced the time taken to complete the development process. He also developed several other training packages on a varied range of subjects and was considered a subject matter expert in explosive demolitions being involved in majority of the units conventional explosive training activities. Mike was also involved with the national level counter terrorist exercises where he assisted with the planning and often operated as the Red Cell commander, ensuring scenarios achieved a high degree of realism and training objectives where met.

His final four years within the NZDF where spent on Short Term Regular Force Engagements where he completed a number of Training Development projects. These included being the lead developer in a review of Counter Explosive Hazards across the greater NZDF and writing reference manuals on a range of other subjects including Kinetic Breaching, Population Protection Control Techniques (Riot Control), Counter Explosive Hazards Awareness, and developing a theoretical course on Chemistry and Physics for Explosive Ordnance Disposal Operators.

Mike has studied towards a Bachelor in Training Development and holds several qualifications including:

Certificate IV in Training and Assessment TAE

NEBOSH International General Certificate in Health and Safety

National Certificate in Adult Education and Training – Level 4

National Certificate in Business (First Line Management) – Level 4

Mike also holds a New Zealand Ministry of Justice Certificate of Approval as:

Private Investigator

Crowd Controller

Personal Guard

Property Guard

Security Technician

Security Consultant

The company website is most informative. As might be expected from its name the focus is on security and as a part of this the company has a well- developed risk management section of its business.

The company describes itself as follows:

Global Risk Consulting is an enterprise risk management company that provides a range of high level services, advice and consultancy to clients across the world. Understanding the risk landscape helps us to interpret what is before the client and the level of exposure they may be vulnerable to. Knowing the security risks helps to give the client a better understanding of the issues and the ability to make informed decisions that enable the business and organisation to stay safe and relevant in today’s market.

A Risk Based Approach helps to identify and assess the immediate and long term challenges ahead and allows for a smooth transition of controls (mitigation) that can be implemented to reduce risks down to acceptable levels.

GRC has a proven track record across a range of industries with a broad range of clients. We have continually been at the forefront of understanding the evolving and changing security dynamics. We aim to provide clients with the latest security briefs, security plans, emergency and incident management plans, security updates and travel advice to ensure clients remain safe in their workplace environment.

The company website states:

“While traditional business risk auditing comes from a financial perspective we view risk through a broader lens taking a close look at people, roles, relationships, function, decision making, and legal framework. Whether you are looking to audit current business systems and practices or to enhance your operational or strategic approach to managing a specific risk we can assist you.”

An example how to assess risk using a risk matrix is provided.

The company also consults on health and safety issues and provides training. The company has a number of clients located internationally.

Clearly the company has a level of expertise in the areas of security, safety and risk management and offers services to assist others manage security and safety issues.

According to Mr. Fisher the company has compiled a formal risk analysis and a report was prepared concerning the hostility towards Mr. Doyle. The article reveals a partial roadmap of how that came about although there are a few blanks.

Mr. Fisher states that the report

“was based on two weeks of detailed daily reporting compiled by disinformation researcher Dr Sanjana Hattotuwa which were provided to the Herald and passed to GRC. Hattotuwa had gathered and analysed social media, alternative media and mainstream media coverage of Doyle from March 29 to April 12.”

The information flow seems to be as follows. Dr Hattotuwa (of whom more later) carries out an analysis of social and other media traffic regarding Mr Doyle. He then provides this analysis to “the Herald”. Given Mr. Fisher’s predilection for sourcing information from Dr. Hattotuwa an inference could be drawn that the information was supplied to Mr. Fisher. The information was then passed on the GRC.

Mr Fisher then summarises the findings of the report as follows:

“GRC’s report said a “hostility network” of politicians, commentators, conspiracy theorists, alternative media outlets and those opposed to the rainbow community had produced dehumanising and violent commentary capable of encouraging or inspiring action from a lone-wolf attacker.”

He then goes on to detail some of Dr. Hattotuwa’s “findings”.

