Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Revelations are coming out daily now about why Kier Starmer has told the speaker of the house to order politicians not to ask questions about the Southport killings.

For the first time ever there is no parliamentary privilege to ask a question in the house.The reason this is being hushed up and Nigel Farage was refused to ask about Southport is Starmers involvement with this case.

In 2003 lawyer Starmer represented the killers father in his asylum case.The father's brother was a warlord in Rwanda and involved with the murders of thousands of innocent civilians.The father himself was a part of a murder squad too.

Starmer was successful in the asylum case and the man came to Britain and went on to breed the little shiit that murdered 3 beautiful little girls and injured many more.

Lots more to come from this monumental cover-up.

  • Confused 1
Posted

Starmer was doing his job at the time; no doubt the father was granted asylum because he would have been killed in Rwanda?  

 

If true, I really don't see why it needs to be covered up.  Why can't people just be truthful, even if it upsets some?

Posted
2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

If true, I really don't see why it needs to be covered up

 

Because people went to jail for posting the truth on social media ?
 

Just like many other truths are being covered up, because apparently it is not in the public interest.

 

Which is probably Political speak for the public would be going bash1t mental if the truth were to come out.

Posted
13 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Starmer was doing his job at the time; no doubt the father was granted asylum because he would have been killed in Rwanda?  

 

If true, I really don't see why it needs to be covered up.  Why can't people just be truthful, even if it upsets some?

You spelt "face justice for their crimes" wrong.

Posted
35 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Because people went to jail for posting the truth on social media ?
 

Just like many other truths are being covered up, because apparently it is not in the public interest.

 

Which is probably Political speak for the public would be going bash1t mental if the truth were to come out.

 

No they didn't.  

Posted
39 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Starmer was doing his job at the time; no doubt the father was granted asylum because he would have been killed in Rwanda?  

 

If true, I really don't see why it needs to be covered up.  Why can't people just be truthful, even if it upsets some?

 

Are genocidal murderers allowed to claim asylum in another country to evade justice?   Would Hitler or his disciples have been allowed to claim asylum in the UK and go live in Wales if he didn't kill himself?  The media blackout on this case is something to behold.  3 little girls got murdered, 10 more hospitalized and no doubt still suffering the trauma of this and I am hearing rumours that people in Southport are being paid to sign NDAs so the truth doesn't get out.  No stories about his father have seen the light of day, no current image of the murderous scumbag has been released, just the same artist sketch with him covering up the lower half of his face and photos of him as an innocent looking 10 year old.   Parliamentary privilege has been withdrawn to prevent the truth coming out and I don't recall this ever happening before.  

 

There is something very sinister going on here.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Are genocidal murderers allowed to claim asylum in another country to evade justice?   Would Hitler or his disciples have been allowed to claim asylum in the UK and go live in Wales if he didn't kill himself?  The media blackout on this case is something to behold.  3 little girls got murdered, 10 more hospitalized and no doubt still suffering the trauma of this and I am hearing rumours that people in Southport are being paid to sign NDAs so the truth doesn't get out.  No stories about his father have seen the light of day, no current image of the murderous scumbag has been released, just the same artist sketch with him covering up the lower half of his face and photos of him as an innocent looking 10 year old.   Parliamentary privilege has been withdrawn to prevent the truth coming out and I don't recall this ever happening before.  

 

There is something very sinister going on here.  

 

Maybe you should read up on the Rwanda genocide. Even if it's true that Starmer was the killer's father's asylum lawyer, how is that relevant to the Southport murders?  In any case, trying to make political capital like Farage et al are doing is sick and disrespectful to the families of the girls who died.   

  • Agree 2
Posted
17 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

No they didn't.  

 

Yes they did

 

Quote

The cost of furnishing flats for asylum seekers cannot be released because the issue is too “sensitive”, a watchdog has ruled.

John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, has ruled in favour of the Home Office, which refused to reveal the cost of furnishing a block of flats to be used by 346 asylum seekers in Farnborough, Hampshire.

He rejected an appeal to release the information under freedom of information (FoI) laws, saying the public interest in revealing the cost to the taxpayer of the furnishing was outweighed by the need to protect the asylum seekers from protests and risks to their “health and safety”.

 

You  can contact John Edwards at the Home Office if you have any further questions.

Posted
2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 

Maybe you should read up on the Rwanda genocide. Even if it's true that Starmer was the killer's father's asylum lawyer, how is that relevant to the Southport murders?  In any case, trying to make political capital like Farage et al are doing is sick and disrespectful to the families of the girls who died.   

Try telling that to the families of the men and women thrown in prison for stating the obvious,that the perpetrator was a muslim.

  • Sad 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That is exactly what I thought!

So I assume as you have NOT provided a link that the Post is B.S!

You assume wrong.Get off your arse and do a bit of research yourself Jock,or can't you be bothered?

  • Sad 2
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Kinok Farang said:

You assume wrong.Get off your arse and do a bit of research yourself Jock,or can't you be bothered?

The forum rules state that if you make posts which you claim to be factual that the should be backed up with a reliable/acceptable link!

Please provide such links, especially to prove your statement that;

 

"Starmer has told the speaker of the house to order politicians not to ask questions about the Southport killings.

For the first time ever there is no parliamentary privilege to ask a question in the house."

 

NO UK PM can order the speaker about Procedures in the house.  It is the other way round!

From WiKi;

"The speaker's primary function is to preside over the House of Commons. According to parliamentary rules, the speaker is the highest authority of the House of Commons and has final say over how its business is conducted"

Edited by scottiejohn
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

 In any case, trying to make political capital like Farage et al are doing is sick and disrespectful to the families of the girls who died.   

Usual low tactic when somebody tries to get to the truth of something, slur them as "making political capital". Read James105 post above, there is something VERY wrong here. Maybe they wouldn't have died if certain people had not been defended and allowed to stay in the country. This needs to be got to the bottom of.

Edited by mokwit
Posted

The OP has provided no credible of suitable link to support the claims made and is therefore in violation of the “Welcome to the Political Forum guidelines”. Which can be found here.

 

 

General approach and policy.

 

“We maintain a strict policy of accepting links or content only from mainstream and recognised media sources to ensure that information posted by members is both verifiable and trustworthy. We strive to remain impartial, prioritising content that meets these standards and removing content that, in our opinion, does not.

 

Consequently, we do not accept content from social media platforms unless it originates from a credible, professional, and qualified source.This approach is essential for upholding the integrity and credibility of the information shared within our community."

 

Therefore the topic is closed.

  • Thanks 2
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...