Exclusive: One of Starmer’s Fast-Tracked Southport Protestors Breaks His Silence—A Year On From Being Jailed For Facebook Posts

The case of Stuart Burns.

When father and husband Stuart Burns took to Facebook to air his frustrations over the state of affairs in Britain last summer, little did he know his entire life would be upended.

Within days, he found himself arrested, remanded, and hauled in front of judge facing potential prison time. But instead of doing what so many did, Stuart fought back. He refused to plead guilty.

After Axel Rudakubana’s insidious child-murder spree, thousands of Brits protested all over the country. Some of them reprehensibly and needlessly turned violent, while the vast majority did not.

Yet what followed exposed something deeper than public anger. A vicious divide brewed over how certain police departments were enforcing the law.

The most controversial example came from Staffordshire.

In Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent, hordes of men of Middle Eastern ancestry were filmed patrolling the streets. Many wore masks and wielded illegal weapons, including bats, knives, and swords, while chanting “Allahu Akbar”.

Rather than detain or search the men, a police liaison officer was recorded instructing them to leave their weapons at a nearby mosque. Such actions contravened basic laws on the possession of offensive weapons in public.

They received special treatment.

Days earlier, in Whitehall, Metropolitan Police officers took a different approach.

Footage from the capital showed officers kettling groups of unarmed men and women of Anglo-Saxon descent and arresting them at random. No visible weapons were seen. One riot officer punched a restrained man in the face several times.

Witnessing this, Stuart logged on to the Facebook forum he had been using to talk with other users about the two-tier phenomenon. On the 5th August 2024, he posted:

“Can’t wait for the next demo. It’s been too long since the last march. If things turn ugly, please leave people’s businesses and properties alone. All anger should be channelled at the police. After all, they are Starmer’s dogs. Time to break them and make them come and stand on the right side”.

These were punchy words but by no means did they constitute overt incitement to violence. Perhaps some would classify them “indecent” or “offensive” but we live in world where arguing in favour of basic biology is deemed as much.

In response to another user hours later, Burns responded in communications he thought to be private:

“To be fair mate, I sat and thought about the riots which have been happening this week. I strongly agree with them. However, attacking people’s businesses and mosques is the wrong way to go about it. Attacks on the police, in my opinion, are totally justified as they are the government’s front line. Two-tier Keir needs to be shown the government works for us and not against us.”

Stuart immediately went on to clarify what he meant by “attacks”:

“The British public needs to destroy their vehicles and equipment, night after night, break their morale, make them take off their helmets, lay down their batons and CS spray and make them stand on the right side of history.”

He added in a later post:

“I don’t condone the violence but it’s too late to stop it now. This is caused by politicians and the police. Two-tier. One rule for them and one for us.”

By some standards, these later remarks did constitute incitement to violence. Yet they were not directed at officers personally, but their equipment. So incitement to commit criminal damage would be more accurate.

Several posts also contained clear condemnations of the isolated riots in general and this was punctuated with clear calls not to inflict violence on the local citizenry and their property, including minority religious groups.

Stuart maintains that his comments were taken out of context, arguing that there is a difference between expressing opinion in the hypothetical sense and encouraging violent action.

The finer nuances, of course, made no difference.

When a reported trans-activist with links to the Labour Party, who, for some reason, was surveilling right wing forums, had seen Stuart’s posts, she swiftly took screenshots and reported him to Cumbria Police.

Three days later, Cumbria officers arrived at Stuart’s home and arrested him in front of his wife. He was charged under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, covering offences under parts 1(a) and 3.

The subsection outlaws sending “grossly offensive”, “indecent”, “obscene”, or “menacing in character”—all vague, sweeping terms so characteristic of British speech legislation.

So outdated is the law it actually predates the inception of Facebook and refers to the internet as an “public electronic communications network”.

The maximum punishment is up to 6 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £5,000. Worse yet, because it’s what’s considered a “summary offence”, there is no jury trial.

Meaning, Stuart wasn’t going to be judged by a jury of his peers.

He could have pleaded guilty and received the customary one-third reduction in his sentence. But believing in his right to express strong opinions—a freedom he understood to be enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998—he contested the charges.

But then the vicious mandate the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had seemingly been tasked with amid the wider unrest began to show.

At his first hearing, the prosecution argued that Stuart should be remanded in custody until his trial, scheduled nearly a month later, all for a non-violent crime that had no bearing on protests where he lived.

This is the same CPS that, on multiple occasions, has failed to oppose bail in cases involving suspects accused of domestic abuse. It is also the same service headed by a man who endorsed Black Lives Matter in 2020.

There was no violent disorder in Carlisle (or broader Cumbria) during that summer. While the city saw heightened tensions, preventive policing, including preemptive dispersal orders, blocked demonstrations.

