Adam Bostock

Another day and another Mohammad has been found guilty of being responsible for the death of a British woman. Mohammad Durnion invited Reanne Coulson to his flat in Coventry last summer. Whilst there she suffered head and neck injuries, as he attacked her. He claims that she died of an overdose. Neighbours heard screaming and reported it to the police. The police arrived but did not thoroughly search the flat, which was in appalling condition, using a bucket for a toilet. They did not find Reanne’s body, even though it was in the flat. When the police had left, Durnion returned to the flat, retrieved the body and took it to the woods where he tried to burn it. Durnion has been found guilty of manslaughter and will be sentenced tomorrow.

The Slave Trade Reparations Trap Is Already Set On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Britain and other former colonial powers enter into "good-faith dialogue on reparatory justice" for the transatlantic slave trade. It passed 124 to three. Britain abstained. The government called this a principled stand. James Kariuki, Britain's chargé d'affaires at the UN, said the UK "continues to disagree with fundamental propositions of the text." Strong words. The problem is that this government has already demonstrated, in precise detail, exactly how much those words are worth. The man who championed this cause from the backbenches is now Deputy Prime Minister. In 2018, Lammy told Parliament he wanted not just an apology but reparations. In 2020, he said the process of "repairing" Britain's colonial past was "obviously financial." He is now the second most powerful figure in the government. Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, said that same year that there was "a moral and legal" case for compensation. These are not old positions they have repudiated. They are positions they have declined to retract. The African Union's legal strategy is no secret. Their experts plan to seek an ICJ advisory opinion establishing reparations as a matter of international obligation. They chose this route because it worked. A previous ICJ opinion on Chagos prompted Starmer to hand over £30 billion of British sovereign territory rather than "break international law." The reparations movement noted the outcome. Tuesday's resolution is the first brick in the same foundation. The abstention is not a defence. It is a waiting room. Look at who voted in favour. China. Iran. Russia. India. This is the moral coalition that has appointed itself arbiter of Britain's historical guilt. China, which runs the largest forced labour system currently operating on earth. Iran, whose government funds proxy militias and whose record on human rights requires no elaboration. Russia, prosecuting a war of territorial conquest in Europe. These governments did not vote yes because they have thought seriously about Atlantic slavery. They voted yes because a financially and legally weakened Britain serves their interests, and because Western self-flagellation is a gift that keeps giving. The resolution contains a revealing admission. Its supporters openly ranked the transatlantic trade as more grave than the Arab slave trade, which ran for 1,300 years and took millions of Africans across the Sahara and Indian Ocean. The reason given: scale and duration. By that measure, the Arab trade should face equal scrutiny. It does not. The resolution targets Western nations and leaves others untouched. Some historical criminals are in the dock. Others helped write the charges. The US representative said so plainly. He rejected the idea of ranking atrocities by political convenience and accused the resolution's backers of using history as a weapon. Only the United States, Israel, and Argentina voted against. Britain could not manage even that. There is a pattern here that is no longer possible to mistake for coincidence. Gibraltar. Chagos. And now this. Each time, the same sequence: international legal pressure applied, ministers express disagreement, then Britain writes the cheque. Starmer did not create the reparations movement. But he handed it its proof of concept. The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them. When the ICJ opinion arrives, and the Foreign Office begins its familiar audit of what international law requires, that question will answer itself. "The arguments against reparations are well-rehearsed and decisive. The question is whether a government containing David Lammy and Lord Hermer has the will to make them."

Slippery Starmer is the King of Cover Ups. So much so that he’s even covering up his bald spot with a hairpiece.