hypochondriac

We might want him next season if Sheffield United don't want to pay.

If he really didn't want to say anything, Starmer could have easily said at the time "we believe that this attack was terror motivated. There are additional details to this case but it is not appropriate to release them at this time due to the criminal process. More information will be made public at its conclusion." Oh and I sure soggy could let you know if an EDL membership card exists. He's the forum authority on all thing EDL and Tommy Robinson.

Interesting. It seems that Prevent may have been 'prevented' from doing it's job effectively due to a fear of being seen as racist or islamophobic. You could make the same argument for the longevity of the Islamic rape gangs scandal.

Bizarre logic. There's no evidence whatsoever that releasing the information and not creating an information vacuum would have had any effect at all on the outcome of this case. The fact that this very clear cut case got a guilty verdict was not influenced at all by the cover up of this information (and the subsequent insistence by Starmer that the cover up was due to the court case collapsing) as evidenced by the fact that the information was released prior to the trial with no detrimental effect whatsoever and previous trials where information of this nature has been released prior to trial. It's an excuse and a lie to suggest that releasing it earlier would have collapsed the trial. At least if they were honest and said they hid it from the public because they didn't want to upset anyone you could kind of understand it even if you disagreed. Why did Rayner say the idea that this attack was terror related was fake news and a conspiracy theory when we now know that it is terror related as confirmed by Starmer today. It begs the question what else has the government been covering up for the public's own good? ‘institutions will not continue to enjoy the trust that they have had to date if there is any general sense that things are being hidden’.

I'm aware that the government has an incredibly low opinion of the British public-they demonstrate it frequently-but releasing the information prior to the trial anyway suggests they are being dishonest about it prejudicing the trial. If that were true then it would have been released during the trial or immediately afterwards and not months before. Besides, they've had no such scruples about allowing extra information on previous occasions when suspects have been arrested. There's definitely a case here that the cover up of information inflamed the situation and made the rioting worse. The next terror attack we have the same thing will happen except this time people will be more certain that the government is dismissing legitimate concerns as conspiracy theories when in actuality there was truth in what was being alleged (not all clearly).

Then be honest and state that. It came out anyway and arguably has done more damage longer term to undermine trust in the government and institutions.

Because as the reviewer of terrorist legislation makes clear, failure to properly inform the public undermines public trust in the government and creates an information vacuum which encourages conspiracy theory and misinformation to spread There's also plenty of other examples where key information has been released before trial. It's hard to conclude that the withholding of information was deliberate and that the excuse that it would collapse the trial is a flimsy excuse to cover up the government actions.

Precisely. Either the information was able to be released without collapsing the trial - in which case it should have been released when he was arrested and Starmer lied about it collapsing the trial - or it was sensitive information so it shouldn't have been released a few months later prior to the trial. It's one of those.

Maybe if you need a human toilet brush.

But we got the terrorist training manual and ricin details prior to the trial. Why was the only photo released him as a 12 year old? There was clearly a concerted effort to obscure facts from the public and it erodes public trust and makes politicians seem untrustworthy (with good reason!).

Maybe some but by no means all.

A luxury at present!

Interesting how reluctant Just Stop Oil are to go and lie in the road when it's freezing outside.

I hope someone asks them about it and pushes for a proper answer. Overall I thought the speech from Starmer was pretty good. I wasn't a fan of pushing online censorship but he is suggesting that heads will roll and we won't shy away from dealing with identity issues and integration (remains to be seen if it's just words of course.) Like you say though we need some honesty including where the government have failed.

Just like the attack is now being blamed on the internet to justify draconian censorship measures. Yes some people engaged in unacceptable violent disorder in the immediate aftermath when emotions were running high and were rightly punished but some were jailed for extraordinary amounts of time in what was a disproportionate response. When Rayner dismissed links to terrorism as 'fake news' and 'conspiracy theories' this is a lie given that she would have known that that is exactly what it was and as Starmer has admitted it was now. Like I said, I understand the desire for short term gain by withholding the information and lying about the circumstances of the attack but longer term it's going to be incredibly damaging. The next Radukabana, why will anyone believe anything the authorities tell them about what happened?

Delaying information from being released for months when it was released prior to the trial anyway had no bearing on justice. Information liable to collapse a trial or cause contempt of court should obviously not be released but there was none here. It was clearly withheld because Starmer didn't want to make people angrier than they already were.

There clearly was a cover up at the time as information was withheld from the public with threat of arrest when the information that is now known would have had a 0% chance of collapsing a court case. All it's done is undermined public trust in institutions. I agree with whelk, full transparency as early as possible required.

I think it's clear that as they didn't find evidence of an underlying ideology motivating his crimes, they didn't think that it met the current definition of a terrorist attack under the letter of the law. Starmer basically admitted that he is clearly a terrorist and that the current definition as written is wrong and that he will change it. My main issue is Starmer's claim that he wasn't able to mention the bit about ricin or the terrorist manual as it could collapse the court case. This strikes me as untrue as firstly that information came out prior to the court case in any even and secondly none of that information would have any chance of collapsing the case. A cynic would suggest this information was deliberately withheld from the public in order to try not to pour petrol on the flames of anger in the aftermath. I understand that line of thinking but withholding it has really just further undermined public trust in the authorities. Complete bollocks imo that releasing that information would have had any chance of collapsing a court case.

Apparently the home secretary is contacting social media companies asking them to remove 'dangerous content' that Rudakubana supposedly accessed. Firstly why wasn't this done earlier as presumably this was known about months ago? Unless it's being done for PR purposes now. Secondly what is this dangerous content? If it's illegal like the terrorist manual then that is covered under existing laws and should already be removed. You could be suspicious that they are using this incident to further censor speech they don't like.

No he wasn't that's ridiculous. Stop lying.

But we are told on here all the time that the real problem is far right extremism.

How is it pro Israel to accurately describe what Hamas is and why it is pointless and potentially dangerous to negotiate with them?

Yeah that's stupid. Not sure what the justification for that could possibly be. Americans are a bit weird tbf.

You're probably alright if you're not prompting anal sex to children.

Only two genders. Some will be mad on here.