TV1 min ago
Anyone Watching Starmer?
Date of attack July 29, 2024
Says nothing could be said because it could prejudice the case
Why then, could things be said on 29/10/2024?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Clone. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not seeing a huge conspiracy.
The ricin and manual were known about in October, it wasn't news to us yesterday.
Even if found earlier, there is still procedure to follow before running to the press. The substance identified as ricin would have had to have been tested. They would have had to investigate whether the manual meant there were links to other terrorists.
Starmer is saying he knew about the Prevent referrals. I'm no fan of his but can see that disussing tha may prejudice a trial
//"I will not let any institution of the state deflect from their failure. Failure which, in this case, frankly leaps of the page", said Sir Keir Starmer.//
https:/
Does anyone believe him?
-- answer removed --
//Does anyone believe him?//
Not a word, the man is a deceitful eveil vile authoritarian who doesnt give a fig for any British person. Dont even need to wait for his lips to move to know he is lying.
And yes Togo sums it up perfecctly for me.
Starmer needs to go, I'm suprised the Unions are tolerating him.
""It is now clear that Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper would have known a LOT about Axel Rudakubana —his referrals to Prevent, his history of violence, the ricin, the Islamist manual—while deciding to brand people as “far right” and treat us like children… When a man drove a van into a mosque in 2017 it was declared a terrorist incident within 8 minutes. Attacks on Jo Cox, Keith Palmer, Manchester, Westminster, among others, were all declared terrorism almost immediately with details shared. Keir Starmer’s argument doesn’t stack up.""
Matt Goodwin
""I worked for a Home Secretary and PM and know what happens when an act of terrorism occurs. The PM and Home Secretary are briefed in almost real time. Starmer was undoubtedly immediately told of the discoveries of ricin and a terrorist training manual in Rudakubana’s home. Today he confirmed: “I knew the details as they were emerging. That is the usual practice.” But uniquely as far as I can recall, he chose not to tell the public.""
Nick Timothy
Here's another question to ponder. How did Rudakubana get the role to "act" in the Dr Who trailer? Was he taking acting lessons? Did he have a resume or previous experience in child acting or stage performing? Did he have to audition? Or was he recommended by ... say the Home Office, or one of the other "interested" organisations? If he was recommended or even pushed into the part who decided this would be in order and why? Was it Starmer or perhaps Hermer, and would they own up or hush it up if it was? Was it an attempt to build a back issue cuddly persona for someone they knew to be an inevitable terrorist driven attrocity in waiting. Questions there are plenty but answers none.
“Why wasn't a man that produced ricin and downloaded a terror manual not charged with terror offences on the day they were found?”
How many terrorists do you know who were charged with a terrorism offence on the day they were first suspected? Far nearer to zero than to all of them I would suspect. Securing a terrorist conviction is a complex business and is not achieved simply by proving possession of certain items.
I’m not defending anybody here but rather more trying to take an unbiased view. The criminal justice system in this country is heavily weighted in favour of defendants. In my view it would have made no difference to withhold potentially prejudicial information that turned out to be not so prejudicial. It would have made one hell of a difference if such information had been revealed and it turned out to be fatal to the prosecution. And if it did, the country would now be demanding Mr Starmer’s head on a plate for the entirely opposite reason.
Let’s just say, for the sake of discussion, that some time after the murders but before his trial, it was revealed that Mr Rudakubana had been earlier referred to the “Prevent” programme three times because of his behaviour. Do you think that any juror with this knowledge would not have their judgement influenced by it?
"It is now clear that Keir Starmer and Yvette Cooper would have known a LOT about Axel Rudakubana —his referrals to Prevent, his history of violence, the ricin, the Islamist manual…”
That is certainly true and undenied by the two concerned. In my view it was wise they withheld that information for the reasons I've outlined.
“…while deciding to brand people as “far right” and treat us like children”
And that is unforgivable but only to be expected (with such remarks not confined to the Labour Party). There is another thread ongoing covering that topic.
I think we must separate what are obviously complete and utter failings by the multitude of agencies that are supposed to prevent these atrocities happening, from the requirements of the justice system to see the guilty convicted.
“…if Starmer told me today's date I'd have to check a newspaper to confirm.”
Surely you don’t believe everything you read in the papers, dd!!?? 🤣
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Top O' The Morning To One And All.
ChatterBank14 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.