By David Furness
Keir Starmer held a news conference this morning at Downing Street regarding the Southport murders. In a classic case of damage limitation, he stated that lessons must be learned.
He stated that he was aware of the attacker’s motives and connections to terrorist groups. However, he emphasised that the British legal system is structured to prevent the public disclosure of information that could potentially influence a criminal trial. He further noted that sharing such information would be inappropriate, as it “risks causing the trial to collapse.”
Keeping a lid on any information about a defendant before a trial because it could influence a jury and, therefore, collapse that trial is somewhat old-fashioned.
In the past, the public primarily received information from national newspapers and the BBC News on TV and radio. Those days are over! Nowadays, we have the internet, social media, and 24-hour news channels on television.
Secondly, if multiple witnesses have seen a crime or if it was captured on video, and the suspect possesses the murder weapon (such as a gun, knife, or car), how might information about the defendant’s past convictions or behaviour impact a jury, even if there is no doubt that the suspect committed the crime?
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Jonathan Hall KC stated last October that a lot can be communicated without jeopardising a trial. He cautioned that insufficient information could spread harmful misinformation, which may undermine public trust and confidence in the justice system.
Following the murders, significant unrest erupted in Southport, which spread throughout Britain. Starmer swiftly attributed the violence to ‘far-right thuggery,’ leading to the arrest of over 1,500 individuals.
Some individuals on social media referred to the murderer as a ‘terrorist.’ Many of these individuals were charged with committing a ‘hate crime’ for using the term ‘terrorist’ and are now in jail. It’s possible that some received a tip-off from those who were aware of the true situation.
If labelling the Southport killer Axel Rudakubana as a ‘terrorist’ could have caused his trial to collapse, then surely the labelling of protestors by Keir Starmer as ‘far right’ should have caused their trial to collapse as well.
On March 22, 2017, Khalid Masood carried out an attack in Westminster, resulting in the death of police officer Keith Palmer. During the attack, he also murdered four pedestrians and seriously injured 29 others. Due to the nature of these crimes, the BBC referred to this incident as the “Westminster terror attack.”
However, Starmer and the BBC did not want the Southport murders of three children, the attempted murder of eight children, and the attempted murder of two adults to be classified as a ‘terrorist attack.’
In his speech today, Starmer stated that Britain faces a new threat from ‘individualised extreme violence‘. However, this is not a new concern, as ISIS has long called for knife and vehicle attacks by lone attackers.
Starmer was aware that the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, had been referred to Prevent (the anti-terror programme) due to concerns that he was looking at online material about U.S. school massacres and previous terrorist attacks.
Starmer also knew that:
- Contrary to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, Rudakubana possessed a manual entitled ‘Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual’.
- Contrary to the Biological Weapons Act 1974, Rudakubana was producing a biological toxin called Ricin.
The notion that Keir Starmer was right to withhold this information from the public to avoid jeopardising the murder trial is nonsensical.
A more plausible explanation is that Starmer, viewing himself as a globalist rather than a nationalist, decided against releasing the information because it could negatively impact the Labour Party. This is particularly relevant given the party’s stance on mass immigration, illegal migrants, and the acceptance of anyone who arrives on our shores seeking asylum.
Join us!
Click here to join us as a member.
Or sign up for our free email newsletter at the bottom of the page.
Follow us and share our content on these social media platforms using the links below:
X (formerly known as Twitter): @BritishDems
British Democrats: JOIN
The Party of British Identity
Anyone who murders children should face execution, stop wasting money on the absolute EVIL scumbag.
The media are up to their usual obfuscation trickery.
Despite being a British citizen, the attacker is of African heritage and the victims were of European descent. Imagine if a white youth carried out such an evil crime against children of a different ethnicity to himself and there was no mention of race, motive or hatred from the establishment/mass media. Instead, the main talking points are reduced to how the killer had slipped through the net and where he’d acquired the murder weapon. No surprises to those of us who are accustomed to these routine deceptions.
The two murders that we will never be allowed to forget are the deaths of Stephen Lawrence and more recently George Floyd. Ever since the Lawrence case, we are always being told that the racial element makes these killings infinitely worse. Yet when it comes to the Southport atrocity and the brutal rapes of young white girls at the hands of men of predominantly Pakistani heritage, the racial element disappears. These crimes are suddenly lumped together with other crimes, the rape gangs are just evil men, just as white sexual offenders are evil. Likewise, as you point out, in the Southport attack, the focus is on missed opportunities and where the killer purchased the murder weapon. LBC radio presenter, James OBrien plants the blame firmly at the door of Geoff Bezos and Elon Musk(apparently where they were seated at the I inauguration of Donald Trump is of crucial importance). The Southport murders along with the grooming gangs were racially motivated crimes, failure to even acknowledge this coupled with importing immigrants from third world cultures will result in more of these atrocities.