Starmer in the Southport Spotlight (Again)
HMICFRS report confirms the Prime Minister misled people and perhaps prejudiced trials.
Two days ago, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) published part two of its rapid review into the police response to the 2024 Southport unrest.
The findings are damning, confirming that Sir Keir Starmer misled the public.
Commissioned by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper last year, the review examined how police handled online content, intelligence gathering, and post-riot investigations.
Part one, released last December, assessed the operational capability of police forces to respond to disorder. Part two focused on the causes.
To go back to the beginning:
On August 4th, 2024, while protests and riots were still ongoing, Starmer stood at the Downing Street podium and declared, “So no, I won’t shy away from calling it what it is… far right thuggery.”
It constituted one hell of an assumption, delivered before any trials, before most charges, and before any investigations had concluded.
And he wasn’t alone.
Merseyside Chief Constable Serena Kennedy echoed the label, pointing to the “far right.” Liverpool’s local press reinforced it. The Echo called the unrest a “well-planned demonstration by members of the far right.”
But the newly released HMICFRS report finds no such thing.
Inspectors found “no conclusive evidence” that the unrest was premeditated or orchestrated by any organised extremist network.
The report stated:
“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.”
It continued:
“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.”
Yet, Starmer led the country to believe otherwise. And that false narrative had dire consequences.
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.
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.
Do you really believe our best days lie ahead if nothing changes?
Will you keep watching from the sidelines as politicians and broadcasters push for more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 90 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and break the system with their vote.
Thing I don’t understand is why people just keep voting, keep paying attention to these vile humans. Why? Just stop.
The King should dissolve this Parliament.