The UK Prime Minister is “hiding behind the contempt of court argument” which is “simply untrue”, Brexit boss Nigel Farage says after the Labour leader addressed the nation in a bid to recapture the narrative over a mass stabbing of children last year that led to weeks of protest and cross-community violence. Starmer still refuses to call the attack terrorism, even while describing the murder of three children and attempted murder of ten more people “Violence clearly intended to terrorise” and insisting his approach of secrecy at the time of the slayings was not just morally correct, but legally the only route open to him.
Academic turned campaigner Matt Goodwin quickly eviscerated the Prime Minister’s position, pulling apart the assertion that any public discussion about the attack, its perpetrator, and his motives would have put the court case against him in jeopardy. Goodwin replied to the Prime Minister:
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.
Reform UK party leader Nigel Farage, who has repeatedly accused the Prime Minister of attempting to cover up what happened and why, also rubbished the defence given at Downing Street, relating in a statement:
The Prime Minister is once again hiding behind the contempt of court argument. 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.
Meanwhile top Conservative Nick Timothy, who had been widely regarded as the power behind the throne during the Theresa May years and who since has at least given the impression of a rightward drift, accused Starmer of a “masterclass in obfuscation”, stating that the Prime Minister had known about the terrorism factor to the Southport attacks early but “told the country otherwise”. Like Nigel Farage, Timothy said he’d been prevented from asking questions in Parliament — which itself raises serious questions about the health of British democracy — about the case and accused Starmer of shutting down discussion because he simply didn’t trust the public with the information.
He said:
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. One can only surmise he did not trust us with the truth due to the disorder that erupted after the murders.
Through his speech, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer repeatedly said that accountability would be coming to government bodies that had failed, and that attempts to deflect responsibility would be dismissed, even as he brushed off all accusations levelled at himself as unreasonable. Indeed, facing a barrage of questions from the press about what he knew, when, and why he withheld so much from the public, Sir Keir rejected the notion that his secretive approach had contributed to the riots last year and gave what very much sounded like a warning against one journalist against daring to suggest otherwise.
In a speech where he announced one of the government’s main responses to the knife killings would be to press ahead with the internet censorship it was planning on enacting anyway, and in which he absolved himself over his secretive approach, Starmer ironically talked up the importance of transparency. He said: “When it comes to justice, the failure to be transparent is not only disgraceful on its own terms, it is also the enemy of strong communities. It spreads suspicion more widely, and it allows division to win”.
In terms of the factors that can push individuals to criminality, the Prime Minister appeared to acknowledge that daily life in the United Kingdom is like a nightmare, but insisted nevertheless: “people will say this is all because of immigration, or all because of funding cuts. But in truth neither tells us anything like the full story, or explains this case properly. No, this goes deeper. A growing sense that the rights and responsibilities that we owe to one another, the set of unwritten rules that hold a nation together have in recent years been ripped apart.”
Starmer refused again today to call the Stockport attack terrorism, stating instead that “Britain faces a new threat. Terrorism has changed” to excuse him from expressing what, to most, seems reasonably obvious. He was widely criticised to this too, with several commentators pointing out there have been many instances of self-radicalised invidivuals embarking on deadly schemes without clear political worldviews or formal links to terrorist groups, which have been widely and immediately acknowledged as terrorism.
The Prime Minister said: “In the past the predominant threat was highly organised groups with clear political intent. Groups like Al-Qaeda. That threat, of course, remains. But now alongside that we see acts of extreme violence perpetrated by loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom accessing all manner of material online, desperate for notoriety. Sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups but fixated on that extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake”.
Nick Timothy, for instance, retorted: “This change is not new and does not justify the failure to tell the truth about the murders last summer. The Exeter restaurant bomber in 2008 was such a loner and misfit… In the Westminster Bridge attack of 2017, the security services observed that Khalid Masood, the perpetrator, had gone from deciding to attack and executing his plan in a very short time. This fragmented threat has been known for many years.”
18-year-old Axel Rudakubana pleaded guilty to three counts of murder, ten counts of attempted murder, possession of a biotoxin, and possession of an Al-Qaeda training document at Liverpool Crown Court yesterday morning, scotching his planned trial that was due to begin today. He will be sentenced later this week. Although the judge has said it will likely be a life sentence, this term can be misleading in UK law and he is very unlikely to actually serve a full life sentence.
Breitbart News
Read the full article .
