Barely two months into his role as Prime Minister and Sir Keir Starmer has wasted no time showing us the kind of leader he is and the kind of Government he runs.
Telegraph readers have collectively argued that he is authoritarian, runs a two-tier society that shuts down dissent and gives a free pass to people who are politically and ideologically aligned with Labour.
Following a spat with tech entrepreneur Elon Musk, who criticised Sir Keir’s handling of the UK riots and publicly embarrassed him by popularising the “two-tier Keir” (2TK) epithet, the Prime Minister has vowed to introduce controls on social media to limit “fake news” and he has scrapped the incoming cancel culture law that would have protected free speech at universities.
To punish those involved in the Southport riots, the Prime Minister set up fast-track courts that made an example of a woman by giving her a 15-month custodial sentence for posting a distasteful Facebook post. Meanwhile, the leader of a Left-wing advocacy group was not charged for his false claims on X, formerly Twitter, about an acid attack on a Muslim woman.
Labour now wants to reclassify rioters as terrorists.
Telegraph readers are in agreement that Sir Keir’s moves to place controls on free speech is an over intrusion by the Government and that he is ignoring the underlying issues of the civil unrest, instead focusing on waging war against ordinary people with “unacceptable” opinions.
‘They’re coming for your thoughts’
In the wake of the Southport riots where a mob attacked a mosque and another group a hotel with migrants, those involved in the civil unrest were largely labelled far-Right by the Government and subsequently the media.
Telegraph reader Nicola Cane believes this to be a deliberate misrepresentation to shut down protesters’ legitimate concerns on illegal migration.
She says: “To write all this off as ‘far-Right thuggery’ as Starmer has done, is wrong.
“It’s a comforting narrative for our out of touch ruling class (Left and Right) because if all this can be pinned on ‘far-Right thuggery’, or even ‘terrorism’ then there’s no need to listen to the protesters, search for the root cause, or treat their concerns as valid.”
Ms Cane believes there is a double-standard with the language used by politicians and the media to report on rioters from white communities: “When it was ethnic minorities and migrants rioting in Harehills we were told ‘a riot is the language of the unheard’.
“Why is the media so keen to describe white rioters as ‘far-Right’ but when a journalist is forced to stop broadcasting by an Asian mob, including shooting gestures and stabbing the tyres of their van, it’s portrayed as ‘mostly peaceful’?
“This is why many people are talking about a two-tier society, two-tier policing, two-tier media, two-tier politics and ‘2TK’.”
Matthew Clifton questions whether blaming online misinformation for causing the riots has been used as a pretext by the Prime Minister to introduce stricter social media controls: “9/11 was used to justify attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq and introduce massive electronic surveillance of US citizens by the intelligence services.
“Riots in the UK used to prosecute the posting of ‘fake’ news on social media providers i.e. intimidate them and their users to accept the media and government’s narrative and spin.”
He continued: “Never waste a good crisis as they say. In America it is often said of the Left, they’re coming for your guns, here in the UK, they’re coming for your thoughts. Very dangerous territory ahead.”
Click here to view this content.
‘Authoritarian and dangerous’
After Mr Musk suggested Britain was heading for a civil war, Sir Keir hit back, indirectly blaming content shared on X.
He promised to review social media law to prevent further disorder so content that is nebulously described as ‘legal but harmful’ would have to be suppressed or removed by social media firms.
Uneasy that content on social media could be assessed for its truthfulness an anonymous reader argued: “If it’s not illegal, it should be permitted. We can’t have the Government deciding what posts will and will not be permitted. It’s authoritarian and dangerous.”
In a similar vein another anonymous reader asks: “None of us can even begin to question what is fake news, and that leads to the obvious question… what is the definition of fake news? Could you remove someone’s liberty based on a retweet of a tweet their mate sent? Who will police this?”
Karen Warner, mocking the Government’s intrusive approach, ironically offers a solution: “Bring in the Ministry of Truth to save us all”.
However, Javier Navarro-Reverter is in no mood to entertain such a notion. He says: “When Musk bought Twitter he revealed that the digital platforms were being manipulated by the intelligence services that controlled the information the people could receive.
“Why do you think the British Government blocked the takeover of The Telegraph by a foreign investor? Is it strategic value? National security? Think again.”
‘The intention is to make the population afraid’
Following the Southport riots, readers have questions about the unjust decisions to charge and punish some people and not others for writing and sharing online controversial posts.
A 53-year-old grandmother was jailed for 15 months for a Facebook post calling for a mosque to be blown up. The judge cited that it might have been read by her 5,000 friends. The Prime Minister has fast-tracked riot-related cases through the courts to act as a deterrent for others.
Brian Johnston labelled the judicial response to the recent troubles as “deeply concerning”. With respect to the grandmother’s online comments he argued, “I do feel a dangerous precedent has been set. Every day, there are tens of thousands of posts that are no worse than those referred to in this piece on many different subjects. Is it okay in some circumstances to make such comments but not in others?”
He adds: “Legal clarity is needed regarding freedom of expression. Expressing public opinion feels like it is being suppressed and certain punishment out of all proportion to the alleged crime.”
During the riots, Nick Lowes, the head of anti-fascist group Hope Not Hate, posted a false report on X that a Muslim woman had acid thrown over her which he described as “absolutely horrendous”. The post was seen by over 100,000 people however Cleveland Police denied any reports of it and he was not questioned or arrested.
P. Malone wondered why there was a difference in how cases are being handled: “How was his spreading of this inflammatory misinformation any different from the misinformation about the Southport murderer being a recent boat arrival?”
Sylvia Jones sceptically said: “Let’s hope he feels ‘the full force of the law’ as promised by the Home Secretary to those fuelling hate online.”
Arriv Edirci weighs in believing that the disparity could be ideology-based: “Anyone, even remotely critical of any socialist idea can very quickly expect to be smeared as a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, transphobe, sexist, misogynist or working-class thicko. They also, understandably, fear a rattle on the front door from the local flatfoot.”
Finally, an anonymous reader fears the chilling repercussions of the Prime Minister’s two-tier society that punishes some opinions and not others. He explains: “The Nazis were masters at inventing new language. By imposing greater control over what the Government prescribes as acceptable behaviour, the ordinary citizen becomes increasingly fearful of inadvertently breaking the law.
He continued: “The intention is to make the population afraid. Already, whenever a conversation turns to subjects like race, gender, immigration etc., people tend to lower their voices. My grandkids often tell me ‘you can’t say that grandad’.”
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
