Main Edition
US
FR
October 30, 2024 - 1:40pm
Prime Minister Keir Starmer has today warned Conservative leadership candidates Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick not to undermine the police when it comes to information surrounding the Southport stabbing case.
Responding to a question from Reform UK MP Richard Tice at the pre-Budget Prime Minister’s Questions about whether withholding information in terror-related incidents creates an “information gap”, Starmer appeared to disagree. The Labour leader said he would “tread carefully” in answering, but then turned the focus to the Tory leadership hopefuls. “They can either support the police in their difficult task or they can undermine the police in their difficult task,” he said. “I know what side I’m on.”
At the start of the session, Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle blocked MPs from asking explicit questions about the case. “It is of paramount importance that nothing is said in this House that could prejudice a proper trial,” he said. “At the heart of this case are three young girls.”
These comments come just a day after it was revealed that Axel Rudakubana, the 18-year-old accused of murdering three girls at a dance class in Southport, was in possession of an al-Qaeda manual. The stabbing, which occurred on 29 July and was described by Merseyside Police as “not believed to be terror-related”, precipitated large-scale riots less than a month into Labour’s term.
Shortly after the killings, rumours spread on social media that the perpetrator was a recent Muslim immigrant to the country named “Ali al-Shakati”. In fact, Rudakubana was born to Rwandan parents in Cardiff. As a result, the riots were blamed on the spreading of false information.
The release of information that Rudakubana was in possession of terror-related material and had produced the poison ricin comes amid reports that the Government had been aware of this some weeks ago but did not report it until the day before the Budget. The timing of this announcement has led to accusations that Number 10 was attempting to bury the news that might lead to more civil unrest. Rudakubana appeared in Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday via videolink from Belmarsh Prison after being charged with terror offences in addition to three counts of murder and 10 counts of attempted murder.
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.
SubscribeSo, if the guy is an Islamist terrorist, you pretty much have to free everyone who was jailed for spreading “false information”, no? Because it wasn’t false.
No. Others were jailed for inciting violence or committing violent acts. Nobody was jailed simply for false info. Just as well as your Masterclass in misinformation would have got you into jail too – were your point in anyway correct.
People were jailed for false information.
From the Guardian , 9th August, a 55-year-old woman has been arrested in relation to a social media post containing inaccurate information about the identity of the suspect in the Southport murders.
Ch Supt Alison Ross said: “It’s a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy.’
Only the name was different. In any case, getting your facts wrong should never be an offence, still less a jailable one.
Well that’s not strictly true, apparently some people were jailed just for calling the police nasty names (Peter Lynch) or mouthing off on Facebook (Julie Sweeney) or just taking part in the protests seemingly without doing anything particularly illegal. This sort of thing has been happening with alarming regularity lately.
I usually enjoy reading your comments here (often dissenting from the norm, at least on these pages) but I think you’re giving the police and judiciary a bit too much credence in this particular instance.
No. Others were jailed for inciting violence or committing violent acts.
Not so. Before accusing others of posting misinformation you should perhaps cease to do it yourself.
Oh so it was okay because they were actively withholding false information but it was for our own good because we just couldn’t be trusted with the real information.
Wait a minute I’ve seen this nonsense before during COVID. Well I feel glad for one that the government has decided what information I should and should not be allowed or be in possession of like a watchful family member. I’m glad the government disciplined and jailed those people for misinformation who said it was terror related, even though it was they shouldn’t have been allowed to say it, after all the state has decided they shouldn’t.
I love the government decideding what I shouldn’t and shouldn’t know what I should and shouldn’t do, it makes me feel like they are watching over me and taking care of me like a Big Brother.
Also, shouldn’t the police be undermined when they do the wrong thing? Where in British law does it say the Police Force’s job is to protect Islam from criticism?
Also, there is something extremely sinister in a Prime Minister telling anyone that they shouldn’t criticise the police or question their actions. Unaccountable police forces are not a feature of democracy.
Boggles the mind that this isn’t the main point. Two tier is a good description especially when one tier is the basement.
Hang on *quickly thumbs through pages of a very thick official volume* I’ll have to get back to you on that.
I think people have seen what Starmer means by “supporting the police.” It is situational support that has nothing to do with law enforcement principles and everything to do with the principals who are involved. This is the guy on whose watch cops are arresting people for social media posts.
They discovered ricin in his house.
It does not take 3 months to search a house after a murder and discover deadly poison.
The forensic people would have found that ricin very quickly after the attack.
But that information was kept from the public,
It’s not undermining the police to ask uncomfortable questions when the facts have become clear – it’s absolutely necessary. Badenoch is right.
By giving the Tories such a warning, Starmer further undermines his own authority – or what’s left of it. Saw his popularity ratings this morning, ouch!
