Aella's law is leading to the shattering of life in common. Credit: Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty

The hawthorns were pale green when the first lockdown started, and we all clapped for carers. The grass was lush and everywhere full of flowers while the Westminster court press argued about Dominic Cummings driving to Barnard Castle, and cities around the world went up in flames in the BLM riots. The hedgerows were thick with fruit when the reign of Donald Trump came to an end (as did that of Dominic Cummings). The mud was ankle-deep, churned by hoofprints and frozen solid when Boris rammed the Brexit deal through at the eleventh hour, and not long afterwards a horned Nazi shaman invaded the US Capitol.
Lockdown days have a way of blurring into one another, but my year has been marked out by the changing of the hedgerows as I ran along endless miles of footpaths.
Reflecting on that year of Covid is like trying to grasp the layout of someone’s house by peering through the keyhole. It’s difficult to get any sense of perspective when we’re all confined to our homes, with only algorithmically-filtered online newsfeeds to supply information about the outside world. The temptation is to allow every perspective to fall away, save the most personal “I” and the most general “public conversation”.
It would be easy enough to write a review of the year from the “I” perspective: all hedgerows and emotion. It would be as easy to write a breezy roundup of the year’s public conversations, which have been loud (to say the least) and increasingly surreal. But there’s another story of the pandemic’s impact as well, that’s far harder to see in either of these frameworks. This has been the deliberate shattering, in the name of virus control, of what was left of our common life – and the asymmetrical impact this has had.
Between “I” as an individual, and “we” at the largest scale of national or international politics, lies most of human society: clubs, church groups, voluntary associations, the whole organic life of communities great and small. All of this relies on peer-to-peer social connection — and it was all abruptly halted by lockdown.
When the pandemic struck, there was a rash of hopeful articles (including some of mine) about how this crisis might strengthen civil society bonds, and make us more aware of how interdependent we are as a society. This all happened, to an extent. Mutual aid organisations sprang up, often with faith communities at the forefront, seeking to plug gaps and bring help to those struggling under lockdown. There were waves of volunteers to help the NHS, deliver vaccines and pick fruit. But against that newfound voluntarism, we must weigh the impact the last year has had on countless existing institutions, social settings and relationships.
For Covid has accelerated what I think of as the disintermediation of everything. Back in the 00s, when the internet first hit the mainstream with the launch of Facebook, eBay, and their ilk, I was involved in the startup world. There was lots of excited chatter at the time about “disintermediation” — the way groups of amateurs might use the internet to route round intermediate institutions. This, the apostles of the digital revolution believed, would impel a great democratisation and empowerment of smaller players against rigid gatekeepers of all types.
That was the theory. What it meant in practice was centralisation. Instead of local newspapers, now we have one virtual “local newspaper” — Facebook — whose monopolisation of the ad revenue that once went to local papers has made Mark Zuckerberg one of the richest men in the world. Instead of high-street antique shops, we now have one “antique shop” — eBay — that has devastated high-street sellers while it made its founder a billionaire.
As we’ve plunged deeper into the digital era, a pattern has begun to emerge. Not only do digital players centralise and then replace offline ecosystems, but winners and losers on digital platforms also follow a centralising trend. This was recently captured by OnlyFans superstar Aella, who posted a graph showing how much money porn stars on that website earn:
Onlyfans ranking % and how much actual money that corresponds to: pic.twitter.com/0BiL4NKADE
— Aella (@Aella_Girl) December 6, 2020
Aella herself ranks in the top 0.8% on OnlyFans, and in her best-performing month last year made $103,000. Others on the site may make very little, despite posting lots of content. This extreme asymmetry in who benefits from a platform eviscerates everything except the very top of the curve. I think of this dynamic as Aella’s Law – and over the past year, largely thanks to Covid control measures, it has made rapid incursions into real life.
This real world rollout of Aella’s Law was first visible in bricks-and-mortar businesses. Compelled to close by pandemic policy, by June 2020 over 11,000 small and medium-sized shops had gone out of business. One report estimates that 48 businesses closed for good every day in 2020. It’s not just high street shops, either: another report estimates that by September 2020, 240,000 small and medium-sized businesses of all types went to the wall.
