| The Southport attack and Starmer 08:58 - Jan 21 with 5066 views | onehunglow |
Are we allowed to offer comments on here Mods
Thanks
Starmers comments of late are surely worth commenting . |  |
| |  |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:25 - Jan 24 with 634 views | raynor94 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 11:34 - Jan 24 by controversial_jack |
He's a twisted nutter, they exist, not much we can do to stop them |
What! There were numerous opportunities where he could have been stopped.
Heads need to roll over this one |  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 13:38 - Jan 24 with 586 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:25 - Jan 24 by raynor94 |
What! There were numerous opportunities where he could have been stopped.
Heads need to roll over this one |
His parents held the key
They have blood n their hands | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 14:11 - Jan 24 with 576 views | raynor94 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 13:38 - Jan 24 by onehunglow |
His parents held the key
They have blood n their hands |
100%agree đź‘Ť | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 15:57 - Jan 24 with 515 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 08:28 - Jan 24 by Boundy |
Not my words
"I want to know why Axel Rudakubana's father did not stop him. I want to know who these people are and what they believe. I want to know why his father did not march his son to a police station, not least after he found him preparing a school massacre. I want to know how a boy can turn up at school TEN times with a knife and not be sectioned. I want to know why Prevent is not preventing horrific attacks like this one and is clearly no longer fit for purpose. I want to know why the school, social services, the local council, and others did not stop this psychopath despite countless warnings. I want to know why Prevent and the state appear utterly obsessed with the right-wing when 70% of terrorist attacks in this country since 2018 have been Islamist and three-quarters of MI5's caseload is Islamist. I want to know why Westminster and legacy media fell over themselves to share details of other terrorist attacks but went silent over this one. I want to know why Keir Starmer has previously tweeted about attacks on the actual day they occurred calling them "terrorism" but refused to do so in this case. I want to know why the state keeps letting people who murder our children, from Axel Rudakubana to Manchester bomber Salman Abedi, fall through the cracks. I want to know why the media gaslit us by presenting this boy as a nice Dr Who choirboy from the Welsh valleys when they knew he had a long history of violence, had been referred to Prevent, and had ricin. I want to know why Keir Starmer casually branded many people in this country "far right" before they even went to court but now is suddenly obsessed with contempt of court procedure. I want to know why Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner derided people for spreading "fake news" and "conspiracy theories" when they suggested this was linked to terrorism when we now know that SHE knew this guy had been referred to counter-terrorism authorities three times. I want to know why much of the political, media, and cultural class in this country piled in on Nigel Farage, even trying to describe the unrest as the "Farage Riots", when everything he was saying about the truth being withheld was right. I want to know why, even today, they are not apologising. I want to know why Keir Starmer is now trying to convince us there is a 'new' form of lone-wolf terrorism when, from David Copeland in 1999 onwards, this has been obvious to everybody for decades. I want to know why if this had been a white British boy who stabbed three black girls to death and injured many more, who was then later found with far-right literature and ricin, we all know the response from Starmer, Cooper, Rayner and much of the media would have been entirely different. I want to know why Keir Starmer talks about "protecting our children" while *literally* not being able to tell us who is coming into our country through our broken borders and why. I want to know why, as with the rape gangs, nobody in positions of power, in these state authorities, is on primetime news apologising to the country. And I want to know why we are now having this utterly ridiculous debate about Amazon, 'buying knives online' and social media when, in reality, what this is about is how our leaders continue to let masses of people into our country from high conflict, highly violent societies who do not think like us, do not act like us, do not share our values or respect our laws, and do not care about us. Yesterday, Keir Starmer said he is "drawing a line in the sand". He should start by apologising to the people of this country for how he and his government have handled Southport as well as the rape gangs, both of which will now go down in history as powerful symbols of the total incompetence and inability of the state to keep us safe. And then he should announce he is ending the extreme policy of mass uncontrolled immigration which is destabilising our communities and nation, will do whatever necessary to fix our broken borders, will completely overhaul Prevent, will actually develop an integration strategy for this country (we do not have one!) and will start treating hardworking, taxpaying British people with the respect and decency they deserve by authorising major inquiries into not only Southport but the rape gangs. That would be a start.