And so, desperate to return home to his wife and child, Stuart assured the court that he would stay off social media. The gesture worked. Fortunately, the judge granted him bail but not before expediting the trial so the judge could go on holiday in early September.

Eventually, after living in suspense for nearly an entire month, Stuart appeared at Rickergate Court on 29th August 2024 to stand trial. He expected after a fair hearing. What he encountered, however, seemed anything but.

Rickergate Court

District Judge John Temperley presided and things didn’t get off to a good start. He began reading the charges of a different defendant—someone accused of possessing Class A drugs—before realising his mistake.

Stuart’s friends and family watched on in confusion.

Concerns about the CPS’s evidence emerged next.

The Labour-linked witness supplied screenshots that carried incorrect dates, and the posts were presented as coming from a Facebook group called ‘Save Our Streets CA’.

Stuart maintained that some of the quoted comments were never posted in that group at all, a claim evidenced later by his wife, who was able to retrieve the original messages.

If the group had indeed been shut down, as the witness claimed, those posts could not have been recovered.

Judge Temperely later described the witness as “credible and reliable”.

There were also inconsistencies in the screenshots themselves.

The supplied images suggested they had been captured on two different devices, implying that a second, undisclosed individual may have been involved in reporting him to police.

The CPS failed to clarify this point. Some observers would argue that such irregularities should have warranted a delay in proceedings but Stuart wasn’t even permitted to raise objections.

It looks like the whole trial was based on incorrectly documented evidence.

Proceedings took a more serious turn when both the prosecution and judge began focusing on incitement to violence—a charge not listed on the indictment.

Section 127, as previously outlined, strictly relates to communications that are “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” “obscene,” or “menacing in character.”

It does not pertain alleged incitement. The communication must be offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing enough to warrant a conviction in their own right. Yet references to the wider unrest appeared to shape the entire trial.

CPS prosecutor George Shelley accused Stuart of encouraging people to “act against the police.” Stuart denied it. He admitted being aware of the national unrest but said he had not seen police officers being attacked at the time.

When asked about a post urging others to “channel anger at the police,” he said he had meant for people to “voice their frustration and concerns.” His reference to police as “dogs,” was a “throwaway comment” made in momentary anger.

He repeated his opinion that Britain was seeing “two-tier policing” between communities and insisted he never wanted violence or vandalism.

Shelley pressed further, citing another post in which Stuart appeared to agree with the riots. “That’s not me advocating it,” Stuart replied.

When Shelley asked about a comment describing attacks on police as “totally justified,” he said:

“No, I’m not (happy for the police to be attacked). They can make a choice to lay down their riot gear and stand beside us in peaceful protest.”

It wouldn’t have been the first time police have knelt for protestors, as Metropolitan Police officers notoriously did in 2020 for BLM.

Contesting Shelley’s arguments, Stuart’s solicitor Kate Hunter stated that his comments were “not a genuine threat to the police”. He was simply being “clumsy” with his language.

She went on to say:

“He is entitled to express his opinion strongly, but the question is whether, in doing so, he used language that was beyond the pale of what is tolerable in our society. There is no racist language, no swearing. I don’t think it is beyond the pale.”

But in barely two hours, it was all over. Judge Temperley, seemingly almost insulted at the defence, found Stuart guilty and sentenced him to 14 weeks in prison with no suspension.

In his ruling, he found context to be decisive:

“At the time those messages were sent, police were being attacked and at times seriously injured across the country. Violent disorder was rife.”

Temperley concluded that, by posting the messages, he had “undoubtedly encouraged others” to commit violence. This was despite there being no material evidence that someone saw his posts and committed violence by result.

There’s a spread of legislation covering incitement, including Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, Section 155 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. The Communications Act is not one of them.

In crude terms, Stuart was seemingly convicted on grounds that fell outside the scope of his actual charge. His legal counsel later confided that the judge had likely acted beyond his remit.

Compounding the sense of injustice, Judge Temperley had jailed him for a non-violent offence in a climate where others have recently received suspended sentences (no prison time) for acts of material violence.

In 2020, Jonathan Daley drop-kicked a Metropolitan Police officer during a BLM riot and received a 20-month suspended sentence. Shayden Spencer, who threw metal fencing at police, was handed another suspended term.

These men physically attacked officers. Stuart posted words.

This was not the first time District Judge John Temperley had issued a questionable sentences.

Just days before Stuart’s trial, he jailed 31-year-old Billy Thompson for 12 weeks after he pleaded guilty to the same offence under the Communications Act.

Thompson’s post on Facebook had read “Filthy ***ards”, accompanied by emojis depicting a gun and an ethnic-minority avatar.

Judge Temperley said:

“It may be right that the starting point for this offence is a community order, but I am afraid this has to be viewed within the context of the current civil unrest up and down the country.”

