Badenoch Criticizes Starmer’s “Unequal” Handling of Southport Killer and Rioters

[Social Media]

 

Kemi Badenoch has accused Sir Keir Starmer of adopting an inconsistent approach in his handling of the trials of Axel Rudakubana, the convicted murderer behind the Southport killings, and the individuals involved in the riots that followed. The Tory leader alleged that Starmer’s responses to these events demonstrated a disparity in treatment, particularly in how he handled public communication around the cases.  

 

Axel Rudakubana, who fatally attacked three young girls during a Taylor Swift-themed dance class on July 29, was sentenced last week to a minimum of 52 years in prison after pleading guilty to the murders and eight attempted murders. It later emerged that Rudakubana had been referred multiple times to the counter-terror programme Prevent, information that Sir Keir Starmer did not disclose at the time, citing concerns over prejudicing the trial.  

 

However, following the Southport killings, riots erupted, and Starmer openly condemned those involved in the unrest. In a press conference, he labeled them as a “gang of thugs” responsible for “crime [and] violent disorder.” Badenoch criticized this contrasting stance, stating that Starmer seemed more concerned with avoiding prejudicing Rudakubana’s trial than with safeguarding fairness in his comments about the rioters.  

 

Speaking on *The Camilla Tominey Show* on GB News, Badenoch argued, “The problem we have now is that it’s no longer 1950 or 1980, and when you leave an information vacuum, all sorts of things start filling that vacuum. As politicians, we need to ensure the public knows the truth. And when things can’t be said, we must explain why.”  

 

She continued, “What went wrong with Keir Starmer is that his initial reaction was to rush to criticize the people who were worried. Yes, some people committed crimes, but he wasn’t concerned about prejudicing their trials. He was worried about prejudicing *this* trial. That’s where the unequal treatment lies, and that’s where we need to be careful.”  

 

Badenoch also expressed support for the public inquiry into the Southport killings, announced earlier this month by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, but stressed the need for a broader scope. “It needs to go further,” she said, “and also look at the immediate response.” She emphasized the challenges posed by social media in addressing public concerns, adding, “We can’t just answer questions like we did in 1950 or 1980, saying, ‘Don’t worry, people, we’ve got it.’ We’ve got to do better.”  

 

Critics of Starmer have suggested that greater transparency from Downing Street about Rudakubana at the time might have prevented the unrest that followed. Badenoch highlighted the need for a deeper discussion on integration, noting Rudakubana’s background as the child of Rwandan asylum seekers who fled the genocide. “This is a family that was given asylum in this country,” she said. “They were from the ethnic group, I believe, that were the victims of the genocide. He should have been in love with this country. He should have been saying, ‘This is the best country on earth.’”  

 

As more details emerge, the debate over how these cases were handled continues to spark controversy, with calls for a transparent and consistent approach to such sensitive events.

 

Based on a report by The Daily Telegraph 2025-01-28

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, Social Media said:

However, following the Southport killings, riots erupted, and Starmer openly condemned those involved in the unrest. In a press conference, he labeled them as a “gang of thugs” responsible for “crime [and] violent disorder.” Badenoch criticized this contrasting stance, stating that Starmer seemed more concerned with avoiding prejudicing Rudakubana’s trial than with safeguarding fairness in his comments about the rioters.  

Starmer was right, the rioters were a gang of thugs.

Starmer was also very right not to prejudice the trial of the heinous killer.

 

[JonnyF]

Badenoch is 100% right.

 

Yvette Cooper labelled the protesters criminals before they even had a trial. In fact before some were even arrested. 

 

https://freespeechunion.org/fsu-writes-to-home-secretary-yvette-cooper-over-prejudicial-criminals-tweet-2/

 

In contrast, Starmer tried to bury information about the child slayer under the guise of providing a fair trial. 

 

2 Tier Britain under Starmer. Shameful.  

[Petemcc64]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Starmer was right, the rioters were a gang of thugs.

Starmer was also very right not to prejudice the trial of the heinous killer.

 

I'm not being disrespectful but you are obviously an online Guardian reader and watch the BBC. 

There were rioters who were just pieces of s###, just waiting for any excuse to have a go at the police (I am ex-police) and damage property just because they can. There were also a large number of concerned citizens who were very pissed off at being lied to.

Now Stasi Starmer labelled them all 'right wing'. Let me tell you, with 19 years in the criminal justice scheme in 2 countries, including 5.5 years as a prison officer in Australia, I have never come across a piece of S### rioter or thug who was anywhere near right wing, indeed if anything they were super left. So Starmer mislabeled common criminals as right wing and bundled in concerned citizens, just labelling everything 'right wing extremism'. He then made a statement that people would be arrested, refused bail and put before the court. This ended up in a number of people who were caught up in non-violent incidents, being charged with the top-tier offence and being scared into pleading guilty for fear of spending months and months on remand. That to me was a clear attempt by Starmer to pervert the course of justice.