I think by their own conduct the police undermine themselves. This is unfortunate when the treatment meted out to sergeant Martyn Blake confirms that out enemies are also their enemies
Stormin Starmer is standing on very sell-dressed principle and highly polished shoes.
Is anyone else getting annoyed by the MSM continued use of Mr Axel Rudakuban’s schoolboy photograph?
It’s so misleading.
He’s 18 for crying out loud (17 at the time of the incident). I don’t know how old he is in that pic but he sure isn’t 17.
Why is the defendant allowed to cover his face during court proceedings?
He had cold, dead eyes, even then …
Okay, your name has gone on a register.
That innocent Welsh choir boy in whose mouth butter would not melt?
The PM knows this is a disaster. He lied, the police lied, the murderer was a terrorist. The deplorables he so despises were right.
The question you have to ask is had the Southport atrocity been done by some other form of extremist, like an incel misogynist or a genuine right wing nut job, would there be any problem telling the public the truth and talking about it in parliament. The answer is so clearly no. This is just more BS so the government can avoid talking about the real elephant in the room – the incompatibility of aspects of Islam with the British way of life. That is not to say all Muslims are bad because they are not, but those who adhere to the more fundamentalist sects believe many things that are completely contradictory to our tolerant and permissive society. It is completely wrong for our society to become less tolerant and permissive towards all other people to accommodate them. It is in fact just the height of cowardice which will end with the collapse of our society.
“It is in fact just the height of cowardice which will end with the collapse of our society.”
That is the dream for Starmer and co. (WEF) anyway…
“Tolerant and permissive” is so over. Blame your local imam.
If the comments are finally back …
So the Speaker claims “At the heart of this case are three young girls.”
If only. Sadly they’re no longer with us. But he seems oblivious to this in this quote. Hoyle seems to be good at some parts of his job, but totally out of his depth for certain others.
How can anyone seriously believe that it’s taken the police three months to discover this apparently new information about terrorism manuals and ricin ?
It’s time someone asked Starmer what the performance metrics are for police in cases like this and whether they are being met. And if not, precisely what he’s doing to sort it out. He’s supposed to know about this stuff.
Forensics checked Hart Street before Starmer arrived for his 30 second photo op, laying a wreath.
There are pictures of forensics in Hart Street on 30 July, 1 day after the attack.
We know they were checking for ricin, because the recent police statement said that no ricin was found in Hart Street.
So one day after the attack, Starmer must have been informed that ricin had been found at the suspect’s house.
July 29 to Oct. 30 to reveal that he was in fact interested in Islamic terrorism, after months of being told he was just a guy. Definitely sounds like an “information gap” to me, an intentional one.
Britons, I sympathize with you. Your Prime Minister is an arrant scoundrel and a liar.
.
Let me make suggestion, which may sound conspiratorial, but fits into the logic of the behavior of such types of scoundrels.
.
If you remember, there was a delay in time between the start of the demonstrations and the police response to them. I think that this delay was deliberate. For any event of this kind you may find ordinary people, outraged by the current state of affairs, and vandals, waiting for the moment to loot and riot. You just have to wait for the moment when the ordinary people leave and only rioters will left, for the public losing their tolerance. Then the police will “restore order”, declare everyone guilty and imprison well-intentioned, in general, citizens, who did not create riots. It’s a way to discourage people from protesting against the lawlessness of the authorities.
A very good point. An orderly protest, soberly clad…a sort of static Remembrance Parade…in big numbers and systematically maintained for many hours (or days!) would be much harder for Government to deal with…
I understand “Ali Al-Shakati” is not a real Arabic name. Might it be a fake online persona selected to conceal the identity of a would-be Islamist not of that origin? Just a thought…
The essential issue here is that police chiefs are beholden to the Home Office whose mandarins set their agendas. They also decide who gets promoted or side lined. Given the very Liberal, class conscious, guilt-obsessed politics of the civil servants there, these things come as no surprise.
Unfortunately, part of the reason why the authorities withhold information is to avoid potentially undermining their legal prosecution case. Information that is in the public interest should not be considered prejudicial.
So the police declaring that the attack was not a terrorist attack won’t prejudice the charges of producing Biological Weapons?
I agree with the point you’re making. I think the authorities are completely wrong in how they try to manage the way that atrocities like this are reported and discussed. The details always emerge at some point and once again they are made to look ridiculous so the reaction next time will be even worse.
What little joy is possible in these time can be taken from how well dressed the prime minister has been since taking office.
I’m been confused about this issue for several years. In some cases information about suspects including photographs and historical information is shared as is speculation about what may or may not have happened. Sometimes people are found guilty in the court of public opinion without even being charged, never mind found guilty in a court of law. In others such as the Southport killings a very careful watch is kept with threats made against even the thought of making a comment lest any unwarranted aspersions be cast.