Main Edition
US
FR
A vigil for the children lost in Southport. (Photo by Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)
As additional terror-related charges against the Southport murder suspect Axel Rudakubana were announced on Monday, Merseyside Police was keen to deter us from discussing the case further. “We would strongly advise caution against anyone speculating as to motivation in this case,” the Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said at her press conference. “It is extremely important that there is no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”
In the next few hours, the BBC focused on this aspect of her address — that anyone discussing these developments further was irresponsible — and notably disapproved of Conservative leadership candidates Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch for expressing concern about a possible cover-up. During the News at Ten, the story was relegated to the end of the bulletin.
But the game was already up. At the press conference, Dr Renu Bindra of the UK Health Security Agency said that they were informed that ricin, a biological weapon, had been found in Rudakubana’s home “early in August”. In other words, leading agencies in the British state had had evidence to charge Rudakubana for producing ricin for nearly three months. They had also discovered that he had possessed a PDF file entitled “Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual”.
The new information was quite a contrast to what we were told in the aftermath of the attack. Then, the police had said that the incident was “not believed to be terror-related”. Even during Monday’s press conference, Kennedy maintained that Counter Terrorism police were not classifying the Southport murders as a terror incident due to the lack of an established motive — even though they are now prosecuting their suspect under the Terrorism Act.
Then there’s the religious connection. Many immediately assumed that the attacker was inspired by radical Islam. However this notion was stamped on hard after the killings, especially as far-Right riots spread around Britain in response, and Keir Starmer launched a blitz of prosecutions on those accused of “lies” and “disinformation” and for stirring up hatred against Muslims.
Something distinctly odd and unsatisfactory appears to be going on here. Certainly the timing of the police announcement gave off a bad smell, coming a day before the Budget. It was also notably delayed until a few days after a Tommy Robinson march in London, which would have been given fuel by the news.
When a countries women and children are no longer safe it’s game over. The way in which the West has rolled over and allowed the Relegion of Peace to destroy from within without a shot being fired, is cowardice of the highest level. I thank all the politicians involved for absolutely nothing.
Bravo Unherd.
The political leanings of the author – described as “free left” – should be noted. Also: former Labour Party activist. So this is no reactionary hit piece from the “far right”, but rather a considered and courageous holding to account of the regime that’s now in control of the British state.
Along with the piece published today on the potential for the US election to be rigged, the opponents of freedom and accountability are laid before us. I dare say, there may be repercussions.
The free world feels to be at a pivot point, right here.
“The political leanings of the author – described as “free left” – should be noted”
Are you really this gullible, our kid?
By regime, I assume you mean duly elected government? Elected by a huge majority you may have noticed – or maybe not considering your grasp of current affairs!
A huge majority on a third of the vote you may have noticed
I suggest you do a little reading on the British constitution, laddie!
To be precise, 33 % of the vote on a 60% turn out. Labour was supported by 20% of the population. Any party which climed to speak for the nation would be absurd.
duly elected government?
Its hard to know what that means anymore when it only represents 30% of those who voted. That does mean that 70% did not want the government in power. How is that a representative democracy?
You must have been horrified when Trump lost the popular vote in the US 2016 by 3 million votes yet still became president?!?!?
He lost the popular vote by 8 million votes in 2020, but alas, lost the election.
No, by “regime” he clearly meant, and spelled out, the totality of unelected civil servants, who do not lose their jobs when government changes, combined with the government of the day..
And now the government is even more aligned with them and will move quickly before their slender share of the actual vote transfers to other outcomes at the next election.
Civil servants for the most part do jobs that are non-political. Scientists test soil regardless of which party is in power. That’s why they are career workers.
I’ll take some convincing that Home Office civil servants are actually serving the British people.
Whoever writes your character is obviously a talented person but one with a weird twist.
They read like an Owen Jones clone but pay their subscription presumably, so we thank them for their support of UH.
The true reactionary speaks.
Huge majority but no mandate, due to the failings of the first past the post system, a system endorsed by both major parties.
They were not elected by a huge majority.
It isn’t surprising that “Champagne Socialist” thinks that 34% is a majority and 52% isn’t. Champagne socialists all failed maths O-level.
Champagne socialist
Trolling sh*t as usual
Labour from Attlee to Starmer, Bevin to Lammy and Healey to Rayner. Please explain how this is progress ?
