The Guilt of the Prime Minister of Leftist Woke, Starmer! By Richard Miller (Londonistan)

There has been a rapid review report published here in the UK by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS). It published part two of its rapid review into the police response to the 2024 Southport unrest. The report concludes that the Prime minister misled the public. On August 4th, 2024, during the protests and riots, Starmer stood at the Downing Street podium and stated: "So no, I won't shy away from calling it what it is… far right thuggery." In other words, he blamed the Right for the riots. Merseyside Chief Constable Serena Kennedy said the same, and this was repeated by the woke, Leftist media.

But the report shows that there is "no conclusive evidence" that the unrest was premeditated or orchestrated by any organised extremist network. "It was mostly disaffected individuals, influencers or groups that incited people to act violently and take part in disorder… the causes of the disorder were complex… and the overwhelming speed and volume of online content further fuelled its spread."

Further:

"Some of the main reasons for the widespread disorder were social deprivation, austerity and the economic downturn, political policies and decisions on migration and asylum, and decreasing trust and confidence in policing."

This false narrative was then used for the most tyrannical crack down on political opinion seen in a Western country in recent times, with people who made criticisms of the sacred cow mass non-white migration being arrested, and there were even treats made to American critics such as Elon Musk, who would have been arrested if he travelled to Britain. Jails were emptied of criminals to house those arrested on thought crimes. It was a show of force by the Leftist government to protect the Great White Replacement from critique, long enough for demographic realties to make resistance impossible. The Reform Party needs to crush the mainstream parties, and then, justice must be sought.

https://news.starknakedbrief.co.uk/p/starmer-in-the-southport-spotlight

"In the aftermath of Starmer's statement, the CPS and police fought tooth and nail to deny bail and jail hundreds of Southport suspects—including in cases like Cameron Bell's where no violence was committed.

Cameron Bell who livestreamed a group of masked men making comments on TikTok after a riot in Staffordshire was jailed for nine months.

In other cases, protestors testified to experiencing police intimidation, negligent and/or incompetent legal representation, and judicial bias.

The Prime Minister's statement had set the tone: these people were not protestors, they were extremists.

But this made his later position on Axel Rudakubana's case all the more curious.

In January 2025, after Southport child-murderer Rudakubana pleaded guilty to murder, producing bioweapons, and terrorism, Starmer addressed the public once again:

"If this trial had collapsed because I or anyone else revealed crucial details… then the vile individual who committed these crimes would have walked away a free man."

He was invoking the legal principle of prejudicing a live trial—the idea that public statements by those in power can derail legal proceedings.

The Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, went even further, banning MPs from discussing the case in Parliament despite their ability to do so under parliamentary privilege.

But if Starmer believes such commentary threatens justice, why did he publicly brand hundreds of uncharged and untried protestors "far right" before any facts were known?

His defenders may argue that the difference lies in talking about a group rather than an individual.

But if singling out one suspect is dangerous, then doesn't accusing hundreds of suspects—publicly, from the Prime Minister's lectern—arguably invite prejudice on a far greater scale?

In short: Starmer didn't just violate the legal standard he now apparently champions. He misled the public about the true nature of perhaps the most significant episode of civil unrest in modern Britain—actions that appeared to lead serious miscarriages of justice, particularly for non-violent Southport protestors.

Past Prime Ministers have arguably resigned for less.