| The Southport attack and Starmer 08:58 - Jan 21 with 918 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 09:28 - Jan 21 with 717 views | Boundy |
Try it , I may join you . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:37 - Jan 21 with 709 views | onehunglow |
Well,I see it as our society ,as a whole,having blood on its hands
Certainly Starmer knew as did the “ partners” Of this evil scum
Three young girls slaughtered becasue we have no guts to do the right thing
Finally,I feel for Axels barrister
As n aside,why did the taxi driver collect a masked youth from his home and allow him into his taxi.
These deaths were totally avoidable | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:52 - Jan 21 with 688 views | Boundy |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:37 - Jan 21 by onehunglow |
Well,I see it as our society ,as a whole,having blood on its hands
Certainly Starmer knew as did the “ partners” Of this evil scum
Three young girls slaughtered becasue we have no guts to do the right thing
Finally,I feel for Axels barrister
As n aside,why did the taxi driver collect a masked youth from his home and allow him into his taxi.
These deaths were totally avoidable |
My view is as we've been reliably told Starmer knew who the attacker was within the same day and yet with this knowledge chose not to partake in disclosing it ,not the detail of name etc obviously but that it was terrorist attack , two things for me out of this knowing as he did the outrage which was brewing , Governments ( even one as inept as this one has its transpiring to be ) ,can gauge the mood of the nation especially one which has as one of its focal points ,illegal immigration that he failed to heighten the public awareness of such attacks happening and allowed rumour and speculation to take hold.
He imo is as guilty of the riots as those who took part . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:58 - Jan 21 with 666 views | mangohilljack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:37 - Jan 21 by onehunglow |
Well,I see it as our society ,as a whole,having blood on its hands
Certainly Starmer knew as did the “ partners” Of this evil scum
Three young girls slaughtered becasue we have no guts to do the right thing
Finally,I feel for Axels barrister
As n aside,why did the taxi driver collect a masked youth from his home and allow him into his taxi.
These deaths were totally avoidable |
And remember people were released from prison (rapists,murderers etc) to create room for those that got angry and had the audacity to vent their spleen on social media after this heinous act was committed. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:07 - Jan 21 with 654 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:58 - Jan 21 by mangohilljack |
And remember people were released from prison (rapists,murderers etc) to create room for those that got angry and had the audacity to vent their spleen on social media after this heinous act was committed. |
Hmm.
It’s all round horrific
It’s hard to know what to post as I’m aware of possible ramifications but suffice to say my heart is very sad and my soul seething over this which happened just an hour away from us . | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:09 - Jan 21 with 653 views | Luther27 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:52 - Jan 21 by Boundy |
My view is as we've been reliably told Starmer knew who the attacker was within the same day and yet with this knowledge chose not to partake in disclosing it ,not the detail of name etc obviously but that it was terrorist attack , two things for me out of this knowing as he did the outrage which was brewing , Governments ( even one as inept as this one has its transpiring to be ) ,can gauge the mood of the nation especially one which has as one of its focal points ,illegal immigration that he failed to heighten the public awareness of such attacks happening and allowed rumour and speculation to take hold.
He imo is as guilty of the riots as those who took part . |
Is it an attempt to deflect from the grooming gang scandal? Does an act of terror take precedence?
Just to balance things out the BBC have investigated a Far Right group they think should be investigated. Everything is so predictable. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:15 - Jan 21 with 646 views | AnotherJohn |
Two of the big issues arising out of this case are: (a) are the UK institutional arrangements for predicting attacks like this and letting information flow between agencies adequate? and (b) should the authorities release more information at an early stage to let the public know what has happened? Starmer's response seems to be "no" to both questions, when I think there is a strong case for more information at an early stage. The argument there is over whether release of such information prejudices legal proceedings, but my view is that there are certain baseline facts that could be communicated without compromising a fair trial. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:27 - Jan 21 with 624 views | Scotia |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:09 - Jan 21 by Luther27 |
Is it an attempt to deflect from the grooming gang scandal? Does an act of terror take precedence?