Agreed. Another attempt by members of ‘the regime’ to present a narrative that doesn’t correspond with anyone’s experience that I know of. I also find such an attempt to be sinister and disturbing. It has a subtext that the members of ‘the regime’ know what is good for me better than I do, which I will resist.
And Bravo Ben Cobley.
Could this be a storyline?
After the arrest of Axel Rudakubana and the subsequent protests, ‘the regime’ put out a narrative that this was the result of incitement by far-right thugs. It fitted in with their worldview, their agenda.
When the police reported the findings at the home of the suspect, the information was perceived to substantiate the narrative of the protesters, rather than that of ‘the regime’. And so the information was suppressed.
Now, three months later, the information is released just before the budget, (burying bad news?) with the advice not to speculate about it. I wonder if the reason for such advice is that the original narrative put out by ‘the regime’ looks even more flimsy now. So, the reason for such advice is more to protect ‘the regime’ rather than the criminal process.
Finally, I can’t remember another situation where an attack on strangers, in which the attacker was found to be in the possession of such materials, was not considered to be a terrorist incident.
You don’t get it.
The anti-whiteism, anti nativist aspects of diversity isn’t a bug, its the feature.
Even if we get to the point where it is pointed out on a consistent basis, they’re not going to stop.
Not sure what you mean by “You don’t get it”. Please explain, since in no respect have i endorsed the “bug” view.
Please also bear in mind that it’s possible to make your own point (which you did in your second sentence) without having to make false claims – that’s part of the problem we face in everyday discourse.
What I meant is that simply noticing and even commenting on this rampant anti-whiteism going on isn’t going to dissuade them one iota.
So noting that a left wing author notices what’s going on, isn’t that much of a win.
That’s not why i “noted” it was a left wing author.
Starting your comment with “You don’t get it” merely betrays your own lack of insight. It’s not about a “win” on this platform, but about what happens in the real world.
I live in the epicentre of communities that we’re discussing. Do you?
Ok, but your (understandable) defeatism is simply a reason for “let’s not bother”. So why even make your comment?
To even begin to affect change, we need (at least) to persuade people in reasonable clear language what is going on.
Here in Canada we have a similar situation. Naive social justice warriors, race-baiting grifters and self-serving politicians have been skillfully out-maneuvered by crafty Islamists. And they know it. However, rather than admit their equity and multicultural fantasies, which seemed to be ‘can’t miss’ socialist winners in coffee houses and Lenin’s Little Helpers workshops, have flopped horribly.
Oh sure, they still put on a brave face. Pull their strings and you’ll still hear the same nonsense about Stopping the Hate but no one is fooled. The truth is the pols and law enforcement are scared witless of entrenched Islamist activism. They failed to keep them from getting in and now they realize they can’t get them out. Complain too loudly and you’ll get slapped with a career-ending I-phobia label. Push too hard and you risk violent blowback. Better to drone on about “building community relationships” (and keep your fingers crossed) or spout hysterical nonsense deflections about the dangers of the far-Right.
And so you get the Southport debacle.
These are the ramblings of a very disturbed individual. Seek help.
His “ramblings” seem very reasonable to me. Do you have any thoughts on why he might be wrong?
CS was self-confessing, if one reads him closely.
These are the ramblings of a very disturbed individual. Seek help.
An excellent piece. To the point and nails the issue.
The “prejudicing a trial” position is absolute nonsense in relation to the Southport attack. How can anyone think there is the remotest chance of an “innocent verdict”. It’s no wonder we have lost trust in the State.
Trust lost in the state – the regime – and it’s acolyte media. Noticeable that the BBC (for instance) only reported Starmer’s “warning” to the Tory leadership candidates not to refer to the misinformation by police & state, thus ignoring the facts.
And you’re absolutely right about it being nonsense that the trial could be in any way ‘prejudiced’ by a disclosure of the murderous intentions of the defendant. We’re lucky he didn’t get the chance to use ricin on the general public.
How many more are waiting in the wings, if he could produce ricin? Unless the attitude of the state changes, the potential for carnage increases, or further backlash from those sections of the population – usually the less well-off communities – in the firing line.
Exactly!
Of course its nonsense. The debate is about what the government knew and when did they know it.
They’re just obfuscating their dishonesty
This incident depresses me on so many levels.
The stabbing and killing of children. The most vulnerable of targets makes it particularly horrific.
The justified anger of the nations people. Many of whom said and did some seriously dumbass things who were then shown zero empathy by the courts (all dissent must be clamped down on by indigenous population after all).