But that didn’t apply evenly to all businesses – it fell disproportionately on smaller ones. Online grocery retailer Ocado saw 35% growth over 2020, while Amazon (which holds the kind of leading spot in e-commerce that Aella does in porn) saw 84% growth over the year. Aella’s Law doesn’t just affect groceries either; wherever in the world there were lockdowns, over the course of 2020 small businesses struggled and died, and big ones got bigger.
The assault extends to the voluntary sector as well. As donations have wavered and high-street charity shops been forced to close, one report estimates that even charities face a wave of consolidation, with smaller, more niche bodies folding their sometimes highly specific local remits into the more general one of larger organisations.
We're living in a pornstar's world
Aella’s Law is even being felt in our churches. The Bishop of Manchester warned in January that Covid will accelerate the closure of yet more Anglican churches, as loss of collection income due to closures meets already-dwindling congregations to render the upkeep of ancient buildings unaffordable. Reports suggest the Church of England is now proposing to increase parish sizes and cull mid-ranking clergy in order to trim costs.
At an informal level, too, there have been many losers. The 10,000 pubs, bars and restaurants that closed their doors for good in 2020 aren’t just a business; each closure represents friends not met, milestones not celebrated with family, stories not exchanged, troubles not shared over a pint.
And here, again, Aella’s Law applies: those with happy marriages, kids and good social lives have limped through the last year with social bubbles and Zoom calls. But anyone without strong social connections, or who is reliant on social institutions for everyday human contact, found even that taken from them. A quarter of UK adults have suffered loneliness and mental health issues during lockdown, and those worst affected have been young people, single parents and the unemployed — in other words, those with the weakest existing support structures.
And nowhere has the shattering of life in common bitten more sharply than for those most in need of support. The last year has been tough on all children, shut off from social contact and struggling with Zoom school. But Aella’s Law is painfully visible in the concentration of worsening child mental health down the socioeconomic scale. And it’s also at work in the impact of remote schooling: children who were already disadvantaged may not just be missing the laptop (or the space, or the quiet, or the support) to engage properly with remote schooling — worse yet, one in five have struggled to concentrate due to hunger.
Lockdown has also gnawed at quality of life for all but the best-resourced and most well-connected elderly people. A massive 80% of respondents to an Alzheimer’s Society survey reported a dramatic decline in faculties as a consequence of isolation. And there are harrowing stories of the impact isolation in a care home has had, on people with advanced dementia deprived even of visits from loving relatives.
We’ve paid steeply to control this virus. The price has not just been in government borrowing but in the tattered warp and weft of our common life. Maybe the price has been worth paying: even under lockdown, a staggering 126,000 UK citizens died within 28 days of a Covid test over the last year. But the cost has been unfathomable as well, both individually and collectively — and it has not been evenly borne.
Over the past year, I ran more than a thousand miles. I counted my blessings with every step. Compared to many I have been lucky. I kept running as the hedgerows blossomed, greened, fruited and blew bare, and the world outside came increasingly to resemble a bleak and hallucinatory shadow-show. Even if everything else has seemed insubstantial, the paths under my feet stayed put: unchanged except by the seasons coming and going.
It’s easy to conclude that it’s all unreal, and to turn away. But the point is precisely that that out there is not a shadow-show: it’s an emerging new normal. It’s just difficult to see, because everything now, from our media to government lockdown policy, seems geared toward “just me” or “everything” — but nothing in between.
Who cares about local life, now our public conversation happens online, at colossal scale, in terms set by Chinese ambassadors and Ivy League social justice evangelists and massaged by algorithms? The answer has to be: us. We care. Even as it’s grown harder to see our life in common, we need it more than ever. The alternative is a future governed purely by Aella’s Law: an unjust, atomised, deeply inhuman place.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThis is another classic decision by the authorities that defies logic and sanity to anyone possessing an ounce of common sense. If the perpetrator is essentially a biological male possessing all the functions that come with such a thing, and a sex offender at that, why has he been allowed to be accommodated alongside the most vulnerable women in the country?
How have the great and the good and the institutions they serve allowed these travesties to happen?
”why has he been allowed to be accommodated alongside the most vulnerable women in the country?”
You are as woke as the Police doing this insanity.
