From the Daily Mail:
Viral social media rumours claiming that Sir Keir Starmer represented the father of Southport suspect Axel Rudakubana in an asylum case are untrue, Downing Street said today.
The claims were yesterday circulated widely on X, formerly known as Twitter, by users who were citing them as evidence of an alleged cover-up over the true circumstances of the Southport stabbings in which three girls aged six to nine died.
…The erroneous allegations made against Sir Keir centre on a High Court ruling dating from 2003.
…The High Court document makes clear that Sir Keir’s clients were a 16-year-old Ethiopian girl, a 26-year-old Iranian man and two Angolan men aged 22 and 33.
The sixth party – the only Rwandan national involved in the case – was a 42-year-old woman.
The story does not go into who spread the claim online, although anyone who keeps an eye on fringe-right accounts would have seen it: on 15 November, for instance, Laurence Fox posted “Who was Axel Rudakubana’s human rights lawyer? @Keir_Starmer”, which he then amended to “Who was Axel Rudakubana’s father’s human rights lawyer @Keir_Starmer ?”. Although not mentioned by the Mail, the rumour built on online speculation about why the suspect’s father came to the UK (speculation that is best avoided until the trial is completed).
The rumour doubtless got a massive boost from comments by Nigel Farage, in conservation with Winston Marshall on 16 November:
On Southport, all I can say to you right now, is I know a hell of a lot more than the British public know. A hell of a lot more. I’ve been completely silenced. I dared, the day after Southport, to do a video to say, “Can we please know who this man is? Was he known to the authorities? Why do I feel we’re not being told the truth?”
The level of demonisation I came under for that from both front benches was astonishing. From media commentators, demonisation on a level that I’d never even experienced. Now I’m told by the Speaker of the House of Commons, I can’t ask questions about it in the House of Commons. Parliamentary privilege is out of the window.
Even rumours today that the court case, which is due in January, every effort is being made to defer it…. We are witnessing one of the biggest cover ups we’ve ever seen in our lives, and I won’t say any more than that.
Farage’s recollection of his video after Southport once again downplays what he actually said at the time, which was that there were “reports” that the suspect was known to the security services – this was obviously derived from the false “Ali Sl-Shakati” story, although Farage wisely kept his references vague. The reason he cannot ask questions about it in the House of Commons is because of a rule from 1963 that “cases in which proceedings are active in United Kingdom courts shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question”. Speakers have some discretion where “they have considered that no substantial risk of prejudicing proceedings would arise”, but Farage prefers to suggest some sinister irregularity rather than make a case for an exception within the rules.
The question, then, is whether Farage was referring to the rumour that has been debunked in the Daily Mail or to something else. It’s quite possible that he was misled by a screenshot of the 2003 ruling doing the rounds, given how quickly and confidently he drew false inferences from online details about the former Reform activist Andrew Parker as soon as they were put before him (Farage asserted that Parker was an infiltrator working for Channel 4 – a subject he has since gone quiet about).
Meanwhile, Sunder Katwala has rounded up some “influential spreaders of the viral rumour on X”, in a series of posts:
Dominic Cummings, who shared the rumour at 2.35pm on 17.11 with a message asking people if it was true or false, saying “nothing would surprise me” (gaining 845k views) before an hour later saying it did not stack up. [here]
Paul Golding, the leader of Britain First, shared it on X at 1.52om, half an hour before Dominic Cummings did. He shared an image of the [unrelated] 2003 case front-page. Golding got 971k views – and Britain First started a petition about this (gaining 100k signatures). [here]
While Paul Golding and Dominic Cummings shared the rumour itself, many found more virality in tweeting about rumours – very much *really hoping* they are not true, like Mr [Konstantin] Kisin, who was very worried how this would not end well. [here]
This comical exchange in which Charlie Bentley-Astor tells Kisin its “probably worse than what you are hearing” but that “most of what you are hearing is probably true” though warning that some of the most viral claims are “misnomers”. (Both seem to self-identify as journalists) [here]
This “Akkad Secretary” got 2.6 million views for spreading the false rumour on X. He now has 69.5k followers. X may well have paid £ to this verified account for this: by rewarding, funding, incentivising and inducing such conduct, they were the main site. [here]
As for Farage,
Saying “we are witnessing one of the biggest coverups we’ve ever seen in our lives” with Winston Marshall gives him more flexibility. His Saturday interview taken by quite a few people as about the same rumour. [here]
Of course, even if the rumour were true, and even if there were some reason why the decision to allow the suspect’s father to remain in the UK had been particularly controversial, it would hardly be to Starmer’s discredit. As discussed by Roddy Dunlop KC as a hypothetical (responding to Kellie-Jay Keen / Posie Parker):
Let’s say the PM, acting as counsel, obtained a legal decision, from a judge, that his client should be given leave to remain in the UK. And then let’s assume that years later that client’s son is responsible for an atrocity.
To try and hold counsel responsible for that atrocity – to imply that (s)he has any moral blame therein – is to misunderstand utterly the role of counsel. We are not our clients, nor their guarantors. We act for all people. Some of them are bad people. Sometimes bad people do bad things. That does not mean they should be denied legal representation.
It would, though, be a difficult predicament for a lawyer-turned-PM when it comes to national memorialisation and interacting with relatives and survivors – a PM having a past connection with a suspect’s family would obviously be emotionally problematic for victims’ loved ones and for survivors, however well they might understand professional duty. Spreading a false rumour about such a connection was not in the best interests of Southport families.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »