The BBC’s live feed says there are details they are not going to report at the request of the families. A sky reporter was reduced to tears. But it’s a government cover up not that some things might be too horrific to report. Right…
A "funny" thing is that Goodwin is an educated and experienced political researcher, yet pretty much any of us could turn his grift on in a moment. He is informed, and yet his persona is not.
So if there's any doubt it's bad faith, then it's a truly spectacular blow to the back of the head.
It fascinates me that two men both got charged with murder by stabbing of three women on the same day and only one has excited every right wing pillock to “ask questions”.
Thanks for posting this. A really important reminder that there is often a journey from credible commentator to complete wacko - and it's important not to join them on that journey. When you only come across them at the latter end, you can be unaware of the progression.
I don't really know him well enough to have an opinion - but I would suggest I included both possibilities in my use of "wacko"! I guess he does come across as very "knowing" which does imply grift.
There's something exceptionally loathsome abt tinfoil hattery over this. They manage to concoct this crap despite having nothing to base it on & no gaps to fill in, & somehow they convince themselves that it isn't supposition & that this is how decent ppl should respond to the murders of little kids
Honestly, I'm utterly fed up with Matthew Goodwin, he wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in face, he just speads misinformation. Most people in this country understand that its right a trial is protected from external interference whilst it is going on.
You can tell it’s a serious story because not one of you has commended me on my alternative text for the picture, which I feel was some of my best work
He can be fed up with starmer as much as he wishes; but at the request of police, people have been asked to stop speculative crap because of the victims families
I seem to recall that he said Starmer would no longer be Prime Minister by Christmas. I’m guessing he’s deleted the relevant tweets. He’s still just about flying as a supposedly objective commentator, but he is a deeply prejudiced, political figure.
To be fair, the only people who could have guessed that Boris Johnson would spectacularly destroy his Premiership and with it, the careers of as many people around him as possible were every single person who had paid any attention to the many careers of Boris Johnson (excluding Boris Johnson)
Apparently, this is a furphy perpetrated by British wartime propaganda sources based on the fact that Hitler did a lot of paintings of buildings ie. "a painter of houses".
basically hitler ranted at him in prison after attempted coup and Hess and the publisher put it into coherent words !! Hitler from all I read never wrote a word but dictated it and a difference
There are two theories. The saner one is that Starmer and the cops didn’t release information that they knew because they were afraid the people of England would rise up.
That, as I say, is the *saner* one.
The mad one is “Keir Starmer was the lawyer for the father of the murderer’s asylum claim”
Isnt the mad one even worse though, in that the father was one of those responsible for the Rwandan Genocide?
Also new bonus points for claiming that it's the police that have persuaded the parents of the survivors to request withholding details of their injuries.
The confusion I have is comparing the little information released on the Southport suspect and the suspect in the recent Birmingham murder.
How is it safe for any future trial to say that the Birmingham suspect is thought to have committed 3 other offences? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62q843l6xyo
Other than the fact that one suspect was also being questioned about other offenses and the other wasn't, I'm not sure what information is missing from, say, this story about the Southport stabbings that is present in the one you posted. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy68z9dw9e7o
I always thought other offences couldn't be brought up in a trial, but it's ok to imply that before a trial?
I was shocked that this information about a 14 year old was released after the lecture on not jeopodising trials.
I am sure the press know what they are doing; it just felt weird.
I've been following the updates all day and it sounds like he's still making it as hard as possible - shouting, whining, having to be taken out and in again. I can't imagine what it must be like.
Well there we are. 52 years, as close to a whole life sentence as can be given for a 17 year-old and likely to be one anyway; frankly at this point there is nothing left interesting to say about the arrest, pre-trial, plea and sentencing.
I understand why people assume be must be a mental health issue and I don’t begrudge anyone not following the details at sentencing, but this was the single biggest misconception in replies to my newsletter. Yes, CAHMS needs more money. No that is not *at all* relevant to this case.
I feel like one of the truths we don't like to think about is that a small number of people are just psychopathic killers and there isn't very much we can do about it except try to find them as quickly as possible and lock them up.
As far as I can tell, the psychological profile is school shooter and that is not insane. Although with psychopaths one is always in an ambiguous space around mental illness and responsibility.
I presume he has been assessed or tried to be, TBH 52 years in solitary (because thats where he will be) is enough to drive anyone to that point anyway
Goodwin falls into the old populist trap of insisting that the ‘majority’ agree with him.
Anytime I hear anyone saying ‘the majority believe…’ I can safely dismiss them as dangerous cranks. It’s a nasty, ancient trope that only wilfully cruel people lean into.
There are two theories. The saner one is that Starmer and the cops didn’t release information that they knew because they were afraid the people of England would rise up.
That, as I say, is the *saner* one.
The mad one is “Keir Starmer was the lawyer for the father of the murderer’s asylum claim”
Comments
So if there's any doubt it's bad faith, then it's a truly spectacular blow to the back of the head.
That, as I say, is the *saner* one.
The mad one is “Keir Starmer was the lawyer for the father of the murderer’s asylum claim”
Also new bonus points for claiming that it's the police that have persuaded the parents of the survivors to request withholding details of their injuries.
It's just mental
How is it safe for any future trial to say that the Birmingham suspect is thought to have committed 3 other offences?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62q843l6xyo
I was shocked that this information about a 14 year old was released after the lecture on not jeopodising trials.
I am sure the press know what they are doing; it just felt weird.
https://aiwillybillhuman.substack.com/p/we-should-fix-britain-first-before
Anytime I hear anyone saying ‘the majority believe…’ I can safely dismiss them as dangerous cranks. It’s a nasty, ancient trope that only wilfully cruel people lean into.
That, as I say, is the *saner* one.
The mad one is “Keir Starmer was the lawyer for the father of the murderer’s asylum claim”
It’s a funny old world when “we just want to be free to burn down asylum seekers hostels” is the moderate position but there you go, twitter