Dr. Hattotuwa describes the wave of hate against Green MP Benjamin Doyle as unprecedented in New Zealand politics, except for the hostility faced by former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. ​ He characterizes it as:

1. Extraordinary in Scale: The level of hate directed at Doyle over a two-week period is described as unparalleled, fueled by moral outrage and conspiratorial thinking. ​

2. Dehumanizing: The rhetoric includes terms like "pervert," "sicko," "predator," and "deviant," which lower the aggression threshold and make violence more plausible. ​

3. Weaponized Moral Panic: The hate is framed around child protection concerns, mobilizing profound moral outrage against Doyle. ​

4. Role of Alternative Media: He identifies alternative media platforms as key amplifiers of radicalizing narratives, which lower the barrier for lone actors or stochastic terror actions.

5. Weakening Social Cohesion: Dr. Hattotuwa points out that the campaign against Doyle is occurring against a backdrop of declining mutual trust, institutional distrust, and societal polarization, creating fertile ground for targeted hostility.

6. Amplified by Political Figures: Dr. Hattotuwa identifies Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters as a key figure in amplifying the controversy, turning it into a major national issue. ​

7. Persistent and Escalating: The hostility has intensified since Doyle entered Parliament, with targeted campaigns using resurfaced social media posts to frame Doyle as morally corrupt or dangerous.

8. Constant Risk: Dr. Hattotuwa stresses the psychological toll of being at "constant risk" due to the lack of specific details about potential attacks, which is worse than knowing exact threats.

9. ​Institutional Distrust: He argues that distrust in authorities heightens the risk of vigilante violence, as individuals feel compelled to seek radicalized justice themselves.

10. Real-World Impact: The online hate has already led to offline actions, such as posters in public spaces accusing Doyle of misconduct, showing the tangible consequences of the campaign. ​

11. Impact on Broader Communities: Dr. Hattotuwa notes that the hostility faced by Doyle reflects long-standing prejudice and threats of violence against rainbow, non-binary, and disabled communities.

From all this Dr Hattotuwa concludes that this wave of hate reflects deep societal and political schisms, driven by weakening social cohesion, institutional distrust, and radicalizing narratives.

His “analysis” underscores the convergence of societal polarization, institutional distrust, and radicalizing narratives in creating a volatile environment that endangers Doyle and others in similar positions. ​ His findings highlight the urgent need to address these dynamics to prevent real-world harm.

This is a narrative that is common throughout many of Dr. Hattotuwa’s writings.

Having considered some of the musings of Dr. Hattotuwa, Mr. Fisher returns to the GRC Report. Remember, this report was based on the musings of Dr. Hattotuwa. The risks to Mr Doyle that are stated in the GRC report are as follows:

1. Physical Violence: There is a 15%-25% chance of a physical attack, primarily from "lone-actor vigilante violence" or "radicalized justice-seeking." ​

2. Stalking and Harassment: Doyle faces a high risk (75%-85%) of stalking and harassment, attributed to persistent associations with unproven criminal allegations. ​

3. Public Approaches: There is a "moderate risk" of Doyle being approached in public or near his home, particularly by individuals radicalized online. ​

4. Online Hostility: Doyle has been targeted by a "hostility network" involving politicians, commentators, conspiracy theorists, and alternative media outlets, producing dehumanizing and violent commentary. ​

5. Escalating Threats: Hostility has intensified since Doyle entered Parliament in October 2024, fueled by homophobic and transphobic narratives, accusations of paedophilia, and conspiratorial rhetoric. ​

6. Real-World Activity: Online hostility has already led to real-world actions, such as posters in public spaces accusing Doyle of sexual interest in children, linked to far-right groups like Action Zealandia. ​

7. Volatile Environment: The report describes the threat environment as "volatile, ideologically charged," with clear potential for real-world harm, driven by weakened social cohesion, moral panic, and institutional distrust. ​

8. Stochastic Terrorism: The report warns of stochastic terrorism, where inflammatory rhetoric indirectly leads to acts of violence. ​

Overall, the GRC report concludes that these factors have converged to create a specific, plausible threat of real-world harm to Doyle.

The article concludes with commentary from and about Doyle. It is clear that when the article reads “Doyle told the Herald” that in fact means that Mr. Doyle told Mr. Fisher.

