Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins 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.
'Urging Labour not to “hide” behind the public inquiry, Kemi Badenoch said: “When the Conservatives were trying to toughen the Prevent anti-extremism programme, Starmer and Cooper were running for office on manifestos worried about Prevent ‘alienating communities’. A public inquiry is important, but Labour must not use it to hide behind their own failings.”
And Nigel Farage labelled the Prime Minister “cover up Keir”, adding: “The country needed to know the truth about this murderer and that he was known to the authorities.” '
The Telegraph
"He must have been taken in for questioning - wasn't he ?"
I don't know. He may have already been in custody when they searched his house. I didn't follow it that closely at the time.
"You still haven't explained why certain information is prejudicial for 3 months and then magically it's not prejudicial."
I'm not trying to. I don't have all the details (and nor does anybody else on here). One guess (and it's only a guess) is that if the later charges which were not laid until October (possession and production of ricin and possession of the training manual) had not materialised for some reason, making it known that police had investigated those matters may well have prejudiced the trial for murder and attempted murder. Once the charges were laid that was in the public domain and jurors would have been made aware of them anyway before they began hearing evidence.
The issue is that the two groups of charges (murder/attemped murder and the terrorist affairs) are evidentially unrelated. Having the poison and training manual does nothing to help prove the murders and murdering the girls does nothing to support the terrorism charges.
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?
lawyes and police make this sort of thing up.
After charging you can discuss it only in bare bones
Before charging, saying" oh no no you can't discuss it!" obviously intereres with fair investigation ( hem hem)
A Hack commented that if an actor in an event and desperate cover up says " yes yes let us have a a big big inquity with lots of fees for the lawyers such as myself. The wider better !"
then there is nothing to find
New Judge has provided really good explanations.
It's really easy to jump to a conclusion that there is some conspiracy. There was a thread yesterday and it seemed to imply that the fact that the trial started on inauguration day was part of such a conspiracy. The listing would have been arranged to comply with custody time limits, availability of a Judge with a murder ticket and availability of counsel and tbh, listing (which is a bit like the dark arts) probably could not take into account anything else. But plus, the first day of a trial like this is largely administrative dealing with timetabling and jury selection. I understood that if it had gone ahead, the prosecution were not due to open until the next day. I doubt the first witness would have been heard until today or even tomorrow.
NJ rightly points out that jury trials are heavily weighted in favour of defendants. Consequently, information which might be placed in the public domain and seen by jurors is withheld. This actually PREVENTS successful appeals by those who claim they have not received a fair trial because the jury knew of potentially prejudicial information. Convictions are far safer because of this.
The need to withhold such prejudicial material fell away upon conviction of the defendant - when he pleaded guilty. ALL of this (and I suspect much more) will be before the Judge who passes sentence.
Routinely no information is given before a charge since that may impact an investigation (particularly with regards to others). A charge occurs when the police think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction. After charge, I think (not sure, NJ will be able to tell me) the suspect cannot be interviewed again about that charge and criminal proceedings will ensue.
That said, I think there are some serious failings in all of this. Three little girls died and countless lives ruined because of him and a system which failed to protect the public like it should have done.
A charge occurs when the police think they have enough evidence to secure a conviction.
I would suggest having a terrorist manual and a supply of ricin would make the decision that they have enough evidence and easy one to make. It certainly shouldn't take 3 months
I wonder how long they have been working on this case?
https:/
'The police were gagged from releasing vital information about Axel Rudakubana in the wake of the Southport murders, according to sources.
Merseyside detectives had wanted to provide details about the killer’s background, including his religion and his crimes, but were warned not to do so by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
They had also been keen to explain more about a terrorist document and batch of ricin found at his home but were advised against it, police sources have told The Telegraph.
Following Rudakubana’s guilty pleas on Monday, prosecutors also tried to block details of a pre-trial briefing held by Merseyside Police being reported.
The police and politicians knew Rudakubana had terrorist material shortly after the attack but the public was not told.
The decision not to be more transparent has been blamed for fuelling the riots and there are growing suspicions that the information was not released in an attempt to ensure community harmony.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, who used to be head of the CPS, insisted in a speech from Downing Street on Tuesday morning that information had to be kept secret to prevent any future trial collapsing.
Stephen Parkinson, the Director of Public Prosecutions, admitted on Tuesday that the police’s actions reflected the CPS’s advice but he defended the lack of transparency around the case.
However, Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has said far more information could have been put into the public domain by the Government and the police without prejudicing legal proceedings.'
This morning's Telegraph
“…I seem to think that once he has been charged they cannot question him any further. I could be wrong about this, and like I say, NJ can probably say for certain.”
Yes that’s correct. Under the provisions of PACE a suspect cannot be further questioned once charged unless it is:
- to prevent or minimise harm or loss to some other person, or the public
- to clear up an ambiguity in a previous answer or statement
- in the interests of justice for the detainee to have put to them, and have an opportunity to comment on, information concerning the offence which has come to light since they were charged or informed they might be prosecuted
“Those who are I think suggesting there was deliberate cover-up for a period for non-legal reasons, can one of you clarify what difference it would have made if all this info had been made public 2-3 months earlier?”
That’s a question I think I explored a little upthread. I believe it would have made no difference. The riots kicked off within about 24 hours of the murders. They kicked off because people had been told that a black teenager, wrongly described on social media as an illegal immigrant, had run amok with a knife, killing three young girls and injuring many more. They didn’t kick off because those rioting hadn’t been told something they still didn’t know about (the terrorism allegations).
As I said, I don’t know the full details of the investigation, its precise timeline or the reasons for some of the decisions made and I would suggest that neither does anybody else outside the police, the CPS and some senior politicians.
There seems to be a general attitude now that the public must be told every detail about any arrest or allegation immediately. Very often that’s neither possible nor desirable for many different reasons. Apart from anything else, in this case the person detained was under 18 and could not normally be identified simply because of his age.
Unfortunately the immediate reaction when information is withheld usually revolves around conspiracy theories and cover-ups, often with no justification and usually fuelled by idiots on social media. The damage this can do is evident by the results of the misinformation that was spread, with one person in particular giving detailed information of the atrocities, suggesting he was at the scene with his children, when in fact he had been turned away earlier because the event was full. I think it best that people take a little time to reflect without immediately jumping to what are usually the wrong conclusions.
“There's no logic to what Starmer said yesterday, none at all.”
Would you like to explain why you say that. Barmaid and I have provided reasoned – if necessarily speculative - arguments to support the view of Mr Starmer (who, I would hope and suggest, knows quite a bit more about criminal prosecutions than the entire population of AB).
'Sir Keir Stürmer and every outpost of the corrupt British state have lied to the public about every aspect of the Southport mass murder since the very first statements by the Liverpool chief constable passing off the killer as a "Cardiff man". Her officers knew within hours that the Welsh boyo who loved male-voice choirs was, back in the real world, an observant Muslim in possession of the Al-Qaeda handbook and enough ricin to kill twelve thousand of his fellow Welshmen. But they did not disclose this information for months - not until freeborn Britons minded to disagree with Keir Stürmer's Official Lies by suggesting that this seemed pretty obviously merely the umpteenth case of Islamostabbing had been rounded up, fast-tracked through Keir's kangaroo courts, gaoled for longer than Muslim child rapists, and in at least one case driven to his death. Does Sir Keir feel bad about the late Peter Lynch? Or does he take the same relaxed attitude to his victims as Axel Rudakubana?'
The Conservative Woman. 26/01/2025
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 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.