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

[spot]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The evidence is that he is still walking around a free man while the social media posters rot behind bars. 

 

Justice delayed is justice denied. 

What were the social media posters jailed for, specifically?

[Patong2021]

9 hours ago, Neeranam said:

 

Your post contradicts itself and misunderstands the role of the judiciary. If Starmer’s comments really influenced sentencing, that would indicate a failure of judicial independence, not a success. The strongest sentences come from fair trials and due process, not political grandstanding.

 

On the contrary, it is you who does not understand judicial process and the necessity of politicians to not make prejudicial statements when there are ongoing court proceedings. Inappropriate statements are an accepted basis for the dismissal of a charge(s). This is why MPs are NOT  allowed to directly comment on a specific case.

 

The sub judice rule prevents MPs or Lords from referring to a current or impending court case. Although the House is entitled under parliamentary privilege to discuss any subject, sub judice applies to avoid the House from debating a subject and possibly influencing the legal outcome of a case. Detailed information is set out in the Appendix of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

 

The sub judice rule, was confirmed by previous "all party" resolutions in 1963, 1972 and 2001. 

 

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/sub-judice/

 

[Will B Good]

4 hours ago, spot said:

What were the social media posters jailed for, specifically?

 

I think two of them were for saying...."Have a nice day" and three related to the weather turning nasty......that's how horrific the UK has become in penalising people who post such extreme comments on social media....

 

You can't even incite a riot now without someone getting on your back.

[spot]

1 hour ago, Will B Good said:

 

I think two of them were for saying...."Have a nice day" and three related to the weather turning nasty......that's how horrific the UK has become in penalising people who post such extreme comments on social media....

 

You can't even incite a riot now without someone getting on your back.

If it was a Muslim or other non-white poster sent to jail for inciting violence, the rabid racists on here would be applauding. 

 

 

[Petemcc64]

On 1/29/2025 at 12:05 PM, Neeranam said:

Rioters are often right-wing. I can think of many examples of right-wing violence— the US Capitol, neo-Nazi groups, or football hooligans. 

As former police officer you will know well about political scapegoating, being blamed for government failures or being forced to enforce politically motivated laws.  

If Starmer had genuinely perverted the course of justice, where is the legal challenge?

You say pretrial publicity can't compromise a trial because the killer was caught red-handed with forensic evidence. You obviously misunderstand the principle of fair trial. In democratic legal systems, guilt must be determined by due process, not public opinion. Prejudicial media coverage influences juries, there is a risk that a trial will be deemed unfair. High-profile cases in the UK have been compromised by media coverage, leading to retrials or even case dismissals. That’s why legal safeguards exist—to ensure justice is based on evidence, not a media frenzy.

Remember the Levi Bellfield case, where the trial almost collapsed due to media involvement. This was a landmark example of why media coverage must be controlled to avoid prejudicing a jury.

As a police officer, you served the State, not the Law. Have you ever enforced policies set by politicians?

If so, you will have cracked down harder on certain groups while being more lenient toward others, depending on the political policy.

I disagree with almost everything you say.

Rioters are not mostly right wing, in fact if you look at the UK, and Australia and France, it id predominantly the left, groups like Antifa and BLM who are rioters. 

Having been in the system, which I doubt you were, I do understand a fair trial, so here how it goes: There are 2 options, put him on trial, or drop all charges. They could not possibly drop all charges, because then there really would be riots, and a lynch mob. They can put him on trial and a jury would find him guilty, they appeal, another jury finds him guilty, etc. Many, many defendants have their faces, background, inside leg measurement blasted across the media. Like I said before, the only way he wasn't getting found guilty was if he was dead. 

You are clearly a socialist, typically with no grasp of reality.

As for a different posters comment, this murderer would not be found guilty by the court of public opinion, he would have been found guilty by being caught red-handed. again, in the world of socialism, reality fdoesn't have a chance. 

[Petemcc64]

35 minutes ago, Petemcc64 said:

I disagree with almost everything you say.

Rioters are not mostly right wing, in fact if you look at the UK, and Australia and France, it id predominantly the left, groups like Antifa and BLM who are rioters. 

Having been in the system, which I doubt you were, I do understand a fair trial, so here how it goes: There are 2 options, put him on trial, or drop all charges. They could not possibly drop all charges, because then there really would be riots, and a lynch mob. They can put him on trial and a jury would find him guilty, they appeal, another jury finds him guilty, etc. Many, many defendants have their faces, background, inside leg measurement blasted across the media. Like I said before, the only way he wasn't getting found guilty was if he was dead. 

You are clearly a socialist, typically with no grasp of reality.

As for a different posters comment, this murderer would not be found guilty by the court of public opinion, he would have been found guilty by being caught red-handed. again, in the world of socialism, reality fdoesn't have a chance. 

I can't seem to edit my post, but I will outline to you why Starmer has perverted the course of justice and why he won't be prosecuted. 

His speech, which I will paraphrase because I couldn't be bothered going back and transcribing it was :

They will be found, they will be charged, they will be remanded and they will be sent to prison.

Now, I don't have a problem with that if it's somone who chucked missiles at the police, or tried to burn down a hotel, etc, because at the end of the day they are charges of physical violence .

A large number of people were imprisoned for non-violent social media posts, or merely being at the scene of trouble, or using objectionable words. In a vast majority of those cases, the correct charge, if any, would have been a Section 5 POA, 1986, which does not carry a prison sentence. Instead people were charged under sections 4, or if present, section 3, both of which carry prison sentences. 

For all but the most serious cases, there is a presumption towards bail, and by serious we are talking murder, rape etc. The only reasons to deny bail would be if the defendant was likely not to appear, or may commit further ofences . Non-violent offenders, arrested for hurty words should have been given bail, instead they were refused bail and charged with the most serious offence possible, one that would attract a Crown Court appearance and prison time. Being informed that pleading non-guilty would result in being on remand for up to a year, lead to coercive guilty pleas, and of course the over-stretched legal aid was hardly in a position to do their job properly. Then we have the judges. Gone are the days of good, honest judges with no political alliance, now they are all so far left they have fallen off the edge. Add this all up and someone who prior to Starmer's speech would at the maximum have received a caution, is now serving prison time.

Why will Starmer not be charged? Well, he was the head of the CPS, it's a big tree-hugging, leftie boys club, and all the DPP would say is"No". Before this it wouldn't even get off the ground, as who is going to physically arrest the Prime  Minister? You see, socialist views don't take into account reality. Do you think some forward thinking Chief Constable would send in an armed response team to take out Starmer's protection detail to arrest him? This is what is called reality.

Finally, football hooligans? What century are you from?