We want to know the truth. And we want to change the direction of our country" |
There's no doubt there are questions that need answering, but the original post contains many inaccuracies and incorrect statements and has clearly been written by someone who has difficulty in understanding SOME of the issues surrounding this incident. The author is ranting about Starmer and the gangs, it was nothing to do with Starmer, he’s actually made it easier to prosecute offenders.
I [Post edited 24 Jan 16:20]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:15 - Jan 24 with 498 views | Gwyn737 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 15:57 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
There's no doubt there are questions that need answering, but the original post contains many inaccuracies and incorrect statements and has clearly been written by someone who has difficulty in understanding SOME of the issues surrounding this incident. The author is ranting about Starmer and the gangs, it was nothing to do with Starmer, he’s actually made it easier to prosecute offenders.
I [Post edited 24 Jan 16:20]
|
An even if it was all true, we need to look at why a small number of idiots see fit try try and burn alive innocent people to show their disgust.
It's good to have the discussion around the issues caused by the vacuum of information following the arrest, but I'm still asking myself what difference would it have made?
The trial wasn't prejudiced, the right person was caught and recieved an almost unprecedented sentence.
I'm afraid that for some part of the anger is he wasn't the illegal, small boat migrant they were so desperate for him to be. [Post edited 24 Jan 16:50]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:40 - Jan 24 with 472 views | Scotia |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 15:57 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
There's no doubt there are questions that need answering, but the original post contains many inaccuracies and incorrect statements and has clearly been written by someone who has difficulty in understanding SOME of the issues surrounding this incident. The author is ranting about Starmer and the gangs, it was nothing to do with Starmer, he’s actually made it easier to prosecute offenders.
I [Post edited 24 Jan 16:20]
|
The author is also using the murder of three innocent girls to further their anti immigration agenda.
This wasn't terrorism any more so than jack the ripper or Harald Shipman. Rudakabana was a unhinged nutcase who should have been stopped, why he wasn't is the question that needs to be asked, conflating this situation with immigration and rape gangs isn't going to stop this happening again.
There are more similarities between Rudakabana and Jonny Bravery than Salman Abedi. That's what needs to be looked at. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:53 - Jan 24 with 436 views | controversial_jack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:25 - Jan 24 by raynor94 |
What! There were numerous opportunities where he could have been stopped.
Heads need to roll over this one |
I've not read deeply into this case, but did he break any laws up until then? If not, the police can't do anything. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:03 - Jan 24 with 422 views | Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:40 - Jan 24 by Scotia |
The author is also using the murder of three innocent girls to further their anti immigration agenda.
This wasn't terrorism any more so than jack the ripper or Harald Shipman. Rudakabana was a unhinged nutcase who should have been stopped, why he wasn't is the question that needs to be asked, conflating this situation with immigration and rape gangs isn't going to stop this happening again.
There are more similarities between Rudakabana and Jonny Bravery than Salman Abedi. That's what needs to be looked at. |
Wasn’t terrorism? Axel Rudakubana has been convicted under section 58 of the terrorism act so it is officially and legally correct to say he is a terrorist and what he did was terrorism.
This is an incontestable and unequivocal fact of law. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:07 - Jan 24 with 407 views | Flashberryjack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:53 - Jan 24 by controversial_jack |
I've not read deeply into this case, but did he break any laws up until then? If not, the police can't do anything. |
Carrying a knife in a public place, or is that not a crime in your world ? |  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:12 - Jan 24 with 403 views | raynor94 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:53 - Jan 24 by controversial_jack |
I've not read deeply into this case, but did he break any laws up until then? If not, the police can't do anything. |
Battering a kid with a hockey stick, carrying a knife, which Amazon are saying when delivered it was accepted by an adult over 25, sounds like one his parents.
His brother was away in university | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:22 - Jan 24 with 385 views | union_jack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:03 - Jan 24 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Wasn’t terrorism? Axel Rudakubana has been convicted under section 58 of the terrorism act so it is officially and legally correct to say he is a terrorist and what he did was terrorism.
This is an incontestable and unequivocal fact of law. |
Also had an Al Qaeda manual in his possession and had cultivated ricin. |  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:33 - Jan 24 with 361 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:40 - Jan 24 by Scotia |
The author is also using the murder of three innocent girls to further their anti immigration agenda.
