The British Summer of Discontent - The growing civil unrest of the native British population, sparked by the murder of 3 young girls in Southport

[CaddestSlown]

Seems everyone is on the same page here, and it makes a lot of sense, considering Starmer's severe and increasingly damaging overaction to the murders.

"JAIL ANYONE CRITICIZING ME. EVEN THE CHILDREN. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S EXTREME, THEY'RE NASTY NASTY BOYS."

You know, yeah, I can see it. He seems like enough of a desperate tosspot to silence all critics and opposition before his very dirty laundry gets aired. Just based on how he's handled all of this alone, he doth protest too much.

 

[Special spoonie]

Seems there’s an article criticising Kier failing to act on Rwandan criminals from 2009.

https://archive.ph/08XOn



Edit: Seems Kier was also a barrister on a well known Rwandans criminals case before. https://rwandajustice4genocide.org....e-rwandan-genocide-suspects-living-in-the-uk/

 

[HairyBadger]

The now active court case is why reporting on this is at best sparse. For the non-britbongs in this thread, it is illegal to discuss matters about the case that could be brought up in evidence either for the defence or prosecution. It could be seen as prejudicial. The media are allowed to report on what has been raised in public court, after the fact, unless there are specific reporting conditions put in place. To the best of my knowledge there are no such conditions at this moment.

My best guess, and I have no inside knowledge, is that information is likely to come to light that will sink Starmer.

While I am personally fuming about the handling of this case, my gut is to let this case run its course without giving any reason for interference from any outside authority to interject.

If my gut is correct, there will be plenty of time to destroy the personal and professional reputations of politicians, civil servants, judiciary and do-gooding ngo's after this case concludes.

 

[Special spoonie]

The now active court case is why reporting on this is at best sparse. For the non-britbongs in this thread, it is illegal to discuss matters about the case that could be brought up in evidence either for the defence or prosecution. It could be seen as prejudicial. The media are allowed to report on what has been raised in public court, after the fact, unless there are specific reporting conditions put in place. To the best of my knowledge there are no such conditions at this moment.

My best guess, and I have no inside knowledge, is that information is likely to come to light that will sink Starmer.

While I am personally fuming about the handling of this case, my gut is to let this case run its course without giving any reason for interference from any outside authority to interject.

If my gut is correct, there will be plenty of time to destroy the personal and professional reputations of politicians, civil servants, judiciary and do-gooding ngo's after this case concludes.

Prejudicing an trial excuse comes out only when convenient. Theres plenty of other trials they have no problem having information out there that has not caused issues with cases whatsoever. Plus whoever was planting stories of “the good little choir boy who didna do nuffin wrong” stinks of cover up. There is a good word they can use if they want “alleged” to get around it if they weren’t being silenced.

 

[HairyBadger]

Prejudicing an trial excuse comes out only when convenient. Theres plenty of other trials they have no problem having information out there that has not caused issues with cases whatsoever. Plus whoever was planting stories of “the good little choir boy who didna do nuffin wrong” stinks of cover up. There is a good word they can use if they want “alleged” to get around it if they weren’t being silenced.

I understand where you are coming from, but this case could have ramifications beyond this actual case.
Giving those involved a reason to weasel out because of a legal technicality is a loss for everyone other than those involved in the potential cover up.

Sometimes you have to bite your tongue and allow the situation to play out.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Had not realised Rwanda had made comments about Genocide criminals over here in regards to the Rwanda migrant deal.

I've not seen anything claiming that and I'd have expected it get posted on the Farms if it had. Might just be Twitter bollocks.

 

[Special spoonie]

I've not seen anything claiming that and I'd have expected it get posted on the Farms if it had. Might just be Twitter bollocks.

Found an actual article on it, it’s actually from 2022 but may be still interesting to note though when things come out.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2...dite-genocide-suspect-asylum-deal-paul-kagame

https://archive.ph/DzEss

 

[FedPostalService]

There is a good word they can use if they want “alleged” to get around it if they weren’t being silenced.

That won’t save you from a contempt of court of
charge or being sued for libel. Not in an English court.

Parliamentary Privilege will and it will also alow those comments to be reported on.

Any MP how claims they have secret knowledge but hasn‘t said in the House of Commons is a coward, or a liar, or a combination of both.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Found an actual article on it, it’s actually from 2022 but may be still interesting to note though when things come out.

Good find.

Speaking less than two weeks after the deal was announced, Kagame told an audience of diplomats in Kigali that included the British high commissioner he hoped “that when the UK is sending us these migrants, they should send us some people they have accommodated for over 15 years who committed crimes [in Rwanda]”.

“We sent case files [to the UK] and … investigated. These are clear case files. Instead of being accommodated there in that beautiful place of [the] UK, they should be in jail, either in the UK or here,” Kagame said.

The presence in the UK of five men alleged to have played an active and important role in the killing of more than 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and some moderate Hutus over three months in Rwanda in 1994 has been an irritant in relations with Kigali for many years.

British judges have blocked extradition on the grounds the suspects would not receive a fair trial in Rwanda. Officials in Kigali have called for a trial in the UK instead.

All five, aged between 61 and 69, came to the UK in the immediate aftermath of the genocide where they applied for asylum. They deny the allegations against them.

The Home Office denied any link between the deal and the issue of extraditions.