As for prejudicing any trial, the only way he would be found not guilty would be if he was already dead. He was at the scene, he was witnessed by many people killing and maiming, he was caught with the weapon, there will have been forensic evidence all over him, there is nothing that could compromise any trial. Like I said I have been around the system a while and know what is what. That was just Starmer trying to dig his way out of the hole he dug for himself. 

Now, seeing as you have an opinion, perhaps you could tell me the legal grounds by which his trial could be compromised if any and all information was released? 

Thank you. 

 

[brewsterbudgen]

34 minutes ago, Petemcc64 said:

I'm not being disrespectful but you are obviously an online Guardian reader and watch the BBC. 

There were rioters who were just pieces of s###, just waiting for any excuse to have a go at the police (I am ex-police) and damage property just because they can. There were also a large number of concerned citizens who were very pissed off at being lied to.

Now Stasi Starmer labelled them all 'right wing'. Let me tell you, with 19 years in the criminal justice scheme in 2 countries, including 5.5 years as a prison officer in Australia, I have never come across a piece of S### rioter or thug who was anywhere near right wing, indeed if anything they were super left. So Starmer mislabeled common criminals as right wing and bundled in concerned citizens, just labelling everything 'right wing extremism'. He then made a statement that people would be arrested, refused bail and put before the court. This ended up in a number of people who were caught up in non-violent incidents, being charged with the top-tier offence and being scared into pleading guilty for fear of spending months and months on remand. That to me was a clear attempt by Starmer to pervert the course of justice.

As for prejudicing any trial, the only way he would be found not guilty would be if he was already dead. He was at the scene, he was witnessed by many people killing and maiming, he was caught with the weapon, there will have been forensic evidence all over him, there is nothing that could compromise any trial. Like I said I have been around the system a while and know what is what. That was just Starmer trying to dig his way out of the hole he dug for himself. 

Now, seeing as you have an opinion, perhaps you could tell me the legal grounds by which his trial could be compromised if any and all information was released? 

Thank you. 

 

I'm not being disrespectful but you are obviously a Daily Mail reader and watch GB News!

The rioters were not being lied to and had no reason for attacking the police and trying to burn down and murder the hotels/hostel which were accommodating asylum seekers.  They deserved to be punished and all credit to the authorities for acting quickly and nipping it in the bud.

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

They deserved to be punished and all credit to the authorities for acting quickly and nipping it in the bud.

 

Some did. Some didn't.

 

But how is it fair to label them as criminals, publicly on social media (X) before they had even had a trial? 

 

How is that not prejudicial?

 

https://freespeechunion.org/fsu-writes-to-home-secretary-yvette-cooper-over-prejudicial-criminals-tweet-2/

 

 

It's one rule for one and one for another.

 

That's why he's called 2 Tier Keir. 

 

Badenoch was right to point it out.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Badenoch is 100% right.

 

Yvette Cooper labelled the protesters criminals before they even had a trial. In fact before some were even arrested. 

 

https://freespeechunion.org/fsu-writes-to-home-secretary-yvette-cooper-over-prejudicial-criminals-tweet-2/

 

In contrast, Starmer tried to bury information about the child slayer under the guise of providing a fair trial. 

 

2 Tier Britain under Starmer. Shameful.  

It’s not difficult to surmise people rioting, looting and engaged in arson are criminals.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Some did. Some didn't.

 

But how is it fair to label them as criminals, publicly on social media (X) before they had even had a trial? 

 

How is that not prejudicial?

 

https://freespeechunion.org/fsu-writes-to-home-secretary-yvette-cooper-over-prejudicial-criminals-tweet-2/

 

 

It's one rule for one and one for another.

 

That's why he's called 2 Tier Keir. 

 

Badenoch was right to point it out.

 

 

 

Because they were engaged in criminal activities.

 

Doh!

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not difficult to surmise people rioting, looting and engaged in arson are criminals.

 

 

It's also not difficult to surmise that someone hacking up small children at a dance class is a horrible violent cowardly scumbag terrorist murderer.

 

It would not have been appropriate for the Home office to tweet that before his trial.  

 

But then, this is a 2 Tier system so one gets tweeted while the other gets warnings to stay silent on the matter to avoid prejudicing the trial.

[JonnyF]

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because they were engaged in criminal activities.

 

Doh!

 

Just as the "Made in Rwanda" killer was engaging in the murder of children.

 

Yet everyone had to stay quiet to ensure a fair trial.

 

Double standards. Some might say "2 Tier justice". 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's also not difficult to surmise that someone hacking up small children at a dance class is a horrible violent cowardly scumbag terrorist murderer.

 

It would not have been appropriate for the Home office to tweet that before his trial.  

 

But then, this is a 2 Tier system so one gets tweeted while the other gets warnings to stay silent on the matter to avoid prejudicing the trial.

