By Bob Lyddon.
Suddenly it is easy to set up a public enquiry – into the murder of three girls in Southport. It is impossible, though, to have a public enquiry into the grooming gangs that operated unmolested in several Northern towns over a decade or more.
The answer why is obvious: the grooming gangs operated in Labour constituencies with Labour councils. The Southport murders, if they can be focussed onto the failings of authorities to identify and manage the perpetrator over a multi-year period in the past, and before July 4th 2024, can be blamed on the Tories.
It will only be necessary to hush up the opposition of Starmer and Cooper during these years to any Tory attempts to strengthen the regime to protect the UK’s citizenry against attacks of this sort.
That should be easy enough, as Starmer and Cooper can set the scope for the public enquiry, appoint one of their legalist chums to chair it, have that legalist chum cue in further legalist chums for earnest dialogues, ensure the focus remains where it should be, and get it to draw the conclusions they wish to be drawn – while dragging the process out over several years at an enormous cost to the taxpayer.
Starmer and Cooper now hold the public credit card so they can use it for their purposes. A multi-year enquiry will kick this issue into the long grass and enable Starmer in the meanwhile to continue and expand the civil war that he and his party have launched against the British nation – undermining our food security, energy security, job security, financial security, and strategic security (by attempting to pay a hostile nation to relieve us of the possession of a vital strategic base in the Chagos Islands pursuant to the recommendations of a panel of other hostile nations).
As for the scope of the Southport enquiry, I personally (although I defer to the families of the victims if they believe differently) am not the least interested in learning of another litany of failures by the UK’s governmental and administrative apparatus in identifying and managing one of the possibly hundreds or thousands of hostile persons that now have a right to be in this country.
I know that the UK’s governmental and administrative apparatus has failed the nation in the areas of both legal and illegal immigration. I know that the arrangements for identifying and managing (i) potential Islamic terrorists and (ii) the somehow semantically different potential mass murderers who just happen to have Islamic terrorist brochures, is as good as a chocolate fireguard.
I know that the legal system is weighted towards the protection of these people’s ‘human rights’, as opposed to protecting the UK’s citizenry. I know that the UK’s governmental and administrative apparatus is so taken up with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and with Environmental, Social and Governance, and of course with Working From Home, that it exists for its own processes and prosperity and not in the interests of the UK’s citizenry.
I know that this apparatus is so desperate to not conclude that a particular incident was an Islamic terrorist attack that it engages its so-called experts and has them perform mental and semantic gymnastics to maintain the opposite of what is obvious to me.
I know that the driver for the Labour government’s stance on this matter is not to lose them votes from ethnic minority voters. I know that the carrying-out of a mass casualty attack on British soil by an ethnic minority individual, who owned Al-Qaeda material and who had been identified as a terrorist risk, constituted an Islamic terrorist attack.
I do not need to help pay for a multi-year, multi-million-pound public enquiry to get further proof of any of that.
What I am interested in knowing, and what will be out-of-scope of the enquiry, is answers to the issues around the repression of the rioters as raised in this blog: Click Here.
Just as a brief summary it is these issues that are of most importance to me:
- When did Starmer first know the perpetrator’s profile and history?
- What led Starmer to conclude that ‘rumours’ about the perpetrator’s profile and history – which have since turned out to be reasonably accurate – were the invention of the ‘far Right’ and in the UK?
- When did Starmer learn that the social media post or posts in which these ‘rumours’ originated had emanated from Lahore in Pakistan, and from an individual who has since been convicted and sentenced in Pakistan?
- What attempts were made to interdict or reverse miscarriages of justice towards people who were accused or convicted of circulating false and inflammatory material online, when it turned out that the material was true to a tolerable extent?
- What were the laws that were utilized by the UK’s government and administrative apparatus to underpin the repression of the rioters, the ‘full force’ of which were brought to bear by Starmer?
- What was the full sequence of events in the UK’s government and administrative apparatus (meetings, phone calls, emails, WhatsApp messages etc.) in between the murders occurring and the first convictions of rioters?
- This sequence of events may have included: Interactions between the government (the ‘Executive’) and the legal apparatus (the ‘Judiciary’) to agree and coordinate their approach when the separation of the Executive from the Judiciary is a cornerstone of a free and democratic society;Deliberations about the declaration of a State of Emergency or the introduction of martial law;Deliberations about the implications and advantages of the declaration of a State of Emergency or the introduction of martial law for the purposes of: The usage of enhanced interrogation techniques on suspects;The speed with which the ‘full force of the law’ could be brought to bear on suspects;The suspension of suspects’ rights under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act;The lowering of the burden of proof for a conviction;The expansion of the remit of the Metropolitan Police both geographically beyond the boundaries of the London Metropolitan area and in terms of its powers; Deliberations leading to a decision that the accused must be dealt with in a summary process before a single judge sitting alone, and quickly;Deliberations leading to a decision that the accused must be denied bail, although that is normally the prerogative of a magistrate and based upon the nature of the offence and the accused criminal record;Deliberations leading to guidance to judges as to the severity of sentencing, and overriding precedent, sentencing guidelines, the accused’s offending history and any other considerations;Deliberations leading to guidance to judges as to the quality of the evidence required for a conviction, confessions in police interviews, police oral/written evidence and police camera footage being sufficient; Deliberations leading to guidance to duty solicitors appointed ostensibly to represent the rights of the accused, such as for example to impress the government’s desires upon duty solicitors, for speed, for summary justice, for compliance with what the government wanted to happen.
- Where is the proof that the accused’s rights in law were fully complied with?
- Where is the proof that the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act were fully complied with?
- Why did almost no accused opt for trial by jury, although they had the right to one?
- What duress – mental or physical – was brought to bear upon the accused as from the moment of their arrest up until they were convicted and sent to prison, and/or what promises of lenient treatment in exchange for compliance were made and then broken?
- Were enhanced interrogation techniques used? If so, in what form? Electric? Noise? Sleep deprivation? Disorientation?
- In what physical conditions were accused held?
- Were the accused deprived of food and drink, or sleep, or peace and quiet, during the period between their arrest and their conviction?
- Where are the transcripts of their interviews by the police?
- Why did so few of the accused many enter a plea of not guilty?
- What advice was given to them by their solicitors that it was in their best interests to enter a plea of guilty and/or to make a confession?
- How were confessions obtained?
- Have all confessions turned out to be accurate?
- Have confessions been validated against other sources of evidence than oral/written police evidence and police camera footage?
- Where are the transcripts of the accused’s interviews with their solicitors?
- Why have so few appealed against conviction, or against their sentences?
- How many of the convictions and sentences need to be regarded as unsafe now that we know the profile and history of the perpetrator?
- Why has the UK’s government and administrative apparatus not instituted a review of all convictions and sentences, unprompted, in the light of what we now know?
These are the facts I am interested in knowing about, not the results of Starmer and Cooper’s distraction and obfuscation exercise, aimed at covering their backs at our expense.
Bob Lyddon is an Independent financial analyst and a specialist consultant in international banking. Follow Bob Lyddon on Twitter here or find out more about Lyddon Consulting here.
Main Photo: Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/