Just to balance things out the BBC have investigated a Far Right group they think should be investigated. Everything is so predictable. |
The direction of this thread is predictable. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:35 - Jan 21 with 614 views | Scotia |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:09 - Jan 21 by Luther27 |
Is it an attempt to deflect from the grooming gang scandal? Does an act of terror take precedence?
Just to balance things out the BBC have investigated a Far Right group they think should be investigated. Everything is so predictable. |
The direction of this thread is predictable. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:46 - Jan 21 with 592 views | Luther27 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:35 - Jan 21 by Scotia |
The direction of this thread is predictable. |
Do you have a Stammer? | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:47 - Jan 21 with 589 views | Luther27 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:35 - Jan 21 by Scotia |
The direction of this thread is predictable. |
Just as predictable as the Govt or BBC. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 11:13 - Jan 21 with 562 views | Flashberryjack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:27 - Jan 21 by Scotia |
The direction of this thread is predictable. |
As predictable as your response. |  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:30 - Jan 21 with 511 views | Boundy |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:15 - Jan 21 by AnotherJohn |
Two of the big issues arising out of this case are: (a) are the UK institutional arrangements for predicting attacks like this and letting information flow between agencies adequate? and (b) should the authorities release more information at an early stage to let the public know what has happened? Starmer's response seems to be "no" to both questions, when I think there is a strong case for more information at an early stage. The argument there is over whether release of such information prejudices legal proceedings, but my view is that there are certain baseline facts that could be communicated without compromising a fair trial. |
Growing up in the 70's I remember all to well the warnings and information given out by the from the Government via the media when the Irish terrorist threat was at its highest ( thank god we are not living through similar times although the terrorist threat atm is substantial across the UK ) .
We were then advised to be vigilante in all day to day activities and certainly the public were much more aware of the threat than we are today, so after such a horrendous event in Southport why was no warning provided but rumours allowed to spread and mob rule begin to be initiated. All Governments responses after terror attacks always seems to have the same response , woolly and meaningless | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 12:33 - Jan 21 with 504 views | AnotherJohn |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:46 - Jan 21 by Luther27 |
Do you have a Stammer? |
No, he's got a starmer!  | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 13:46 - Jan 21 with 455 views | Boundy |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 10:27 - Jan 21 by Scotia |
The direction of this thread is predictable. |
As is the arrival of your good self . | |
| "In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master." |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:02 - Jan 21 with 349 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
He's now stated it was terrorism, try to keep up Kier. [Post edited 21 Jan 17:03]
|  |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:02 - Jan 21 with 349 views | SullutaCreturned |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:58 - Jan 21 by mangohilljack |
And remember people were released from prison (rapists,murderers etc) to create room for those that got angry and had the audacity to vent their spleen on social media after this heinous act was committed. |
Well, apart from the small fact that...
reuters.com/fact-check/britain-not-releasing-murderers-make-room-anti-immigration-protesters-2024-08-26/
It may be a good idea to not post rabble rousing mistruths?
As for Starmer, he's no different to other politicians, a game player, a chancer who is in it for himself. I've yet to see anything that changes my mind on that opinion. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 17:27 - Jan 21 with 320 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:52 - Jan 21 by Boundy |
My view is as we've been reliably told Starmer knew who the attacker was within the same day and yet with this knowledge chose not to partake in disclosing it ,not the detail of name etc obviously but that it was terrorist attack , two things for me out of this knowing as he did the outrage which was brewing , Governments ( even one as inept as this one has its transpiring to be ) ,can gauge the mood of the nation especially one which has as one of its focal points ,illegal immigration that he failed to heighten the public awareness of such attacks happening and allowed rumour and speculation to take hold.
