Anonymous Threatening Letters: Churches

Fifteen UK churches told to stop services in anonymous letters threatening attacks

Handwritten letters threatening petrol bomb attacks and mass stabbings have been sent to 15 churches in the UK in the past two months.

Here is what media reports as the one above: 

“Stop all your services straight away if you don’t your church will be petrol bombed while in service. Continue behind closed doors and your congregation members will be stabbed one by one. Blood on your hands. You have been warned.”

A local faith school decided to withdraw pupils from services at the Sheffield church after they received the threatening letter.

A police investigation has been opened and, at the time of writing, inquiries are ongoing.

Here is the statement as reported to media: 

“Stop all your services straight away if you don’t your church will be petrol bombed while in service. Continue behind closed doors and your congregation members will be stabbed one by one. Blood on your hands. You have been warned.”

In assessing the threat, the context is very narrow:

It is restricted to the time of the writing/mailing of the letter. 

This is critical to understand. 

From the time the author mails it, anything can happen that can, and will, change the analysis. 

For example, in a weak threat (one in which the author is not committed to an attack), after mailing it, the author could experience something in life that will move him from weak threat to carrying out the threat. 

The number one element in this is personal humiliation. 

Other triggers could be mental health, death of a loved one, loss of job, conflict, physical health issue, and so on.  

Therefore, the analysis is limited only to the time or writing and sending a letter. 

Next, we look at priority and we look at linguistic commitment.

What is the priority of this author in this letter?

“Stop all your services straight away if you don’t your church will be petrol bombed while in service. 

1. "Stop all your services straight away" is a priority for the author. 

This is where the author began the statement and it is presented unequivocally, or without qualification.  This is what the author wants. 

2. It is a conditional threat:

“Stop all your services straight away if you don’t your church will be petrol bombed while in service. 

The petrol bombing is conditional. This allows for the intended recipient (the church) to be spared the violent consequences.  This means that the author will allow for himself to not bomb and for the church to avoid his threat.  

In other words, the author is willing to not do it.  This lesser context (within the statement) is now considered as we 

3. Linguistic commitment:

Q. Does the author threaten the church?

A.  He does not. 

"Stop all your services or I will petrol bomb..."

Notice in the above example, the psychological presence, via the pronoun "I" is used to enter into the statement and make a linguistically strong threat. 

In this particular letter (the analysis is strictly limited to this letter) the author is missing from the statement.  

He is absent.  

Where is he? 

Continue behind closed doors and your congregation members will be stabbed one by one. 


The author may have been sexually abused in childhood and has associated this with the church.  

The author is likely struggling with sexuality. 




Blood on your hands. You have been warned.”

Note there is no connection to the author. 

This is a weak threat but anything could change this.  It is a linguistically weak threat at the time of writing/sending. 

The author likely has a need to be heard, is frustrated in this matter, and is acting out his issues.

The author does not present as an Islamic terrorist, though he could be a secular Muslim, sexually abused and angry.  I believe this is less likely than one associated with Christian ideology. 

If you wish to enroll in training, please visit Hyatt Analysis Services.