I think the dad of the stabbing suspect is out of the age range of these five, he's in his fifties isn't he?

 

[HairyBadger]

That won’t save you from a contempt of court of
charge or being sued for libel. Not in an English court.

Parliamentary Privilege will and it will also alow those comments to be reported on.

Any MP how claims they have secret knowledge but hasn‘t said in the House of Commons is a coward, or a liar, or a combination of both.

Parliamentary privilege can be suspended should a case be deemed as of sufficient importance or during active court cases.

My admitted limited reading on this particular case is that as it is deemed an "Active" case and as such has been restricted in Parliament by the Speaker. I believe this is what Farage is alluding to.

My guess is that this case leads directly back to Starmer during his time as both a civil rights lawyer and head of CPS.

 

[Londo]

That won’t save you from a contempt of court of
charge or being sued for libel. Not in an English court.

Parliamentary Privilege will and it will also alow those comments to be reported on.

Any MP how claims they have secret knowledge but hasn‘t said in the House of Commons is a coward, or a liar, or a combination of both.

This. The use of alleged will not protect someone from a contempt of court charge as speech isn't free here.

Parliamentary privilege- elect me as my first act as MP will be to call each and every other member a cunt in alphabetical order.

 

[FedPostalService]

Parliamentary privilege can be suspended should a case be deemed as of sufficient importance or during active court cases.

My admitted limited reading on this particular case is that as it is deemed an "Active" case and as such has been restricted in Parliament by the Speaker. I believe this is what Farage is alluding to.

You can be suspended for the House but there’s not legal ramifications. He can say what the hell in wants and just get a ban.

 

[HairyBadger]

You can be suspended for the House but there’s not legal ramifications. He can say what the hell in wants and just get a ban.

This is where we get into the legal weeds.

Erskine May 12.1 suggests that privilege can be suspended, especially during an active legal case.

 

[FedPostalService]

This is where we get into the legal weeds.

Erskine May 12.1 suggests that privilege can be suspended, especially during an active legal case.

Show me a case of an MP ever being charged. This would be a massive constitutional issue over the primacy of parliament.

 

[HairyBadger]

Show me a case of an MP ever being charged. This would be a massive constitutional issue over the primacy of parliament.

I doubt that it is an MP caring about being charged as such. I think it is more about prejudicing an active court case and allowing the Guilty to be set free because of a legal technicality.

Should the guilty be set free because Farage was feeling brave one day and ran his mouth in parliament?

Sometimes, you just have to bite your tongue and allow matter to run their course.

 

[Special spoonie]

Good find.

I think the dad of the stabbing suspect is out of the age range of these five, he's in his fifties isn't he?

Very true he was born in 1975 according to companies house. Does anybody remember when Labour official killed the Rwanda deal though and was it before or after Southport is the question ?

You can be suspended for the House but there’s not legal ramifications. He can say what the hell in wants and just get a ban.

I stand corrected on it there’s definitely been cases where information has come out because the victim was black brown or trans (Big example being Brianna Ghey… all of it was out there way before the trials but probably cause wider powers that be wanted out there.

I do not trust Farage on this, he threw so many people under the bus during the the riots. Would ignore what he says if journos weren’t saying the same sort of things

 

[teriyakiburns]

Does anybody remember when Labour official killed the Rwanda deal though and was it before or after Southport is the question ?

It was immediately after entering office. Starmer announced the deal was scrapped on the 6th of July and the FCO said they intended to recoup the money spent so far. Rwanda announced they were keeping the money on the 10th.

 

[Small G genocide]

You can be suspended for the House but there’s not legal ramifications. He can say what the hell in wants and just get a ban.

I think the speakers standing order about it is the issue. You can ask, sure, get put on the naughty step for a bit, but starmer wont be obligated to answer it because he can hide behind the speaker.

Very true he was born in 1975 according to companies house. Does anybody remember when Labour official killed the Rwanda deal though and was it before or after Southport is the question ?

I think these two things are irrelevant to eachother. Lab killed the rwanda deal for completely normal reasons (ideological, practical, whatever). They didnt kill it because of some legal argument starmer made in an immigration case appeal 20y ago, or because they were desperate not to extradite 5 specific individuals.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

"No peasant you don't understand, we must import those responsible for genocide and their and families otherwise they are going to be victimized by the families of the people they killed.
What you think those people are dangerous and psychopathic? Don't worry, they won't live anywhere near us, and by us I mean me and people in my position."

 

[HairyBadger]

Kelvin Mackenzie on Twitter states the following :

"In a Telegraph article tonight, Reform leaders Farage and Tice reveal they have hired lawyers TM Eye, a leading private prosecutor with 1,000 successful prosecutions under its belt, to press charges against 2 brothers in the airport brawl in which a WPC had her nose broken. They say they have “secured the funding ” to take the case to its conclusion. And in a warning to the CPS who have dragged their heals in this case in contrast to their actions against Facebook posts by two women during the summer riots, they say; “ We are making it clear to the CPS that we will not tolerate them hijacking our prosecution and then dropping it for political reasons. “ We at Reform will stand up for our police officers even if the CPS and IOPC will not”.

https://x.com/kelvmackenzie/status/1858253501685449170

Telegraph original article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/17/nigel-farage-richard-tice-manchester-airport-police-attack/

Archive :

https://archive.is/Aa46N