They think he'll win the most amount of seats, which I suspect he will But also think its unlikely that he'll get a single party majority They also have BoJo at 33/1 - that has to be worth a £
But in fairness he's shown no bias in his budget: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93ql305914o Blessed are not the toolmakers it seems.
I can't see why Starmer would resign on his own accord. It seems that leadership contests can only be voted for at party conference, which isn't until October 2025. 20% of sitting Labour MPs would have to back a leadership contest by nominating a candidate so they'd need 80 or so MPs to back one candidate before it went to a vote. Is there anyone in the party that has the support to try and oust Starmer - would be political suicide from anyone in the Cabinet this early on and I'm not sure there's anyone else in the party that could rally enough support quick enough before the Leadership/whips caught on. I think you'll be waiting a while, certainly nearer the to the next GE.
Let’s wait and see the outcome of the Southport killer verdict first. The initial findings don’t seem to stack up favourably for him or Cooper! The pressure on him will be immense if it pans out how I believe it will pan out, and rightly so!!
What initial findings? I've done some googling myself and it seems that there's some accusations that Starmer and Cooper might have known earlier that there were further charges against he killer, but why is this surprising, wouldn't the PM and Home Secretary be updated about an attack of this nature on a regular basis?
I think you're overestimating the overlap in the venn diagram of voters labour have a chance of capturing and people who are angry about this (and I don't mean angry about the attack, I mean they are angry that they think the government not releasing the name of the 17yo suspect immediately once three girls were already dead.)
Not to mention how difficult it is to unseat a PM. Look at everything Boris got away with, and he had a much smaller majority. Admittedly he went eventually, but it took a long time. As UEA points out, it was not legally possible for the government to release the name anyway.
Who said anything about releasing the name?! We knew that wouldn't happen as he was 17 years old. Remember, people were told that the attacker was a christian welsh lad and it wasn't being treated as a terrorist incident. Yet only a couple of days ago he was charged with terror offences.....they're still trying to establish a motive. He didn't like Taylor Swift? I guess that's what you're telling me his motive was? I mean, come on, join up the dots..... How long have the government known that they found terrorist paraphernalia at his home address? I might be wrong, but I believe when more stuff comes out during the trial and at the conclusion of the trial life will become very difficult for the government. There will be a lot of questions. Let's wait and see.
I was responding to the post above mine. I'm not telling you anything about the motive of the attacker, I am making a point about politics.
Why does it matter so much though? He was arrested and there will be a big long complex investigation and court process. What difference does it make if the state didn't come out and give the public a biography of all they know? The murders had happened, the focus should be on the tragedy and the victims and families. The priority is not placating an angry mob and fueling angry debates about immigration
After a few hours delay, in which *****stirrers on social media filled the void with complete nonsense, we were told by the police he was from Lancashire and born in Cardiff. I don't remember any official comment being made about his religion, that was just social media stuff I think. And it still isn't being treated as a terrorist incident, which is a legal definition rather than a moral one. We're all free to reach our own conclusions but it doesn't mean the authorities are hiding something. And I can't see why they would. Lets be honest. People were whipped up because a load of crap was spread about him being immigrant, probably one of the boat asylum seekers, and they then didn't believe the limited information the authorities could give to try to counteract that. To me the big failing here (and it isn't the first time in the past couple of years) is that social media moved far, far quicker than the police could respond to it publicly. And even if the government did know about the ricin and this US army manual, they could hardly come out and say it given it's up to the police to decide charges. Imagine if they blabbed that early on and he either got off with it because of a legal technicality or a potential accomplice got away / wiped his hard drive? They'd rightly be lambasted for putting political interests first there too. Worth pointing out as well there's a chance there may not be a trial. He's pleaded not guilty so far but the evidence is overwhelming and he might change his mind.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s_campaign=1490&ito=social-twitter_mailonline Obviously this is a 'non-story' and no one else cares about it. 'pressure mounting'. Not just my words it appears.....
Had the facts about the killer's identity and motive been released when the Government knew them the riots would have been even worse. Does this justify lying to the public and sending people to prison for spreading fake news (which we now know was not fake at all)? I don't think so.
