From BBC News:
A Russian speaker recruited and offered money to Ukrainian men to carry out arson attacks on properties connected to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, a court has heard.
…The prosecutor said analysis of messages from phones recovered from, and connected with, the defendants showed “communication between them before and during the relevant period”.
He said [Roman] Lavrynovych was offered payment to set the fires by a contact using the name or pseudonym “El Money” on the Telegram messaging app.
The three defendants deny the charges, and while the trial is in progress commentary must be respectual of the law as regards contempt of court.
However, we can say that the first day of the trial has destroyed online conspiracist claims forming no part of the case, that the three men were rent boys with a grudge against the Prime Minister, who for some reason had decided to commit arson rather than sell their story to the press. This conspiracy theory had been allowed to fester online despite being it being obviously prejudicial, and it exploited the fact that once the defendants had been charged then further details were very unlikely to be published until the trial. Dark suspicions were raised of some sort of gagging order on the media, or if not some inexplicable conspiracy of silence that would have included media outlets usually viciously hostile towards Starmer on a daily basis. The speculation reached fever pitch on Monday, due to the media’s failure to report the non-story of some trial preliminaries. The first day of evidence was today, and the trial has now been covered extensively in the media (Sky News in particular has a very informative live thread).
Among those who spread the conspiracy claims, either directly or through insinuation, included the likes of Tommy Robinson, James Melville, Andrew Bridgen, David Atherton and George Galloway. Monday’s non-reporting also inspired media commentary on the left-wing site Canary, which was then amplified by Toby Young.
Mention must also be made of Reform UK’s Richard Tice, who in August amplified a photo of a banner over a motorway walkway that read “Starmer hates Brits, loves rapists, invaders & and rent boys”. Tice disingenuously shared the photo (posted on Twitter/X by @GBPolitics) as evidence of the “depths to which PM has lost confidence across the UK”, rather than because he was winking a sex smear against a political opponent arising from what appears to have been a crime targeting him.
UPDATE: John Bye notes further examples, including posts by Carl Benjamin, Gareth Icke, Jacqui Deevoy and John O’Looney
Filed under: Uncategorized
“Mention must also be made of Reform UK’s Richard Tice, who in August amplified a photo of a banner over a motorway walkway that read “Starmer hates Brits, loves rapists,” Of course Starmer “loves rapists” – He has blocked IICSA and blocked 80 new abuse courts to deal with corruption, both his pre-election pledges, as head of the CPS he blocked paedophile cases, lied to a criminal court judge claiming the victim was a perpetrator (See the documents in the Oliver Foundation High Court case against Starmer), Starmer promotes known paedophiles / associates of, to high office, is responsible for early releases from prison rapists and domestic violence on space issues, is failing the U.N. request for a Parliamentary investigation into the church of england cases, which is dysfunctional from March this year, there is zero evidential independent safeguarding of church withheld evidence, the church has a long history of destroying incriminating documents (Professor Jay’s IICSA Findings), Starmer is a disgusting little weed, and it is no wonder so many voters want him kicked out of office. It is not only about cost of living etc., it is about his allowance of corruption across the U.K. with no deterrence against officials destroying documents and sabotaging access to these records. I say again. HMIC 2017 found 41 out of 43 regional constabularies corrupting child abuse, and these are still at it, 2026. Lying in the face of medical and crime evidence of sex crimes they refuse to prosecute. Particularly in institutional cases.