I guess you would Starmer to make statements that might very well put the trial of this heinous killer at risk of collapsing?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Just as the "Made in Rwanda" killer was engaging in the murder of children.

 

Yet everyone had to stay quiet to ensure a fair trial.

 

Double standards. Some might say "2 Tier justice". 

Again, perhaps you would have preferred the heinous killer not be given a fair trial and get off on appeal?

 

 

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

I guess you would Starmer to make statements that might very well put the trial of this heinous killer at risk of collapsing?

 

 

 

No, my point is they did it with the rioters but not with the child slayer.

 

2 tier system. 

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Again, perhaps you would have preferred the heinous killer not be given a fair trial and get off on appeal?

 

 

 

Again, my point is they did it with the rioters but not with the child slayer.

 

One rule for one, one rule for another.

 

Just how you like it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

No, my point is they did it with the rioters but not with the child slayer.

 

2 tier system. 

There is nothing stopping them making statements for either.

 

The Government’s response was spot on for both.

 

Coordinated race riots across the country quelled in very short order.

 

Heinous killer tried and given 52 years behind bars with no grounds for appeal.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Again, my point is they did it with the rioters but not with the child slayer.

 

One rule for one, one rule for another.

 

Just how you like it. 

I like racist thugs getting sentenced for their crimes and I’m delighted a heinous killer will almost certainly die in prison.

 

 

[Will B Good]

Serious concerns being expressed on the Tory benches about Badenoch and her obsession with trying denigrate Starmer on silly issues rather than putting forward solutions to serious problems.

 

Bring back Boris I say......best PM the country has ever had.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

Serious concerns being expressed on the Tory benches about Badenoch and her obsession with trying denigrate Starmer on silly issues rather than putting forward solutions to serious problems.

 

Bring back Boris I say......best PM the country has ever had.

She certainly needs to get a grip.

 

But ‘Bring back Boris’, that’s a bit extreme. 

[jayboy]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s not difficult to surmise people rioting, looting and engaged in arson are criminals.

 

Except of course when they are Black Lives Matter.In that case the appropriate response from Keir Starmer  is to get down on the knee.

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Government’s response was spot on for both.

 

No it wasn't.

 

A government should not label large groups of people (sone innocent, some not) as criminals before their trial starts. It is prejudicial. You should know that.

[brewsterbudgen]

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Serious concerns being expressed on the Tory benches about Badenoch and her obsession with trying denigrate Starmer on silly issues rather than putting forward solutions to serious problems.

 

Bring back Boris I say......best PM the country has ever had.

I don't think Boris would be interested (thankfully), but I do think Liz Truss is angling for a comeback! 🤭

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

No it wasn't.

 

A government should not label large groups of people (sone innocent, some not) as criminals before their trial starts. It is prejudicial. You should know that.

Rioting, looting, arson are crimes.

 

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I like racist thugs getting sentenced for their crimes and I’m delighted a heinous killer will almost certainly die in prison.

 

 

 

You also like people being labelled as criminals by the government on social media before they get their day in court.

 

Given your political leanings, hardly surprising. 

[MalcolmB]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Starmer was right, the rioters were a gang of thugs.

Starmer was also very right not to prejudice the trial of the heinous killer.

 

The kid was an obvious mental case.

The thugs knew what they were doing.

 

Unbelievable that people think that wrecking innocent peoples property is ok.

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She certainly needs to get a grip.

 

But ‘Bring back Boris’, that’s a bit extreme. 

 

I just felt it was the only sure-fire way of ensuring the Tories never get reelected.

[Will B Good]

3 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I don't think Boris would be interested (thankfully), but I do think Liz Truss is angling for a comeback! 🤭

 

Oh I would love that.....

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Rioting, looting, arson are crimes.

 

 

 

But they had not had their day in court. They had not been found guilty. Labour are not the judge, jury and executioner (or at least shouldn't be). 

 

It's prejudicial to the trial as you well know.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

You also like people being labelled as criminals by the government on social media before they get their day in court.

 

Given your political leanings, hardly surprising. 

They were criminals, they were engaged in criminal activity.

 

You seem to think the presumption of innocence is something that existed outside the justice system.

 

It does not.

 

The Government responded firmly and swiftly to coordinated race riots across the country.

 

Law abiding people appreciate such swift action in resorting public order.

 

 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

The kid was an obvious mental case.

The thugs knew what they were doing.

 

And neither should be labelled as guilty by the government until found so in a court of law.

 

In this case, one was, one wasn't. 

 

Classic Labour you might say. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

But they had not had their day in court. They had not been found guilty. Labour are not the judge, jury and executioner (or at least shouldn't be). 

 

It's prejudicial to the trial as you well know.

 

 

I’ve not seen any appeals on that basis, have you?

 

Where they successful?