It takes a lot to get real time in HM Prison System – they do not yet lock you up for being a scared, frail, helpless, victim. ‘Most Vulnerable women in the country’ OMG!!!
I guess you have bought into the current agenda than when a crime has been committed the true victim was the one who did it – because society must have really harmed them that they turned to crime…. haha – woke sheep…
Most of these women have had hard, poor starts in life. Many are victims of domestic violence and abuse. Most of these women are in for petty crimes like shoplifting or TV licence evasion. Men are more likely to be in for sex crimes or violence.
Most of these women … Many … Most of these women.. are in for petty crimes like shoplifting or TV licence evasion. And other crimes, right?
Come off it mate. Major category error in your thinking there. Prisoners can simultaneously be aggressive and vulnerable, with chronic low self-esteem and substance-abuse issues. Don’t confuse civility with vulnerability.
The issue is not that the women in prison aren’t vulnerable people, it’s the assertion that they’re the most vulnerable women in the country.
Perhaps he means “physically vulnerable” on average compared to men and also in a confined space?
“the most vulnerable women in the country?”
Are you here talking about the women in prison, who might possibly be victims of injustice, but surely not the majority of inmates, who have committed crimes. You really cannot think of any women who might be more vulnerable?
Prisons are full of people who are vulnerable. An awful lot of them have experienced trauma & abuse in their early childhood. This can often lead them towards addictions & ultimately breaking the law. Whilst not excusing the crimes they may have committed, it goes a long way towards explaining it.
So yes, there would have been vulnerable women in prison.
“the most vulnerable women in the country?”
The most vulnerable women in prison is the issue, not some. Of course there would be vulnerable women in prison, but not the most vulnerable in the country.
While I certainly don’t hate men wishing to pass as women and even wanting to be referred to as women, I certainly find the attitude of Sussex police to be stupid, dishonest and even hateful in this instance. Whatever the desire of the perpetrator in this case they should certainly not attempt to pass off a crime committed by a man as one committed by a woman. How can we trust anything emanating from Sussex police while they persist in this charade?
Next – a pedophile identifying as a child so being sent to Juvenile Prison?
How about one of the Prison guards showing up to work in those massive prosthetic Breasts the Canadian shop teacher was wearing? How about the prisoner in this story demands a pair of them as that is how he identifies….
Let us pray a hard Right wave is building and will wash out all the insane idiots like these, who are out to destroy society. The new Italian PM gave a speech on family and men and women which has totally swept the internet. Here on Unherd she was sneered at a bit – but she is the coming wave, it is just building. Next it is time for parents to re-take the schools and get the destructive woke out of them – as is sweeping USA Now. Mothers are politically mobilized in mass, and taking back the schools across USA. here is an old one, on Rumble, and ‘Bannon’s War Room’ this is always an ongoing story on this phenomenon.
The Revolt Of America’s Moms: A Mother’s Day Special Cont.
https://rumble.com/v13vqyn-episode-1840-the-revolt-of-americas-moms-a-mothers-day-special-cont..html
Just to add that some gender ‘experts’ state that a paedophile is a minor attracted person!!! Mind boggling.
Yes, this is now well known, along with campaigns in some quarters to get the age for gender self id reduced. Frightening
I apologise for calling you woke in a comment on another article a few days ago.
I see after Braverman criticised the Sussex tweet it has been deleted.
Quite right too. But not enough.
Braverman and the Justice Secretary need to ensure men like this go to men’s prisons. If they need a special wing to protect them from the general run of male inmates, so be it. But they have no business being with vulnerable women. That they are placed in women’s prisons is, frankly, obscene.
…and maybe sack the senior police officer for a clear lack of judgment.
Pour encourager les autres!
Sussex Police are just wrong on every level but so is the MoJ for pandering to the Stonewall ideology.
As for Dixon, the simplest way to deal with descriptions is to describe Dixon in his male identity for his crimes, as he committed them, as a male-identifying, male. If we want to acknowledge that Dixon now wishes to identify as a female, that is fine also.
Doesn’t get Dixon into a female prison though.
Exactly right.
These are the fruits of the Progressive Left’s Long March through the Institutions. While we slept, they have been quietly infiltrating their placemen into senior roles in the police, the civil service, the NHS, and a thousand quangos, public bodies and institutions.