The further need to shout very loudly about the rise of the ‘far right’. As if there is a nation of f#cists out there just waiting to seize power. The bulk of the people rioting didn’t look political. They were just bloody angry.
The misdirection, misinformation and lack of information altogether in the reporting of the incident. The use of a schoolboy photo of the suspect is particularly irksome example of this.
And now the timing of the latest police press release a day before the budget. That’s really underhand.
I don’t want our nation to continue to bin prime ministers every time they screw up. But I would happily wave goodbye to Starmer over his handling of this. He is lawyer and he is running a nation like one.
There is a “nation of f#scists” out there. It has already seized power and is embedded in Goverment and every department, institution and instrument of State.
Given Mussolini’s definition that “Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.” I would say you are correct and it isn’t only the UK that is suffering from it.
No, there are common features, but fascism was definitely of the Right, not the Left, which is why Mussolini’s fascists constantly attacked socialists and not generally conservatives.
This whole comparison with the 30s is a red herring
It’s true that that’s what we have all been carefully led to believe despite that most famous of fascist horrors having National Socialist in its name. For a long time now I’ve wondered at the collective focus being carefully honed and trained upon the particular expression of gross inhumanity that manifested in Germany whilst appearing to exclude from the collective consciousness, as best as it could, the comparative evils and suffering unleashed on humans in countries that fell to communism.
Diversity is simply anti-whitesim.
A truism, if ever I’ve read one.
There was a fashion show recently that was described as 100% diverse.
All the models were black.
When they tell you what they mean, you should listen to them.
What’s funny is that 99 percent of the people who are buying the clothes are white.
If your religious ideas lead you to kill children or even adults or young adults or any other human then that religion needs a reformation and deserves to be heavily exposed and criticised for it’s theology and ideas. That any criticism of this religion gets buried under cries of Islamophobia is itself a tactic – I mean this is a belief system that says an adult male leaving it deserves death and that drawing their main man also deserves death…how has this been tolerated for so long….it’s crazy! Where are the followers denouncing these terrible beliefs….there aren’t many are there – it’s because there is no milder form, no reformed way, no moderation!
It is not by chance that the words “criminal” and “lawyer” fit together so well. I often say this as a joke but right now I’m not laughing.
No, let’s all talk about it. Let’s talk about it alot.
Let’s talk about how the laissez-faire multiculturalism we’ve been practising in Western Europe for a quarter of a century has failed and inflicted irreparable damage on our societies and ability to cohere as such.
Let’s talk about how we feel compelled to talk about “communities” when, quite often, this means huge cultural groups who live separately, stay amongst themselves without the slightest intention of integrating, often don’t bother to learn the language of or anything else about the host country apart from which benefits can be had, and many of whom don’t give a monkey’s about garden variety stuff like women’s rights and homosexuality not being a sin.
The fact that it is the very people who have traditionally fought for and defended womens’ rights and those of other minority groups who are pushing an ideology that undermines them never fails to stun me.
Let’s talk about how we are not allowed to talk about any of this.
How are you ever going to sort this out without admitting that there is a serious problem on the most basic level of living together?
Good on the writer for saying this and good on Unherd for publishing, but this can only be the first step.
There is and was design in this apparent madness. Multi-culturalism arising from mass immigration was chosen as a principal method (amongst others) of undermining national identities across Europe in order to ensure the success – by overwhelming resistance – of globalisation. At a speech in 2012 to the House of Lords, the UN’s migration chief, Peter Sutherland, declared it the duty of all EU leaders to undermine national homogeneity.
Blair knew exactly what he was doing when he imposed the so-called Equality Act as did the Tories when they left it in place and unamended, despite its highly corrosive effects on the nation.
You’ve said exactly what I’ve tried to say more obliquely in my post,so at least readers will comprehend what YOU are saying!
I suspect the authorities hoped that Axel Rudakubana would plead guilty and keep his silence in his prison cell, thereby sparing Starmer and Cooper the prospect of a trial.
Yes very true. The last thing the government wants is a public trial. This will be interesting.
Did they find any other Al Qaeda materials, or just the manual? Because the only thing the manual proves is that he wanted professional advice on how to go about his monstrous activities, it certainly doesn’t prove that he shares the exact motives of the people who wrote it.
Does it actually matter that much? The facts of the case are horrific enough. Finding ou that the rulers deliberately deceived the people is outrageous. The fact that the leaders jailed people based on their deception and now want to bully people into doing nothing is on a national scale nearly as tragic as the murders.