Editors note: I have corrected the grammatical infelicity of referring to a singular individual by a plural pronoun. I have noted in an earlier piece that Mr. Doyle has referred to himself with the singular personal pronoun and in Mr. Fisher’s article he states: “My immediate reaction was absolutely the safety of my child. That is the first thing that happened for me, that kicked into gear, was this instinctual desire to ensure at all costs that my child was safe. Everything I did in those initial moments and days focused on ‘how do I protect my child”

Mr. Doyle proposes a restorative justice approach to address the threats and hostility he faces. ​ He aims to ensure accountability while fostering understanding of the harm caused by such actions. ​ Specifically, Mr. Doyle stated:

Restorative Justice: Mr. Doyle prefers a “restorative justice” approach over legal action, focusing on preventing similar incidents for others and helping perpetrators understand the harm they are creating. ​

Safety Measures: Mr. Doyle is managing risk with the support of Parliamentary Security and the Green Party, prioritizing the safety of their child and family. ​

Advocacy for Change: Mr. Doyle expressed interest in ensuring systemic changes to prevent such targeted hostility and threats in the future.

Despite the challenges, Mr. Doyle remains committed to his role as an MP and is determined not to be deterred from his job. ​ However, he acknowledged that the "tsunami wave of risk" would be a factor in deciding whether to stand again in the 2026 election.

Commentary

Mr. Fisher’s article raises a number of questions.

The first is why it seemed necessary to engage GRC to perform a risk assessment when Mr. Doyle had made it clear that he was working with Parliamentary Security and the Green Party.

I would have thought that an approach should have been made to these organisations although I would imagine little information would be forthcoming. The confidential nature of the level of protection offered to Mr. Doyle and the risk assessments that would have been carried out would have informed the security measures that would have been put in place for Mr. Doyle.

But it seems that Mr. Fisher was seeking some detail of the likely risks to which Mr Doyle was exposed. Hence the approach to GRC.

A second issue – perhaps a minor one but lawyers love language – is the use of the phrase “stochastic terrorism” which Mr. Fisher says appears in the GRC report.

Mr Fisher claims “Stochastic terrorism occurs when inflammatory rhetoric doesn’t specifically direct acts of terror, yet results in them.”

In his article “Anatomy of a Scandal” the following passage appears:

Goodsir from Auckland Pride said Peters was using “the same rhetoric as Brian Tamaki – rhetoric which we would categorise as stochastic terrorism”.

“Stochastic” is a term used in statistics to refer to the chance or probability of something happening.

“Stochastic terrorism” refers to a political leader or public figure vilifying an individual or group in a way that could inspire supporters to carry out hate crimes or other acts of violence.”

In my article “The Righteous Face of the Mainstream Media” (link above) I observed

“Stochastic is defined as a process or system connected with a random probability unless Mr. Goodsir has some other meaning for the word”.

It appears that Mr Fisher has an affinity for the word, for this is the second time that it has arisen in the context of terrorism. And the question must be asked, is this a phrase that was coined by GRC or is it an interpretation of their report by Mr. Fisher.

I raise this question because the use of language often involves patterns and I do detect a pattern in the use of language by Mr. Fisher that can hardly be accidental nor coincidental. “Stochastic” is an unusual word at the best of times and one with which I was unfamiliar until I came across it in “Anatomy of a Scandal.” Now within the space of two weeks it appears again and from the same writer.

The issue is as I have stated. Is this a word used by the GRC. It would seem so, according to Mr Fisher for the article records

“Kumeroa said: “GRC Group suspects the nation will see this more often as opposing ideological groups entrench themselves. This is essentially the manufacturing of moral panic to reaffirm us-versus-them dynamics. This also could be indicative of stochastic terrorism becoming an enduring part of NZ political discourse.”

Mr. Fisher attributes the word to Mr. Kumeora, but I have a niggling doubt that it is a word that Mr. Kumeora may have in his report-writing vocabulary.

I have a strong suspicion that it is a term that Mr. Fisher may have suggested to Mr. Kumeroa and which he has adopted.

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Fisher attributes the use of “stochastic” to Mr Goodsir in his “Anatomy of a Scandal” piece. Again curious beyond coincidental that two unconnected people independently use the same word. Unconnected that is except for the common factor – the presence of Mr. Fisher.

A third issue surrounds the use of the term “hostility network” used to describe politicians, commentators, conspiracy theorists, alternative media outlets and those opposed to the rainbow community.

The use of the word “network” suggests a level of collaboration between these various commentators who share a particular goal. There is no evidence of this and indeed to suggest such a network seems to be straying into the murky waters of a suggested conspiracy – or is that just a theory.

