Was it in public interest to cover up the terror links to the Southport stabbings?

Starmer did NOTHING to pacify the nation’s anger when the terrible incident first made the news in the summer.
In fact, he did the opposite he punished the nations anger by making an example of ordinary citizens and sending them to prison.

I don’t believe there is any sincerity in what he’s saying now. he’s merely trying to save face over his poor handling of the whole affair and divert attention away from that.

Nobody is fooled by this man’s bluster.

It is not political gamemanship.
Starmer and Cooper know they are on the ropes for colluding in a cover-up about the identity of the murderer and the refusal to release information about the discovery of ricin and the Al-Qaeda training manual, possession of which is a terrorist offence, at the time.
Cooper shifted the blame onto the Prevent service, but I did not hear her threatening prison sentences of up to 10 years if found guilty, as she promised those 'working with children who failed to report abuse'' last week in the commons.
A government inquiry into the Southport attack instigated, because Starmer and Cooper were aware of the cover-up and will use it to shift the blame, but not one into the Grooming gangs, some still operating, and many guilty evading justice.

All litigation is conducted by barristers with differing opinions FGT.

I think a King’s Counsel will know of what he opines Wyllow.

And Yvette dissembling in the HoC just now when she speaks about what they are going to do - the Inquiry.

What she does not want to address is the matter of what the government did and did not do at the time of the incident so this shoves it nicely over the horizon.

She’s canny

I dont agree with your KC, FGT. (as others could easily say different)

why?

Those discoveries have to be investigated properly in the context of a whole number of possible factors, the chief and crucial point being, did the person act alone or was he part of a group? Was there advanced planning? This could not possibly have been investigated for a rapid announcement

Nan0

He has pleaded guilty.All the evidence should be released for us to read, not covered up

We now know a great deal more than we were able to be told before his conviction. We may learn more when the judge sentences him. Hopefully the sentencing will be televised.

FGT, I don't see any cover up. Farage is incorrect that they could have released more. It's all political gamesmanship.

The police released what was necessary to correct the rumour that he was a muslim asylum seeker as soon as they reasonably could. The perpetrator was under 18 at the time. There are different rules about questioning under 18's

All properly done according to the law.

Farage is being deliberately ignorant of the law.

Yvette Cooper not very convincing just now in the HoC. Deflecting back to when the Tories were in government. Look, this atrocity happened in July. You were Home Secretary so you could have released some information - the discovery of ricin, the fact that the murderer was known to Prevent for example - a KC yesterday stated this would not have had a prejudicial impact on any Court case.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

sandelf

Sorry, but this was violent crime with no coherent guiding ideology behind it.

So what do you call his obsession with School massacres in the USA along with violence against children?

It's not terrorism according the the UK's legal definition.

For flips sake growstuff !

We all know this crime does not fit the current U.K. definition of terrorism which is why the PM spoke about amending the definition to include crimes like this in his speech this morning.

🤦‍♀️

But the OP is about terrorism links! When the crime was committed it didn't fit the definition of terrorism. The OP is inflammatory. In any case, I don't really see why a terrorist label makes any difference. It was murder.

Nan0

He has pleaded guilty.All the evidence should be released for us to read, not covered up

It's not.

He has pleaded guilty.All the evidence should be released for us to read, not covered up

GrannyGravy13

sandelf

Sorry, but this was violent crime with no coherent guiding ideology behind it.

So what do you call his obsession with School massacres in the USA along with violence against children?

The behaviour of somebody with a severe mental illness, possibly schizophrenia. They do get obsessions about specific events.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

sandelf

Sorry, but this was violent crime with no coherent guiding ideology behind it.

So what do you call his obsession with School massacres in the USA along with violence against children?

It's not terrorism according the the UK's legal definition.

For flips sake growstuff !

We all know this crime does not fit the current U.K. definition of terrorism which is why the PM spoke about amending the definition to include crimes like this in his speech this morning.

🤦‍♀️

growstuff

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Doesn’t mean he’s not right!

The problem with lying to get elected and being caught in a litany of lies since taking office is that you can give as many panicked press conferences as you like and nobody is going to believe a single word.

Spare us.