Does that matter ?
I imagine the possession of such material is a serious criminal offence whether you’re intending to use it or simply reading it for “research”.
Do you think Al-Qaeda is the only organization in the world offering advice on how to commit terrible acts? Whatever his motive he really had no option but to learn from Islamists?
This level of doubt as to the contents of another’s mind might fly in Descartes 101, but in the jury box, hopefully it finds no purchase.
I don’t understand how he had a PDF manual.
That surely means it was on his computer? If it was, how was this missed by the censorship/ digital police patrol??
Considering the censorship throughout covid, where people ended up with the government all over them for simply questioning government policies, censorship of other subjects, how on earth did he come by a PDF t*rrorist manual without any of these agencies noticing?
I can’t believe his Internet traffic was that normal if that is what he had been downloading in his spare time.
Obvious vindication of those who were jailed for non-violent expressions. Blatant lying by what passes for “leadership”. Strong evidence that Britain’s rulers are aware of the deadly invasion they have unleashed on their people
There’s an strong argument that the government withheld information that would have contributed to their defence.
A lot of the convictions are now manifestly unsafe,.
As an historical aside, anyone familiar with the unpleasant episode in our history known as The Popish Plot will be able to anticipate how all this may well unfold if the government continues to distort the reality of the threat we face from internal sedition and minority religious extremism.
In the 1670s the philo-papist government of Charles II attempted to baffle and divert the legitimate fear of English protestants about Roman Catholic Terrorism. The common man knew, from the evidence of his eyes and ears, that the Pope and the Jesuits were trying to subvert the government of the Kingdom. But the King and his ministers continued to maintain that there was no threat, passing the Declaration of indulgence and suspending the Penal Laws.
Instead of this dampening the fears and allaying the anxieties of the populace it led to a pressure-cooker effect whereby the wildedst surmises became commonly accepted. The truth is a currency that doesn’t bear much adulteration. Mobs were formed, fact, rumour and malicious forgery became indistinguishable beneath the official line of ‘nothing-to-see-here’. Exactly what we saw after Southport.
And thus came one of the most savage and regrettable religious pogroms this Kingdom has ever seen, The guilty were confounded indiscriminately with the innocent and ordinary loyal catholics were dispossesed, harassed and judicially murdered.
Despite what is commonly asserted, the English are a remarkably tolerant nation. More than that we are a sensible nation who fancy that we can distinguish right from wrong without Government help. Honesty and candour about the nature of the threat we face would immediately lower the temperature on things. But this Noble Lie about Islamic quietism is doing more harm than good.
Well put – notably the final paragraph.
As a consequence of the 1984 system put in place, we now end up with political prisoners in the UK, something unheard of before Blair’s 1998 Human Rights Act and the 2010 Equality Act.
This is indeed striking and, for many, particularly on the left, a little uncanny, but it is only a return to the constitutional norm in this land.
For 1000 years, until the Wolfenden Report of 1957 it was assumed that the Moral Law was the prime business of the State. That the “criminal law and moral law are co-terminous” and that the “maintainence of …true religion and virtue” was the business of responsible Christian government.
That all changed in between Wolfenden and the Chatterley Trial in a legal wrangle known as the Hart-Devlin debate. Baron Devlin asserted that “society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics, morals and ethics no society can exist”. Mr Hart opposed this idea – and won the day.
The Establishment, agreeing with Hart, imagined that a society as ancient and sophisticated as ours could be a ‘law unto itself’.
Well, that all came to an end in 2010, when a new moral and ethical code was found to be required and was thus written into our constitution. Which is why there is no small-government response to any of this. One cannot any longer imagine that the Orb and Sceptre can be laid down and left untouched. They must and will be wielded, come what may.
Thanks for this, and for your previous comment , which far from being an “aside” is in fact pertinent as an example of historical precedent.
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Martin Luther King.
MLK’s CIA file is to be released in 2027. We shall then see what Dr King was and was not silent about.
“far right riots”. C’mon Ben. That was always a lazy generalisation smearing hundreds of people with a variety of motives.
If Axel Rudakubana was instead named Simon Greene, do you suppose there would be this insistence to avoid speculating on a motive? Had the victims been three girls of any minority group, would there be the same insistence that people not consider motive? Finding an Al-Qaida manual in this person’s home looks a bit like a clue, much like having found a copy of Mein Kampf or something similar would also be seen as such.