What is overlooked is that there is a level of distaste for some of the attitudes and innuendoes reflected by Mr. Doyle in his social media posts and in an article (now removed) from the Burnett Foundation website. The level of distaste may be a common sensibility shared by a large number of members of the community, ranging from “disgusting” to “creepy”. But does this suggest a “hostility network”. And is that a term coined by Mr. Fisher, GRC or the ubiquitous Dr. Hattotuwa.

And that leads to the major issue that I have with the article and it is this – the reliance on “evidence” gathered by Dr. Sanjana Hattotuwa.

I have written about Dr. Hattotuwa and his research on previous occasions. As many readers will be aware he was involved with the Disinformation Project.

He had a tendency to use hyperbole in many of his assessments and analyses. For example, following the “Posie Parker” incident he suggested that the language and tone of some of the posts suggested that trans people should not be allowed to exist and that therefore this was akin to genocide – a silly thing to say but surprisingly in the paper Transgressive Transitions the Disinformation Project doubled down on Dr. Hattotuwa’s emotional and exaggerated comment.

My concern with Dr Hattotuwa’s assessments is that in addition to the use of hyperbole and emotive language it is often difficult to determine his research methodology.

In addition we are denied the raw data which he has used and which inform his opinion. We know not where he has gone for his information nor what that information is. We are unable to independently verify the data. We are unable to independently assess his conclusions.

Dr. Hattotuwa has a blog at

https://sanjanah.wordpress.com/

.

He says by way of introduction:

“I study the causes, effects, and impact of information disorders on democracy, institutions, and social cohesion. With over 20 years of experience in peacebuilding, civic media, and digital security, from the Global South and across five continents, I have a deep understanding of how social media and politics interact and influence each other, especially in conflict-affected and contexts with a democratic deficit (which now includes countries in the Global North). My work is driven by an interest in promoting democratic governance, human rights, and media freedom, as well as a curiosity for exploring the potential and challenges of new technologies for social change. I have a PhD in Social Media and Politics from the University of Otago. I am Sri Lanka's first TED Fellow, and also had fellowships from Ashoka, and Rotary World Peace. I am also the founder, and former editor of Groundviews, Sri Lanka's first, and award-winning citizen journalism website. Additionally, I am a Special Advisor at the ICT4Peace Foundation, where I study use, and abuse of technologies in peacekeeping and peacebuilding. I completed doctoral studies at the University of Otago, New Zealand, looking at the symbiotic relationship between offline unrest and online instigation of hate and harm in Sri Lanka and, in the aftermath of the Christchurch massacre in 2019, facilitated by leading research based on New Zealand's first ever Data for Good grant by Twitter.”

His 2025 postings are numerous and impressive. But there is little depth in the analysis which is rather repetitive.

For example one post “When Ministers mock: The rise of a violent political speech in New Zealand” is characterized by the frequent use of the word “hate” in describing language and an absence of raw data used in his research. Here is an example

“On 30 January, I studied 159 replies to a tweet by Peters on his official account[5] which dog-whistled earlier statements, and violently othered Green Party MPs. The tweet ending by stating that they were turning New Zealand into a “woke globalist totalitarian state with their extreme policies”, and that New Zealand First would not “sit quietly and be lectured on the culture and traditions of New Zealand from people who have been here for five minutes and expect the rest of the country to have their virtue signalling shoved down our throats”. At the time of writing, this tweet has generated just under 400 replies.”

The data therefore covers responses to one tweet. From this Dr Hattotuwa is able to make the sweeping generalisations which characterise his findings. I would have thought that a much wider survey would have been better to substantiate Dr. Hattotuwa’s theory.

In his post entitled “New Zealand’s Human Rights Commission: A case study in institutional decay” Dr Hattotuwa makes the following comment

“I have penned a 70+ page report on the weekend’s violence, and its aftermath – studied from perspectives including network theory, discourse analysis, and in particular, Prof Susan Benesch‘s Dangerous Speech framework. The violence imagined, instigated, and invited against New Zealand’s GLBTIQ+ community is horrific. Even after the significant offline violence, in ‘sermons’ on Sunday, and again on Monday, Tamaki doubled-down on his dangerous speech.”

Where is the report? There is no link. There is no data – nothing. There are no footnotes to substantiate his assertions of who said what.