This wasn't terrorism any more so than jack the ripper or Harald Shipman. Rudakabana was a unhinged nutcase who should have been stopped, why he wasn't is the question that needs to be asked, conflating this situation with immigration and rape gangs isn't going to stop this happening again.
There are more similarities between Rudakabana and Jonny Bravery than Salman Abedi. That's what needs to be looked at. |
What needs to be looked at is parenting or the lack of it | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:37 - Jan 24 with 357 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:03 - Jan 24 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Wasn’t terrorism? Axel Rudakubana has been convicted under section 58 of the terrorism act so it is officially and legally correct to say he is a terrorist and what he did was terrorism.
This is an incontestable and unequivocal fact of law. |
If you apply the definition of a terrorist act as per the Terrorism Act 2000, it’s clear that Rudakabana’s conduct at the dance studio wasn’t terrorism. The guy is a monster, but his actions on that day did not amount to terrorism. Anyone that tells you otherwise is talking rubbish. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:37 - Jan 24 with 355 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:03 - Jan 24 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth |
Wasn’t terrorism? Axel Rudakubana has been convicted under section 58 of the terrorism act so it is officially and legally correct to say he is a terrorist and what he did was terrorism.
This is an incontestable and unequivocal fact of law. |
People opine in utter ignorance Starmer has made it what?
Starmer is a left wing barrister by trade training and mentality .
It is right wingers who want justice for victims and true punishments for crimes
Starmer would defend this killer if still an active barrister
Ergo,barristers see, to minimise jail sentences and lead appeals
Wouldn’t surprise me if his legal team appeal against sentence using the mental illness route | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:41 - Jan 24 with 343 views | Gwyn737 |
Direct from the judge:
Justice Goose confirmed the offences did not reach the legal definition of terrorism because he did not kill to further a political, religious or ideological cause.
However, he told the packed courtroom that whether the "motivation was terrorism or not misses the point".
The definition of terrorism is pretty wide. You could argue this one meets it too:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqx92gq4z40o | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:46 - Jan 24 with 335 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:22 - Jan 24 by union_jack |
Also had an Al Qaeda manual in his possession and had cultivated ricin. |
But that doesn’t make his behaviour last July a terrorist acts | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:02 - Jan 24 with 314 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:37 - Jan 24 by onehunglow |
People opine in utter ignorance Starmer has made it what?
Starmer is a left wing barrister by trade training and mentality .
It is right wingers who want justice for victims and true punishments for crimes
Starmer would defend this killer if still an active barrister
Ergo,barristers see, to minimise jail sentences and lead appeals
Wouldn’t surprise me if his legal team appeal against sentence using the mental illness route |
Anybody with half a brain will want justice for the victims and their families, the big difference is some right wingers are seeking to make this about race and to stir up racial hatred.
As SirJohnalot has previously said, barristers have take cases they may not want to and to deal with them to the best of their ability, I’d expect a professional barrister to do their job. The barrister in this case has done a decent job, entered a guilty plea and saved the families from even more anguish than they’ve already suffered. [Post edited 24 Jan 23:49]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:03 - Jan 24 with 306 views | raynor94 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:46 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
But that doesn’t make his behaviour last July a terrorist acts |
So what did he intend to do with the Ricin | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:17 - Jan 24 with 289 views | Dr_Winston |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:02 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
Anybody with half a brain will want justice for the victims and their families, the big difference is some right wingers are seeking to make this about race and to stir up racial hatred.
As SirJohnalot has previously said, barristers have take cases they may not want to and to deal with them to the best of their ability, I’d expect a professional barrister to do their job. The barrister in this case has done a decent job, entered a guilty plea and saved the families from even more anguish than they’ve already suffered. [Post edited 24 Jan 23:49]
|
Indeed.
People need to be allowed a legal defence. Even monsters. This protects the innocent as well as the guilty, something that is clearly beyond the understanding of some. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:37 - Jan 24 with 265 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:03 - Jan 24 by raynor94 |
So what did he intend to do with the Ricin |
Check out the definition of terrorist act, it’s quite accessible as it’s online - the piece of legislation you’ll be looking for is the Terrorism Act 2000. What part of his actions last July make the offence complete?
In answer to your question, kill people lots of them but that doesn’t make his actions a terrorist offence. Harold Shipman was a mass murderer but he wasn’t a terrorist. For the offence to be a classified a Terrorist Offence the component parts of the definition (points to prove) have to be made out. [Post edited 24 Jan 18:38]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:45 - Jan 24 with 247 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:40 - Jan 24 by Scotia |
The author is also using the murder of three innocent girls to further their anti immigration agenda.