He imo is as guilty of the riots as those who took part . |
I didn’t have the guts to post that
One could say he has blood on his hands and that ain’t the Tories fault | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:54 - Jan 21 with 248 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 09:52 - Jan 21 by Boundy |
My view is as we've been reliably told Starmer knew who the attacker was within the same day and yet with this knowledge chose not to partake in disclosing it ,not the detail of name etc obviously but that it was terrorist attack , two things for me out of this knowing as he did the outrage which was brewing , Governments ( even one as inept as this one has its transpiring to be ) ,can gauge the mood of the nation especially one which has as one of its focal points ,illegal immigration that he failed to heighten the public awareness of such attacks happening and allowed rumour and speculation to take hold.
He imo is as guilty of the riots as those who took part . |
I’d expect Starmer, and a number of other senior politicians including the Home Secretary and possibly the leader of the opposition to have been briefed in this.
This isn’t the United States, we have strong contempt of court laws, rules about about when names can be published, privacy laws etc. A suspects name is not released by the police until they have been Charged with an offence, that’s the way the law works. Once a person has been Charged, then the case is subjudice and release of information, publication of stories etc is Contempt of Court.
The points Starmer made about not releasing information is 100% correct within the existing laws, had he prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial then it could be possible got the defendant to have got off and walked away - there is no doubt in my mind that any defending barrister defending his client to the utmost would have progressed that line of defence.
Where we need a mature discussion is what we do going forward, there needs to be some protocol and agreement in place to share some pertinent information to prevent rampant rumour mongering and lies circulating. There needs to be a better balance, one which protects people charged with offences who could well be subsequently proven to be innocent and cases like this.
IMO, the people pushing the cover up are doing it to promote an agenda and their own self interest. Westminster is a small world and MP’s have parliamentary privilege, if some of those complaining now were so concerned 6 months ago they could have asked questions then, but they didn’t. Could it be that while they’d have been protected from Contempt of Court, they new they’d have prejudiced the trial and the offender would have walked? Imagine that!
Some serious questions remain unanswered about how this kid. He was referred to Prevent 3 times such was the concern about his behaviour, while he may not have ticked the “terrorist boxes” there should have been some mechanism in place to deal with him.
I hope this monster never sees the light of day again. My deepest condolences and thoughts are with the families of the victims. [Post edited 21 Jan 23:11]
| | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:58 - Jan 21 with 245 views | onehunglow |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:54 - Jan 21 by majorraglan |
I’d expect Starmer, and a number of other senior politicians including the Home Secretary and possibly the leader of the opposition to have been briefed in this.
This isn’t the United States, we have strong contempt of court laws, rules about about when names can be published, privacy laws etc. A suspects name is not released by the police until they have been Charged with an offence, that’s the way the law works. Once a person has been Charged, then the case is subjudice and release of information, publication of stories etc is Contempt of Court.
The points Starmer made about not releasing information is 100% correct within the existing laws, had he prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial then it could be possible got the defendant to have got off and walked away - there is no doubt in my mind that any defending barrister defending his client to the utmost would have progressed that line of defence.
Where we need a mature discussion is what we do going forward, there needs to be some protocol and agreement in place to share some pertinent information to prevent rampant rumour mongering and lies circulating. There needs to be a better balance, one which protects people charged with offences who could well be subsequently proven to be innocent and cases like this.
IMO, the people pushing the cover up are doing it to promote an agenda and their own self interest. Westminster is a small world and MP’s have parliamentary privilege, if some of those complaining now were so concerned 6 months ago they could have asked questions then, but they didn’t. Could it be that while they’d have been protected from Contempt of Court, they new they’d have prejudiced the trial and the offender would have walked? Imagine that!
Some serious questions remain unanswered about how this kid. He was referred to Prevent 3 times such was the concern about his behaviour, while he may not have ticked the “terrorist boxes” there should have been some mechanism in place to deal with him.
I hope this monster never sees the light of day again. My deepest condolences and thoughts are with the families of the victims. [Post edited 21 Jan 23:11]
|
I’d rather we didn’t have threads like this and evil rats like him were put down .
