We are seeing some stories coming out, that if they are true, explain why the government reacted the way they did over the Southport stabbings. People speculating on social media about the attacker being an Islamicist were fairly logical, given that we have had a number of similar attacks here and on the continent. Yet tweets got people rounded up and imprisoned – for speculating (accurately as it turned out) on the motives and likely background of the attacker.
The stories coming out speculate that this has its roots in a case that took place two decades ago. That the father of the accused was a refugee from Rwanda who was wanted in that country for alleged multiple murders during the genocide. He used our legal system to avoid that fate and his barrister, if the story is accurate, was Kier Starmer.
Okay, let’s assume that this is all true. Does that put Starmer in an untenable position? I don’t think so. Ignore, for a moment, my personal dislike of the man and his politics, and look at this situation. None of us is a soothsayer and none of us can accurately predict the future. The problem here with this alleged Rwandan murderer isn’t Starmer, it is the system in which he operated. As a barrister, Starmer took the case that landed on his desk and did the best for his client. That was his job.
Now, any reasonable person might, today, be thinking “what did I do?” But could he have done differently? Would it have made any difference to future outcomes? Starmer – or whoever took the case – isn’t the problem here, it is a system that allows foreign nationals wanted abroad for crimes they have been alleged to have committed there, to use our system to evade justice.
So, what about Starmer, is his position untenable? I would say yes, but not for this reason. If all this is true, then as is often the case, it ain’t the indiscretion, it’s the cover up. The abuse of parliamentary rules, shutting down parliamentary privilege to stop MPs even discussing it, is outrageous abuse of process. Parliamentary privilege exists for a purpose and preventing MPs from discussing it crosses a line. Rounding people up and fast tracking prosecutions for no more than speculating (accurately) on social media is another grotesque abuse.
That is why Starmer is unfit. That is why he must go and as the pressure builds, with a bit of good fortune, his government will collapse. We can only hope so. But not because a case twenty years ago led to the Southport murders. It’s the cover up. It’s always the cover up.
If this turns out to be the revelation I’ve been hearing talk of, spot on!
20 years ago der sturmer was a barrister and as such, he cannot be held accountable for what clients did subsequently.
This position is defendable, and, more to the point, understandable by reasonable and fair minded people.
But this is der sturmer we’re talking about.
And what revelations regarding the CPS under his watch are to come?
Of course, the dear leader is completely innocent until it’s demonstrated that he’s not.
Much as i have no faith in the present regime (nor the one it replaced) i can only agree, if this rumour is true the barrister of the time whoever it may have been did their job well, wonder who paid the legal fees, three guesses.
What would have to occur for the government to collapse? What would happen if it did? Would we get another election? I know that they changed the rules on the sitting government’s ability to call an election but now I’m left with only a vague idea about how these rules apply.