He didn't lie about the murderer's identity. He followed the law.

He delayed doing so.
A cover up.

Barleyfields

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

I know the definition of terrorism, which is why I pointed out up thread the PM saying about a new classification of non-politcal terrorism.

I assume you think our PM is incorrect also.

To be perfectly honest I really do not understand how anyone can say or think that the victims of Southport were not both terrified and terrorised.

The definition terrorised is being petrified, scared, frightened, but hey ho you are welcome to think differently.

A definition of non-political terrorism which does not require allegiance to any political or religious ideology would cover the kind of lone wolf attack which is not linked to the ideology of a particular organisation, such as the mass shootings in the US. It should be very easy to amend the law and one would hope not contentious.

It really is not just a matter of people being terrified GG. Nobody is suggesting that the victims and witnesses of the Southport attacks were not terrified.

I know, so does our PM which is why he talked about amending the current definition (U.K.) of terrorism to include attacks like the one in Southport.

I am either posting in a foreign language, not making myself clear or people are choosing not to understand to prove a point?

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Doesn’t mean he’s not right!

The problem with lying to get elected and being caught in a litany of lies since taking office is that you can give as many panicked press conferences as you like and nobody is going to believe a single word.

Spare us.

He didn't lie about the murderer's identity. He followed the law.

PS. Don't make assumptions!

GrannyGravy13

sandelf

Sorry, but this was violent crime with no coherent guiding ideology behind it.

So what do you call his obsession with School massacres in the USA along with violence against children?

It's not terrorism according the the UK's legal definition.

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

I know the definition of terrorism, which is why I pointed out up thread the PM saying about a new classification of non-politcal terrorism.

I assume you think our PM is incorrect also.

To be perfectly honest I really do not understand how anyone can say or think that the victims of Southport were not both terrified and terrorised.

The definition terrorised is being petrified, scared, frightened, but hey ho you are welcome to think differently.

A definition of non-political terrorism which does not require allegiance to any political or religious ideology would cover the kind of lone wolf attack which is not linked to the ideology of a particular organisation, such as the mass shootings in the US. It should be very easy to amend the law and one would hope not contentious.

It really is not just a matter of people being terrified GG. Nobody is suggesting that the victims and witnesses of the Southport attacks were not terrified.

I agree sandelf but why the cover up by Cooper and Starmer? Their lack of some transparency inflamed a bad situation.

I think this ‘boy’ (he was, in law, at the time) had severe MH issues, was psychotic, dangerous and out of control. Frightening how ‘community care’ for severe mental health puts communities at risk. He should have been in a secure unit with his medication properly monitored.

I believe also that his parents ought to shoulder some of the responsibility. Actually, sadly in hindsight, they probably do.

sandelf

Sorry, but this was violent crime with no coherent guiding ideology behind it.

So what do you call his obsession with School massacres in the USA along with violence against children?

Sorry, but this was violent crime with no coherent guiding ideology behind it.

Doesn’t mean he’s not right!

The problem with lying to get elected and being caught in a litany of lies since taking office is that you can give as many panicked press conferences as you like and nobody is going to believe a single word.

Spare us.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

Farage: ‘Cover up Keir convinces no one’
Nigel Farage labelled the Prime Minister “cover up Keir” as he responded to the premier’s Downing Street press conference.

The Reform UK leader rejected Sir Keir’s claim that he could not have said more about the Southport killer in the aftermath of the attack.

“The Prime Minister is once again hiding behind the contempt of court argument,” Mr Farage said.

“This is simply untrue, the country needed to know the truth about this murderer and that he was known to the authorities.

“Even MPs were banned from asking questions about this man’s background. Cover up Keir convinces no one.”

👏👏

Farage would say that, wouldn't he?

Hand the man a gold-plated wooden spoon!

growstuff

I know the definition of terrorism, which is why I pointed out up thread the PM saying about a new classification of non-politcal terrorism.

I assume you think our PM is incorrect also.

To be perfectly honest I really do not understand how anyone can say or think that the victims of Southport were not both terrified and terrorised.

The definition terrorised is being petrified, scared, frightened, but hey ho you are welcome to think differently.