- This topic has 2,567 replies, 35 voices, and was last updated 22 hours, 6 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
BA had the bright idea in the the 80s to ask their business customers home much the Concorde ticket was , turned out they thought it was more than expensive than it actually was so they hiked up the prices to match them lol , you could also charter them and many groups did
Pick 3 on Saturday champion 2025/2026
A criminal trial, in which the Prime Minister will be indirectly involved, commenced today in the Old Bailey. But you could be forgiven for not knowing it.
To recap, three Ukrainians (one a Romanian citizen) are accused of committing acts of arson against properties and vehicles owned (or formerly owned) by Keir Starmer. They are charged with endangering life – a very serious matter.
Yet the media, including outlets which are not friendly to Starmer and his government, seem to believe this to be not newsworthy. Not even a small paragraph anywhere.
As the attached article makes clear, the facts can be reported without prejudicing a trial. Why the silence?
The Silence at the Old Bailey: Why is the Starmer Arson Trial Being Buried?
It should come as no surprise to anyone that GB ‘News’ is part of the cosy Establishment club when it comes down to it.
It falls to yet another left wing site to show a semblance of interest in the fact that a criminal trial in which the safety of the British Prime Minister is a key issue got underway yesterday. None of the mainstream national newspapers managed to send as much as a junior reporter.
As it says: “The silence around Starmer’s involvement screams volumes about the deeply unhealthy closeness and collusion of the state with the media that are notionally supposed to be scrutinising its actions”.
MSM silent over Starmer arsonists trial – yet no special reporting restrictions
I sent two posts to the Graun, one asking for opinions on reasons for the silence in the MSM, which gathered just 9 likes and 2 replies, one of which was of no note and the other suggesting it might be too early in the trial for reporting; then another asking the same question but with the links you’ve supplied attached, which was deleted by the moderators
I saw a tweet which said today is being taken up by legal discussions at which the jury is not required to be present. The prosecution is meant to begin presenting its case tomorrow.
Perhaps the media has an excuse to not be interested today. But the questions still remain: why on the opening day of this trial did no national newspaper send a reporter and none of the four main television news broadcasters in the UK saw fit to mention it?
As the articles state, there is no “D Notice” in place and they have no legal force anyway. It has been established there are no reporting restrictions. Nor are the public barred from attending – there were people in the public gallery yesterday.
None of the accused have been charged with terrorism offences, so there are no national security implications. All the accused were denied bail, presumably because it was thought there was a risk they would abscond. Yet they were held in Belmarsh Prison, a Category A prison which contains some of the most notorious and violent criminals in the country.
Perhaps the media silence has been caused by a superinjuntion which even bans the media from mentioning the existence of the injunction. If so, who took it out and why?
It sounds like the moderators at “The Guardian” clearly don’t want anyone to talk about it. And it is the same at the “Daily Telegraph”. Even comments which merely state the fact of the trial commencing are being removed.
Surely a superinjunction would apply online, at least to those based in the UK which at least one of the two sites linked appears to be. The articles are still live and you can be sure the government is aware of their existence by now.
There doesn’t seem to be much comment from online political voices either, even those not linked to media outlets.
Curiouser and curiouser.
A reminder of what the mainstream media seems to believe is of no public interest:
Sky News has broken cover. Not a word from the BBC or the newspapers, though.
Well done Sky, quite a thorough review of proceedings so far today.
So, no reporting restrictions or injunctions then. Will the rest of the media now follow Sky’s lead?
The Telegraph is reporting ‘live’ from the trial:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/29/men-accused-of-firebombing-starmers-home-in-court/
“The Independent” and the “Financial Times” have published articles as well. As has the “New York Times”. But nothing from the licence fee funded BBC at the time of writing..
The BBC and Guardian have joined in too: conspiracy theories shattered
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx21y204zz4o
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/apr/29/men-accused-arson-attacks-keir-starmer-londonThey couldn’t really not mention it, now that all their rivals have.
What have we discovered? That these three individuals were allegedly operating at the behest of a Russian only referred to as “El Money”. But we don’t need to know who “El Money” is or what his motivation was for wanting to fire bomb properties and vehicles connected to Keir Starmer.
I expect it will all become clearer, in a trial scheduled to last until the end of May…
So what are the rumours about these individuals? Anyone care to put their head above…so to speak?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.