I agree but I am not convinced the riots would've been as bad, personally. Sad fact is, we will never know! I think the riots/protests were only as emotionally charged due to Harehills the week before and the police running away! In my opinion anyway, for what it's worth.
Who has been sent to prison for spreading fake news? No one. Most of them believed fake news and committed crimes, including some who got involved with inciting racial hatred online, but that's their own fault.
Hang on, how do we know that the government, or the police, knew about the evidence at the time of the riots? All we have been told is that they have known about it for several weeks. Frankly, it seems highly unlikely to me that the police investigation woukd have moved that quickly. An awful lot of assumptions being made in this context,,.
I don't remember how many hours or days after the news of the murders broke that the rioting started but I'd imagine that the police's first step after arresting the young man and identifying him would be to visit his home. Presumably evidence of his religious fanaticism would have come to light then. I've no idea how long it took from the time that the suspect was detained for the police to kick his front door down but I expect it wouldn't be long, so I think it's fair to assume that the Government would have known quite soon after the attacks of this chap's motives.
But what they believed (that the attackers was an Islamic extremist - not a Welsh christian as the official line stated at the time) wasn't fake was it?
No, they believed he was an "illegal immigrant" (asylum seeker) who had arrived by boat because that is what several prominent people posted or reposted on social media. That is why several useful idiots attacked, and tried to burn down, locations where asylum seekers were resident. Or incited others to do so. They are the ones that ended up in jail not those that created/promoted the misinformation like Farage.
The only official line I can find is he lived in Lancashire and was born in Cardiff. That’s what Merseyside Police said in their statement on the evening of the murders and no one disputes it. I can’t find anything online from any official talking on the record about his religious beliefs, so why’s there this idea that Starmer or the government were out there defending him or suggesting the Christian thing? It’s just more misinformation.
I might be wrong but I’m sure some people were arrested for speculating on social media that Jihad was his motive and as we now know they were right which makes their treatment seem particularly harsh
You’re quite right, there was no official comment on his religion. You and your bloody 'facts' spoil all the fun!
No, the ever reasonable Daily Mail's words too. Pop "pressure mounting Keir Starmer Daily Mail" into Google and you'll see that the pressure is apparently mounting over something or other pretty much every week!
No, we don’t know that yet. As I understand it, the terrorism charges are separate and the stabbings are not yet being treated by police as a terrorist act. That might change over time. This is quite helpful on the issue of revealing information: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxr8x5r2nro
Ahhh 'the ever reasonable'. Tell me, is there any sources you do like or trust? Or only the ones that suit your own narrative?
It’s also not as if the apparently home made ricin would have been in a bottle with skull & crossbones logo and emblazoned with ‘RICIN’ all over it. I thought I read it would have taken quite some time for the substance to be definitively identified as ricin.
I don’t think anyone has been arrested purely for such ‘speculation’; those arrested for online comments were those inciting violence against ‘asylum seekers’ and ‘boat people’, neither of which definition applies to the bloke who committed the horrible crimes.
The political capital being sought from the murder of three children has become absolutely grotesque and some people are so far down the rabbit hole they can't even see the sunlight anymore – especially on social media. Ugly thoughts dressed up in the weasel blanket of 'legitimate concern'.
Pled guilty to all charges on the cusp of his trial starting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c9q7r4wpep0t Sentencing on Thursday, though the result really isn't in doubt. Very likely to be a whole life order. Hopefully people's thoughts today are with the innocent victims and their families, rather than spreading conspiracy theories.
So Jamie Michael, the man who posted a facebook video about the Southport killings has been found NOT GUILTY by a jury in just 17 minutes.... One of the very few to not be intimidated into pleading guilty. Delighted he stuck to his guns. Apparently out of the six people that pleaded not guilty only one of them was found guilty. Interesting isn't it.
If you're guilty you should plead guilty. With an allegation like this, which relies a lot on what your intent is in your mind when you do it, that's doubly important. Those who pleaded guilty obviously intended to incite racial hatred. This chap didn't and a jury agreed. All good with me - the system works!