It makes the lives of children safer
They should not be drawing breath
Either us or them | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:05 - Jan 21 with 239 views | Luther27 |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:54 - Jan 21 by majorraglan |
I’d expect Starmer, and a number of other senior politicians including the Home Secretary and possibly the leader of the opposition to have been briefed in this.
This isn’t the United States, we have strong contempt of court laws, rules about about when names can be published, privacy laws etc. A suspects name is not released by the police until they have been Charged with an offence, that’s the way the law works. Once a person has been Charged, then the case is subjudice and release of information, publication of stories etc is Contempt of Court.
The points Starmer made about not releasing information is 100% correct within the existing laws, had he prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial then it could be possible got the defendant to have got off and walked away - there is no doubt in my mind that any defending barrister defending his client to the utmost would have progressed that line of defence.
Where we need a mature discussion is what we do going forward, there needs to be some protocol and agreement in place to share some pertinent information to prevent rampant rumour mongering and lies circulating. There needs to be a better balance, one which protects people charged with offences who could well be subsequently proven to be innocent and cases like this.
IMO, the people pushing the cover up are doing it to promote an agenda and their own self interest. Westminster is a small world and MP’s have parliamentary privilege, if some of those complaining now were so concerned 6 months ago they could have asked questions then, but they didn’t. Could it be that while they’d have been protected from Contempt of Court, they new they’d have prejudiced the trial and the offender would have walked? Imagine that!
Some serious questions remain unanswered about how this kid. He was referred to Prevent 3 times such was the concern about his behaviour, while he may not have ticked the “terrorist boxes” there should have been some mechanism in place to deal with him.
I hope this monster never sees the light of day again. My deepest condolences and thoughts are with the families of the victims. [Post edited 21 Jan 23:11]
|
This country is rotten. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:14 - Jan 21 with 221 views | majorraglan |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:05 - Jan 21 by Luther27 |
This country is rotten. |
Wouldn’t disagree with you. We’ve got monsters out in the community and ineffective laws, policies etc to deal with them. It’s a mess. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:34 - Jan 21 with 179 views | oldtownjack |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:54 - Jan 21 by majorraglan |
I’d expect Starmer, and a number of other senior politicians including the Home Secretary and possibly the leader of the opposition to have been briefed in this.
This isn’t the United States, we have strong contempt of court laws, rules about about when names can be published, privacy laws etc. A suspects name is not released by the police until they have been Charged with an offence, that’s the way the law works. Once a person has been Charged, then the case is subjudice and release of information, publication of stories etc is Contempt of Court.
The points Starmer made about not releasing information is 100% correct within the existing laws, had he prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial then it could be possible got the defendant to have got off and walked away - there is no doubt in my mind that any defending barrister defending his client to the utmost would have progressed that line of defence.
Where we need a mature discussion is what we do going forward, there needs to be some protocol and agreement in place to share some pertinent information to prevent rampant rumour mongering and lies circulating. There needs to be a better balance, one which protects people charged with offences who could well be subsequently proven to be innocent and cases like this.
IMO, the people pushing the cover up are doing it to promote an agenda and their own self interest. Westminster is a small world and MP’s have parliamentary privilege, if some of those complaining now were so concerned 6 months ago they could have asked questions then, but they didn’t. Could it be that while they’d have been protected from Contempt of Court, they new they’d have prejudiced the trial and the offender would have walked? Imagine that!
Some serious questions remain unanswered about how this kid. He was referred to Prevent 3 times such was the concern about his behaviour, while he may not have ticked the “terrorist boxes” there should have been some mechanism in place to deal with him.