We’ve seen the same in the US. The thoughts, posts, and histories of every recent mass shooter have been endlessly probed. Until those shooters started being from the rainbow community, starting with the one in Nashville. Then suddenly, ridiculous excuses about copyright were raised to keep the killer’s manifesto under wraps.
The most astounding thing is how this disparate treatment of similar circumstances is advanced by the same people who carry about equity and the like. Well, the public is not stupid. People can see a whitewash when one is happening before them.
Possession of a copy of Das Kapital couldn’t be said to indicate that the person concerned is a Marxist.
Another person couldn’t be said to be ‘far-Right’ for possessing the entire collected works of Roger Scruton signed by the author in a séance using automatic writing. Just as a fallen cherub couldn’t be arraigned before the heavenly tribunal for being a devil worshipper just for owning the complete library of the Marquis de Sade, despite dancing around Highgate Cemetery on Halloween wearing a pumpkin for a head.
However, this Unherd article is worth the entire year’s subscription and then some for the author’s clarity of exposition. Bravo!
Coulters Law – the longer the authorities take in identifying a suspect, the higher the probability that the suspect belongs to one of the governments favoured ethnic groups.
If diversity was a strength Yugoslavia would still be a country.
And presumably a very wealthy one stemming from all the collaboration and innovation that supposedly stems from “sharing different perspectives”.
Surely it is time for a 12 part documentary, “So What Does The Koran Actually Say?”
Line by line, let’s have an authentic translation and we can settle the question of whether this “has nothing to do with Islam”.
From which direction would the loudest objection to this idea come from?
Try The Skeptic’s Annotated Quran.
‘“It is extremely important that there is no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings.”’
Of course, the police declaring within hours that this was not a terrorist attack in no way prejudices the chances of conviction about creating biological weapons…
Or should it be that the state wants to protect us from the reality it has created?
‘Anaesthetic for the communities’ appears to be an addictive medication. And to have undesirable side effects in some patients.
Disappearing comments. Anybody else notice?
The management of the comments section seems to be very random. Things come and go without any apparent reason. Nor does there seem to be any communication about it from Unherd. It’s all pretty frustrating.
The Woke Regime casts violent killers as traumatized refugees with the victims of these traumatized refugees being cast as unfortunate collateral damage of the Woke project whilst those that feel threatened because they live near the traumatised refugees are treated as destible far right antagonists.
Whatever happened to the equality and diversity of lived experience.
Oh I forgot, equality, diversity and inclusion only applies to nonwhites.
The logic of the Woke Therapeutic State.
1. Your anger is rooted in anxiety and low mood.
2. Is that because I feel threatened that I might be stabbed in the neck over a packet of biscuits and the State is not protecting me.
3. No, it’s because you are a far right extremist. Go back to 1.
Bang on
Just one correction.
People weren’t convicted for ‘overreaching in their anger’.
And it’s unlikely that looting from a soap store was motivated by anger. Or even by an obsessive desire for personal cleanliness.
The State knows that, for all its magical thinking, its immigration policies have created a monster.
The State realizes that it has no solution for the monster it has created.
It must therefore deny the existence of the monster and hope that something will turn up to resolve the situation.
Denial and hope against hope. That’s what passes for vision amongst these lily-livered, greasy-pole-climbing, snout-in-the-trough lightweights.
There’s always a play on words. “Multi Culturalism” sounds good. However we’re trying to practice an unworkable concept, “Multi Radicalism”. Protestants, Catholics and Jews get along together because they left their radical grievances behind centuries ago. “Radical Islam” must likewise drop the the “radical” in order to fit into a western European society.
This is a good essay and brings up something that I don’t recall being discussed much, the rise of news organizations referring to “communities” not as towns, but as distinct social groups.
Here in southern California, “communities” are referred to constantly by news organizations, generally referring to distinct cultural groups, ethnic enclaves, or parallel societies in which the majority of the “community” residents have no interest in communicating with anyone outside their group and often can’t be bothered to learn English after living in the country for decades. So while the society is “diverse” on the surface, and there is some racial/ethnic mixing during business hours, after hours the Vietnamese, Chinese, central americans, Arabs and other immigrant communities don’t bother attempting to communicate with one another and show little interest in engaging in mainstream American life or nurturing a cohesive society.
The government incentivizes parallel societies by providing translation services for 60 different languages and making the unavailability of translations to English-resistant migrants a civil rights violation. The end result is So Cal is regularly ranked as having the least friendly and lowest trust cities in the country.