It’s straight from the Frankfurt School’s 1930s playbook. So effective has it been that many of these people don’t even realize where they acquired their opinions and progressive outlook.
Think I’m paranoid? Then please explain the behaviour of Sussex Police in a more plausible way.
“Think I’m paranoid? Then please explain the behaviour of Sussex Police in a more plausible way.”
Hanlon’s Razor.
That is a hypothesis of course. My one question; is the ‘long march’ is from deliberate intent or from what I call ‘ideology drift’ (as in genetic drift in a population) on the part of the “progressive Left”?
A person with a p***s, convicted of sex crimes committed with that p***s, has been locked up with people with vaginas. Even when you cloak it in trans-friendly terminology, it’s deeply shocking.
Not so long ago it was reported that Scottish Police would log a rape carried by someone who self identified as a woman as a crime carried out by a woman even if the rape was penetrative by a p***s. If convicted that person would go to a woman’s prison. It is a rapist’s charter.
I don’t know how often that happens or if it is still the case.
It’s looking like gender self-identity is already here despite the law. In this case the police are accepting it and from other reports it seems that companies and other organisations are accepting it too.
Thank you for your service to Clown World, Essex Police!! It’s great to know that whether the offender has a d*ck is not relevant in rape cases. We can probably also safely assume that having a weapon is not a relevant factor in weapons related crimes.
I identify as unarmed therefore I could not have shot anyone.
I identify as rich so had no need to rob the corner shop.
I identify as innocent, you can’t send me down
The Police College interpretation seems to be at odds with the law, removing those in charge and replacing them with
un indoctrinated adults would be a great start to combating this madness.
The Crimes were committed by a man . He was a man when he committed the crimes.
So for the police to claim the crimes were committed by a woman is wrong-and silly.
PS: He’s still a man. And he will die as one.
It’s like waking up into a world where everyone else has gone crackers.
Why the devil does my newspaper, the Telegraph, refer, when giving a full account of this matter, refer to the male perp as ‘she’?
Time for extreme measures. The UK police force should be disbanded. We can use the money saved to start again.
Begin a new force with veterans from the Household Division and the Parachute Regiment for starters.
They and they alone, have the courage,, discipline and esprit de corps to produce a really first class Police Force, in total contrast to the existing rabble.
Not that your ridiculous suggestion has any merit, but if you’re starting again then you need to disband 52 police forces. That’s just England.
Am I being ridiclous? The modern police force do not perform the function for wich they were created, which, in case we have forgotten, is the prevention of crime..
Kemi B please come forward and sort this mess out!!!
The illiterate tweet quoted in the third paragraph tells you everything, doesn’t it?
What laws need to be repealed to stop this?
None. The College of Policing needs its wings clipped. It’s gone off-piste with its policies.
Thank goodness we’ve got a Home Secretary who isn’t afraid of the Blob.
*Cottage of Policing.
The only cure for insanity is more insanity. We need more insane cases like this to unwoke the gender wokes. Until they directly suffer the consequence of their own insanity nothing will change.
The rot set in when they legalised a lie. Viz you can change gender & get a new birth certificate in your new gender. Factually this isn’t true. If you were born in one gender & wish to transition to another one, by all means you should be free to do so.
But somewhere confidential there should be a record of your previous life, particularly if you committed serious crimes in the previous gender.
It’s known that some sex offenders have tried this to find a way round the fact that they are in the register for life.
All in all, it’s madness.
Well there is one way women prisoners can get rid of the males in their prisons – I predict a riot?
Why put Dixon, who does not even have a Gender Recognition Certificate and is therefore male *in law* as well as body, in a women’s prison?(my asterisks)
Well, yes. In law sex is biology. Hence to access certain features of society that are gated by the law, an individual has to be regarded by the law as having a ‘passport’ to access those features. Hence a GRC legal fiction, so that the individual is regarded only in law as belonging to a sex category to which they do not belong in reality.
EHRC guidance does allow for certain individuals to be denied access to a particular prison estate when it is proportionate and legitimate to do so. So I am unsure what the policy is here; … Ministry of Justice (MoJ) in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to overturn its policy to allocate high risk trans-identified prisoners, including sex offenders, to female prisons.
Women hoisted on their own petard.
The law of unintended consequences.