I hope this monster never sees the light of day again. My deepest condolences and thoughts are with the families of the victims. [Post edited 21 Jan 23:11]
|
Another great post Major. You bring sense, reason and above all, fact to proceedings which is sometimes sorely missed on here. I agree, there are some services that need serious questions about how this monster was able to commit this abhorrent crime, hence the public inquiry. Justice needs to be seen to be done for those poor kids and their families. I also agree that there are those who are pushing the cover up angle to promote their own agendas which is shameful. | |
| |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 22:52 - Jan 21 with 159 views | Scotia |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:54 - Jan 21 by majorraglan |
I’d expect Starmer, and a number of other senior politicians including the Home Secretary and possibly the leader of the opposition to have been briefed in this.
This isn’t the United States, we have strong contempt of court laws, rules about about when names can be published, privacy laws etc. A suspects name is not released by the police until they have been Charged with an offence, that’s the way the law works. Once a person has been Charged, then the case is subjudice and release of information, publication of stories etc is Contempt of Court.
The points Starmer made about not releasing information is 100% correct within the existing laws, had he prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial then it could be possible got the defendant to have got off and walked away - there is no doubt in my mind that any defending barrister defending his client to the utmost would have progressed that line of defence.
Where we need a mature discussion is what we do going forward, there needs to be some protocol and agreement in place to share some pertinent information to prevent rampant rumour mongering and lies circulating. There needs to be a better balance, one which protects people charged with offences who could well be subsequently proven to be innocent and cases like this.
IMO, the people pushing the cover up are doing it to promote an agenda and their own self interest. Westminster is a small world and MP’s have parliamentary privilege, if some of those complaining now were so concerned 6 months ago they could have asked questions then, but they didn’t. Could it be that while they’d have been protected from Contempt of Court, they new they’d have prejudiced the trial and the offender would have walked? Imagine that!
Some serious questions remain unanswered about how this kid. He was referred to Prevent 3 times such was the concern about his behaviour, while he may not have ticked the “terrorist boxes” there should have been some mechanism in place to deal with him.
I hope this monster never sees the light of day again. My deepest condolences and thoughts are with the families of the victims. [Post edited 21 Jan 23:11]
|
An excellent post. | | | |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 23:23 - Jan 21 with 128 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
| The Southport attack and Starmer on 21:54 - Jan 21 by majorraglan |
I’d expect Starmer, and a number of other senior politicians including the Home Secretary and possibly the leader of the opposition to have been briefed in this.
This isn’t the United States, we have strong contempt of court laws, rules about about when names can be published, privacy laws etc. A suspects name is not released by the police until they have been Charged with an offence, that’s the way the law works. Once a person has been Charged, then the case is subjudice and release of information, publication of stories etc is Contempt of Court.
The points Starmer made about not releasing information is 100% correct within the existing laws, had he prejudiced the defendants right to a fair trial then it could be possible got the defendant to have got off and walked away - there is no doubt in my mind that any defending barrister defending his client to the utmost would have progressed that line of defence.
Where we need a mature discussion is what we do going forward, there needs to be some protocol and agreement in place to share some pertinent information to prevent rampant rumour mongering and lies circulating. There needs to be a better balance, one which protects people charged with offences who could well be subsequently proven to be innocent and cases like this.
IMO, the people pushing the cover up are doing it to promote an agenda and their own self interest. Westminster is a small world and MP’s have parliamentary privilege, if some of those complaining now were so concerned 6 months ago they could have asked questions then, but they didn’t. Could it be that while they’d have been protected from Contempt of Court, they new they’d have prejudiced the trial and the offender would have walked? Imagine that!
Some serious questions remain unanswered about how this kid. He was referred to Prevent 3 times such was the concern about his behaviour, while he may not have ticked the “terrorist boxes” there should have been some mechanism in place to deal with him.
I hope this monster never sees the light of day again. My deepest condolences and thoughts are with the families of the victims. [Post edited 21 Jan 23:11]
|
You first three paragraphs outline what Starmer should have said soon after the attack rather than leave a vacuum. He has plenty of experience defending terrorists.
https://londonspeak.co.uk/abu-qatada-keir-starmer/ | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