Readers will be aware of my practice of providing links where I can to information so that it can be verified. I could footnote and at times I do but have found that can sometimes be a bit of a distraction.

I have embarked upon this discussion because in many respects Dr Hattotuwa’s “research” is the key to the report by GRC and is the foundation for Mr. Fisher’s article.

Dr Hattotuwa claims that he conducted detailed research over a two week period (March 29 – April 12) to support his findings. Mr. Fisher’s article suggests the following steps were taken and I shall comment on each one:

1. Media Analysis: Dr Hattotuwa gathered and analyzed social media, alternative media, and mainstream media coverage of Green MP Benjamin Doyle.

We don’t know the extent of the sample, the sites which were investigated, the times of gathering the data or the methodology of data acquisition . For all we know the data could have been acquired by a Google search​

2. Sentiment Measurement: Dr Hattotuwa measured sentiment towards Doyle as negative, hostile, and suspicious, identifying frequent accusations labeling Doyle as a "danger to children," including terms like "paedophile," "groomer," "predator," and "deviant."

What methodology is used to “measure sentiment”. Is there an approved standard. In addition to “negative, hostile and suspicious” was any data acquired that expressed a positive point of view on Mr Doyle’s activities and if so what proportion fell within the “positive” category as opposed to the negative categories identified

3. Mapping Hostility: He mapped the campaign against Doyle, highlighting the use of dehumanizing language such as "pervert" and "sicko," which lowers the aggression threshold required for violence.

What proof is there that the use of words such as "pervert" and "sicko," lowers the aggression threshold required for violence. What is the “aggression threshold”. Is the language “dehumanizing”? Or is it vulgar and insulting. This is an example of Dr. Hattotuwa’s tendency to exaggerate and overstate the position.

4. Political Amplification: Hattotuwa identified "political amplification" by Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters as a key factor in escalating the issue into mainstream discourse. ​

So is Dr Hattotuwa suggesting that public figures should not raise issues that are in the public interest? Unless, of course, Dr Hattotuwa agrees with the particular narrative. Remember that Dr Hattotuwa has already written critically about Mr. Peters and one wonders whether or not he is approaching the Deputy Prime Minister’s actions dispassionately.

5. Real-World Impact: He documented real-world actions stemming from online hostility, such as posters in public spaces accusing Doyle of sexual interest in children, linked to far-right groups.

What “far right” groups? Is expressed public concern about Mr Doyle restricted to the “far right.”​ Or is this Dr Hattotuwa projecting his own views on the source of this information. And where is the documentation. Given that Dr Hattotuwa has a blog this would be an ideal place for his to publish his data. But once again, as is so often the case with Dr Hattotuwa, it is a mystery.

6. Broader Context: Dr. Hattotuwa placed the campaign against Doyle within a backdrop of weakening social cohesion, significant grievance, and profound institutional distrust, which he described as "fertile ground" for targeted hostility and potential violence.

This is a familiar narrative for Dr Hattotuwa. ​There can be no doubt that there is “institutional distrust” but it is doubtful it has reached the pit of profundity. Again an example of Dr. Hattotuwa’s tendency to “over-egg” the pudding. Perhaps what Dr. Hattotuwa doesn’t understand is that there is a level of public discomfort that has arisen about Mr. Doyle which are developed not from rumour or behind the hand whispering but from Mr. Doyle’s regrettable and unwise public postings on social media. What is even more inexplicable, from a public perception point of view, is that Mr. Doyle was warned about these pronouncements before he became an MP and was advised to remove the, He failed to follow that advice and although many are no longer widely available to the public they are still there. Mr. Doyle must accept some responsibility for the situation

7. Risk Assessment: He highlighted the absence of specific details about the timing or location of potential attacks, which he argued increases the psychological impact of being at "constant risk."

I really wonder how Dr Hattotuwa is in any position to make such an assertion or whether he is the victim of his own overactive imagination​

Now what has happened is that Mr, Fisher has made this research available to GRC and they have used it to develop their report.

Sadly we have no information about what other researches GRC carried out. Given that Dr. Hattotuwa’s data was gathered over a two week period (29 March – 12 April) and given that Mr. Fisher’s article was published on 15 April one wonders what verification of the data was carried out by GRC.

