Keir Starmer Calls For St George's Flag To Be 'Reclaimed' From Southport Rioters
Keir Starmer has called for the English flag to be 'reclaimed' from the rioters who went on the rampage in the wake of last summer's Southport killings.
In comments marking St. George's Day, the prime minister said: 'We must never concede it, because it is an expression of our values and our patriotism.'
Violence erupted last August after three young girls were stabbed to death by Axel Rudakubana while attending a Taylor Swift-theme dance class in the school holidays.
Misinformation was spread online about the killer's background, leading to widespread rioting across England.
Speaking at a St. George's Day reception in 10 Downing Street on Tuesday night, Starmer said there is 'a never-ending fight for our flag and what it represents'
He said: 'There are people trying to sow division in our communities, people taking the red and white of our flag, like the bunting downstairs, with them, as they throw bricks at businesses.
'The day after the terrible Southport incident last year, I went up to take the opportunity to shake the hands of the first respondents of police and ambulance workers, you'll now have seen what they all faced.
'By the time I got back to London that very day, we had people throwing bricks at the very same police officers I was shaking hands with. And that's why the battle for our flag is really important because that is what happened and that was only last year. So, we have to fight for our flag and for our values.'
The PM said the clean-up operation carried out by ordinary people in the wake of the riots demonstrated the best of the country.
He said: 'Rebuilding walls, repairing damage and it's in that spirit that we reclaim our flag and that was incredibly uplifting to go from rioting to people coming out to do what they could for our country.
'So that's what we must do for our country, for English decency, honour and fairness. Wrench it out of the hands of those who want to divide this nation and reclaim it for good.
'Because that flag doesn't belong to me as prime minister or any group or political party and that is the point. It belongs to all of us, to England, in all its wonder and diversity. And we should be proud of that flag, we must never concede it, because it is an expression of our values and our patriotism.'
Yvette Cooper In Angry Commons Clash With Chris Philp Amid Southport 'Cover Up' Row
Why Is It So Difficult to Punish The Far-Right Leading The Riots Over The Southport Attack?
James Cleverly Accuses Nigel Farage Of Spreading 'Gossip And Rumour' After Southport Killings
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Czech court sentences Colombian to 8 years for arson attack which officials think is tied to Russia
PRAGUE (AP) — A court in the Czech capital sentenced a Colombian national to eight years in prison on Monday for an arson attack and planning another one, in a case which authorities believe may be linked to Russia. Prague's Municipal Court also ordered Andrés Alfonso de la Hoz de la Cruz to pay damages worth 115,000 koruna ($5,300). The court approved a plea agreement between prosecutors and the defendant, who pleaded guilty. The 26-year-old Colombian was arrested a year ago after setting ablaze three Prague public buses at a depot at night. The court said that he recorded what he did and left. Local workers managed to extinguish the fire. The court said the man received orders on the Telegram messaging app and was promised $3,000. He was also planning one more attack, possibly at a movie theater in Prague. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala previously said the failed arson attack was likely part of Russia's hybrid war against his country. Czechia, which is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic, is a staunch supporter of Ukraine in its fight against Russia's full scale-invasion. Western officials have accused Russia and its proxies of staging dozens of attacks and other incidents across Europe since Moscow launched all-out war on Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, according to data collected by The Associated Press. They allege the disruption campaign is an extension of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war, intended to sow division in European societies and undermine support for Ukraine. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the war at
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Czech court sentences Colombian to 8 years for arson attack which officials think is tied to Russia
PRAGUE (AP) — A court in the Czech capital sentenced a Colombian national to eight years in prison on Monday for an arson attack and planning another one, in a case which authorities believe may be linked to Russia. Prague's Municipal Court also ordered Andrés Alfonso de la Hoz de la Cruz to pay damages worth 115,000 koruna ($5,300). The court approved a plea agreement between prosecutors and the defendant, who pleaded guilty. The 26-year-old Colombian was arrested a year ago after setting ablaze three Prague public buses at a depot at night. The court said that he recorded what he did and left. Local workers managed to extinguish the fire. The court said the man received orders on the Telegram messaging app and was promised $3,000. He was also planning one more attack, possibly at a movie theater in Prague. Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala previously said the failed arson attack was likely part of Russia's hybrid war against his country. Czechia, which is more widely known in English as the Czech Republic, is a staunch supporter of Ukraine in its fight against Russia's full scale-invasion. Western officials have accused Russia and its proxies of staging dozens of attacks and other incidents across Europe since Moscow launched all-out war on Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, according to data collected by The Associated Press. They allege the disruption campaign is an extension of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war, intended to sow division in European societies and undermine support for Ukraine. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the war at
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.