This wasn't terrorism any more so than jack the ripper or Harald Shipman. Rudakabana was a unhinged nutcase who should have been stopped, why he wasn't is the question that needs to be asked, conflating this situation with immigration and rape gangs isn't going to stop this happening again.
There are more similarities between Rudakabana and Jonny Bravery than Salman Abedi. That's what needs to be looked at. |
Just caught this
First,The only agenda I have is protecting our people. OUR people.
OUR people first
I have an agenda of stopping unchecked men into this country to kill OUR people
I have an agenda for parents to do just that and abrogate responsibilities
Now,as for your agenda ,let me think ….
Nope, I’m not doing that as ,at my age,I free my mind of filth and those who acquiesce on punishing criminals
Don’t you suggest for one minute that you are concerned with protecting our children
In a word,I pity you .
You want to take this down the DM route,do it and have the balls to stand by what you say | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:48 - Jan 24 with 241 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:17 - Jan 24 by Dr_Winston |
Indeed.
People need to be allowed a legal defence. Even monsters. This protects the innocent as well as the guilty, something that is clearly beyond the understanding of some. |
No I understand perfectly
Don’t try to be coy .
I question how barristers CAN defend monsters
I hope none of Mrs Winston’s siblings are not traumatised like this and have to face defence barristers “ doing their job”
“Some” find lawyers a moral vacuum which would help their performance | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:11 - Jan 24 with 226 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 18:37 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
Check out the definition of terrorist act, it’s quite accessible as it’s online - the piece of legislation you’ll be looking for is the Terrorism Act 2000. What part of his actions last July make the offence complete?
In answer to your question, kill people lots of them but that doesn’t make his actions a terrorist offence. Harold Shipman was a mass murderer but he wasn’t a terrorist. For the offence to be a classified a Terrorist Offence the component parts of the definition (points to prove) have to be made out. [Post edited 24 Jan 18:38]
|
Terrorism Act, 2000
1 (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
F2. Words in s. 1(1)(c) inserted (16.2.2009) by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c. 28), ss. 75(1)(2)(a), 100(5) (with s. 101(2)); S.I. 2009/58, art. 2(a)
____________________
The aspect of the definition that interests me is the addition of the racial dimension in the 2009 amendment. The change in the definition in s75 of the 2008 Act was intended to indicate that acts carried out with a racial motivation did not need to be associated with an ideological or political aim to be considered to be terrorism.
The explanatory note says: “Section 75 gives effect to Lord Carlile’s 12th recommendation in his January 2007 report on the definition of terrorism. This was that the definition of terrorism in section 1(1) of the 2000 Act be amended to include, in paragraph (c), the purpose of advancing a racial cause (in addition to a political, religious or ideological cause). Although a racial cause will in most cases be subsumed within a political or ideological cause this amendment is designed to put the matter beyond doubt that such a cause is included”.
Now, I am not sure this would apply to this case, but I wonder if the racial aspect has been fully investigated. Radakubana appears to have had a grudge against his former school and beyond that against the wider society, possibly because of his past negative experiences. Did his actions reveal antagonism towards white people? | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:22 - Jan 24 with 213 views | Boundy |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 16:40 - Jan 24 by Scotia |
The author is also using the murder of three innocent girls to further their anti immigration agenda.
This wasn't terrorism any more so than jack the ripper or Harald Shipman. Rudakabana was a unhinged nutcase who should have been stopped, why he wasn't is the question that needs to be asked, conflating this situation with immigration and rape gangs isn't going to stop this happening again.
There are more similarities between Rudakabana and Jonny Bravery than Salman Abedi. That's what needs to be looked at. |
Wasn't terrorism, what world do you exactly live in. | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 19:25 - Jan 24 with 208 views | union_jack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:46 - Jan 24 by majorraglan |
But that doesn’t make his behaviour last July a terrorist acts |
Maybe, maybe not but it does point to the fact that he was an Islamist in possession of a substance that could do mass harm. It doesn’t really matter though, it’s a semantic argument.
I’ve no doubt that he’d be capable of carrying out an attack deemed to be terrorism though. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