What I am going to say is so shocking that it’s unthinkable except I’ve thought it. And tried to reject it but as one misfitting thing after another occurs I know it’s true. Young Axels action was a job,a task,a mission,it was an order. He wasn’t just a misfit random weirdo doing something off the wall. He may well be a MRW for agreeing to take on the gig, where are the parents now,what are they doing,are they really the two humble devout church mice,pillars of their chosen faith they have been posited as? Once you see a pattern in the narrative,in history,you can’t unsee it. In the 20th century a very successful ploy was developed,so good that even now only a few people have spotted it. I’m one of the lucky ones but I think more are catching on. The ploy is to create an outrage or offense against yourself,in the sense of your “people” then your “reaction” to it not only looks justifiable and reasonable but virtuous too. So how is that a ploy in this case. Well you hire a hitman,a nicely stupid one who works cheap,the outrage sorrow and anger his action will create will then create the backlash your action is planned for and the original crime can be shoved aside while the real object of your hatred can be mocked,excoriated and abused. Or to put it clearer. 11 people got seriously attacked but with ONE HOUR the media news reporting was focusing on concern,extreme concern at the danger the UKs Muslim population were now in. And politicians were on media calling for calm. It was odd because all we were told then was the perpetrator was a Welsh born guy whose parents were lovely church going Christians and actually the British public stayed remarkably calm and almost no incidents happened. Luckily for the media a few hotheads took the bait but that was little more than a bit of angry.shouting but just enough to have our media and politicos able to spout about Britain on the brink etc. You may object that having 11 people stabbed is a cruel and callous way to create a provocation but remember THEY don’t care about US any more. The fact we are VOTERS means NOTHING now. Get used to it. You’re on your own. I’m on my own. Nurture your support group of family and friends. Have as little to do with the political administration as possible. In order to get WHAT YOU WANT you have to create a situation in which WHAT YOU WANT looks totally reasonable. So create an OUTRAGE to justify your much bigger OUTRAGE. That strategy finally worked out in 1948 so it should work again under different circumstances and with a different target. It’s hidden in plain sight.
Great article. If only we had ‘revolution’ in our blood like the French. We will we stop taking this nonsense.
Politically motivated violence occurs when people are routinely ignored, demonised and lectured to by those in power. In this case that is the ideologically motivated zealots who have themselves been thoroughly brainwashed by a system of education that is almost totally captured by neo-marxist, post-modernist, hate-filled individuals who want only to destroy societies from within by fomenting division and undertaking endless attacks on anything, and everything, stable and normative. Add to that potent cocktail the political beliefs of a Labour party which blindly worships a redistributive economic system, yet still fails to have a coherent plan for creating the wealth from which the funds for redistribution can be drawn, and which relies heavily upon the votes of the so-called oppressed minorities and you have a recipe for political, economic, societal and cultural disaster.
Note if you will how all the main actors in the Southport affair continually counselled us all NOT to speculate – firstly on the ethnicity and/or religion of the alleged perpetratror of the atrocity; and secondly on the alleged perpetrator’s motivation for the attack. Is it not remarkable then how Kier Starmer felt able to stand before a lecturn to pompously lecture us all on the, in his mind, indisputable FACT that all those who protested were far-right thugs? I am not seeking to condone or excuse the violent things done, written or said during those troubled moments; I am merely noting how, by completely ignoring all his own, and other’s, previous exhortations on the necessity for moderation of thought and belief, it was ok for Starmer not only to speculate about people’s motivations for the unrest but to go on national television and inform us all that his speculations were to be taken as fact.
Right UnHerd, an explanation please. I posted a comment, in response to this article by Ben Cobley, earlier this morning (Tuesday 05/11/24 at approximately 9.30am) and saw it displayed. When I returned to the article at 11.45am my comment was no longer to be found. I would simply like to know why. It was not a rude or abusive comment and it contained nothing that, in my opinion, was either mis- or dis-information. So why the removal? I believe that if the moderators are empowered to remove comments they should have to post a comment, containing the comment author’s name and the opening few words of the comment, with a clear explanation as to why the censorship was felt necessary. Otherwise the whole procedure seems arbitrary and unfair.
And now, after the posting of this comment, my original comment reappears. How very odd!
“Diversity is Our Strength”
And, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Or, maybe this is more apropos:
Sixty two thousand four hundred repetitions make one truth.