We must remember that 12 April was a Saturday and that is when Dr. Hattotuwa completed his “survey”. Mr. Fisher’s article was published at 5:00 am on Tuesday 15 April. That would give GRC between 48 and 60 hours (if working full time 24/7) to evaluate the data, carry out their analysis, write the report and make it available to Mr. Fisher.

I do not intend any criticism of GRC. They used the data that was available to them and I have no doubt that Mr. Fisher expressed some urgency for their report. But I would have thought that some steps should have been taken to verify Dr. Hattotuwa’s data and sources and for GRC to carry out its own independent evaluation of the information.

Here is the problem. Mr. Fisher’s headline refers to an expert security report. The words “expert report” are used in the body of the article. And there is little doubt that GRC has expertise in the area of security and risk assessment.

But there is a strong possibility that their assessment was based entirely upon Dr. Hattotuwa’s data and conclusions. It may even have drawn on his assessments and evaluation of the data. Without Dr Hattotuwa’s report and the GRC report we will never know.

But as an evaluator of information I treat assertions of expertise very carefully. I would rarely accept an expert report at face value. I would invariably go behind it.

I recall one case involving spontaneous brain hemorrhages cross-examining a pathologist about his findings. The cross-examination was very detailed. There was a reference to some of the medical literature which helped to inform the pathologist’s findings. The problem was that the literature was not conclusive on the matter. I put to the pathologist six articles – individually – which challenged his theory. He had read none of them. This was something of a challenge not only to his findings but also his level of expertise.

Thus I approach Dr Hattotuwa’s conclusions with a degree of caution, based upon my assessments of the materials that he has published in the past, especially when he was associated with the Disinformation Project.

And it must be a matter of concern that Mr. Fisher is prepared to uncritically accept Dr Hattotuwa’s conclusions and to go further and to use Dr Hattotuwa’s findings to provide a foundation for another report by an expert. Mr. Fisher is probably well aware of a degree of scepticism surrounding Dr. Hattotuwa and his methods. By obtaining a report from GRC he mas managed to put some distance between Dr. Hattotuwa and the “expert security report”

Conclusion

Substack writer Matua Kahurangi has written an opinion piece entitled “Opinion: The media’s manufactured martyrdom of Benjamin Doyle is a dangerous distraction.” That piece is critical of Mr. Fisher’s article. The Substack post states:

“The media’s role here has been deeply irresponsible. Instead of engaging in sober analysis, it has rushed to spotlight a security report like it were gospel, plastering probability figures across headlines as though predicting a stock market crash. They quote disinformation researchers and crisis analysts, name-drop “stochastic terrorism,” and invoke Trump and QAnon, painting a dire picture of the cultural right while ignoring that public dissatisfaction with Doyle cuts across the political spectrum.

When fringe groups exploit public frustration, it’s the media’s job to report without inflaming. But too often, that line is crossed. By casting all criticism of Doyle as hate-driven, the press not only absolves Doyle of answering for past behaviour, they risk inflaming the very tensions they claim to decry. And in doing so, they marginalize ordinary citizens who are disturbed not by Doyle’s gender identity, but by his judgment, his past posts, and his apparent unwillingness to accept responsibility.”

My concern is a little more fundamental. It is the way in which a particular “researcher” and a particular writer wish to frame the narrative and uncritically use of evidence and data without making a clear disclosure of methodologies and raw data. In this information age this is not hard nor is it impossible.

There are so many loose ends to this story, so many questions left unanswered especially those surrounding the level of engagement and the relationships between Mr. Fisher, Dr. Hattotuwa and GRC who, I think, may have been drawn into this matter.

By suggesting that Mr. Doyle is at serious risk of some form of vigilante violence or “stochastic terrorism” Mr. Fisher is continuing a narrative redolent of conspiracy that is sympathetic to Mr. Doyle and that is certainly not impartial.

One would expect better of a journalist of 30 years who has won

“multiple journalism awards including being twice named Reporter of the Year and being selected as one of a small number of Wolfson Press Fellows to Wolfson College, Cambridge.”

Hopefully in future we will see a more thorough and dispassionate approach that may result in an improvement in public confidence in the news media.

And as a parting remark – why is it that the use of “multiple” is so prevalent in the public discourse. Is it not possible to put a number on the number of awards, the books written and all the other statistics that are encompassed by the word.