Once again, Judge Temperley cited the wider unrest as justification. And had Stuart pleaded guilty, using Billy’s case as a reference, the difference in sentence would have curiously only been two weeks fewer.

Two years prior, Temperley sparked controversy again.

He spared paedophile Christopher Emmens jail time after he pleaded guilty five offences relating to 46 illegal images of children. Three images were classed as Category A, the most serious kind, 11 of Category B, and 32 at Category C.

“You have displayed remorse and an acceptance of the need for help and you are willing to engage with any non-custodial sentence which the court can impose,” he said to Emmens during his sentencing remarks.

Despite the offences clearly passing the custody threshold, Temperley imposed a two-year community order, allowing Emmens to walk free.

Leniency for paedophiles, severity for perceived nationalists, some might conclude.

It is notable that Judge Temperley once spoke in defence of free expression. In an October 2013 harassment case, he stated on the record:

“Freedom of expression is an essential function of a democratic society. It is applicable also to those who offend and shock.”

But that was eleven years ago. Perhaps long-term exposure to Britain’s liberal judiciary gradually softened those convictions.

Given that Temperley’s rulings drew widespread attention and were exposed to millions online, it may strike some as curious that he retired only weeks after sentencing Stuart and Billy in November 2024.

Indeed, Stuart’s ordeal did not end with the verdict—far from it. Now came prison.

By then, he had already lost his job—the family’s major source of income—a blow that was felt immediately. Judge Temperley appeared to dismiss this as a mitigating factor.

His solicitor had also failed to update him on the possibility of an appeal, reinforcing Stuart’s belief that his defence had been poorly handled. He had spent £1,800 on legal fees for a defence that ignored key evidential issues.

She didn’t even come to visit him in jail after the verdict.

Stuart was initially transferred to HMP Durham, 70 miles away from home. Upon arriving, prison officers told him to keep quiet about what he was in for.

Whether this was for fear of reprisal from hostile inmates, as some Southport protestors were attacked in jail by reported Asian gangs, or something else, Stuart can only speculate.

There he met others jailed under similar circumstances. One was Jack Fowler, a man imprisoned after holding a St George’s flag near a protest in Sunderland.

Fowler had told officers during the protest, “This is going to be all summer, everywhere.” After pleading guilty to violent disorder, he received a two-year sentence.

While at HMP Durham, Stuart says he was treated differently.

Prison officers cut him off from speaking to his family. They failed to give him the correct pin code for his call so he couldn’t contact his distressed wife and children for days on end.

Next, they played games with his visiting rights.

Stuart had a reception visit booked in to see his family accompanied with a canteen order. But suddenly, without any warning, administrators moved him to HMP Northumberland over 50 miles away. He was denied his visit and food.

Now transferred, the games continued.

He spent nearly two weeks in isolation, he says, because he had not yet begun his assigned kitchen duties. While others on his wing, many imprisoned for far more serious offences, were allowed out on association.

It was at this time when Stuart descended into a deep chasm of depression. He was dangerously crashed off antidepressants, which he had been prescribed weeks earlier, and began entertaining suicide.

The justice system had abandoned him. His lawyer had failed to respond to him. Prison staff were seemingly discriminating against him. He had lost his job and saw little chance of rebuilding his future—all over a few Facebook posts.

“It was the deactivation of my phone pin without warning is what did it. It lead me to putting a noose around my neck and contemplate taking my own life”, Stuart recalls. Being marooned from his family destroyed him.

It cannot be stated clearly enough, Stuart was a whisker away from succumbing to the same fate as Peter Lynch, who was similarly jailed after non-violent conduct and tragically took his own life while in prison.

Even after reporting his suicidal thoughts, Stuart said he was denied access to medical care. Prison regulations require that any inmate showing signs of self-harm be assessed by a healthcare professional as soon as possible.

That assessment never came.

What did come, he said, were more cruel games.

On the day of his release, after weeks of what he characterised as mental torture, prison staff delayed his departure. As he reached the internal gate, officers repeatedly opened and closed it, holding him there for several minutes at a time.

When they finally opened it, they did the same with the external gate—opening and closing it again and again—before at last allowing him to leave.

Asked by The Brief to provide statement on his experience, Stuart said:

“It’s my opinion that freedom of expression should never be limited because when it is, like in my case, it enables people to go to the police and tell lies in order to have someone arrested for whatever reason…

Keir Starmer is a disgrace of a Prime Minister. With his August 4th speech calling all genuinely concerned citizens “far right thugs”… not only did he prejudice the future cases of people who hadn’t been charged yet, he indirectly instructed the judiciary to silence the masses through fear…

It seems almost everything he does is to the detriment of British citizens”.

---

---

• Do you believe our best days lie ahead?

• Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?

• If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can (genuinely) make a real impact.

• In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief has reached 130+ million people. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up, enrol them on a journey of actual enlightenment, and put another dent the uniparty’s monopoly.

---