Carlisle man jailed after labelling police 'Starmer’s dogs'

Stuart Burns, 41, denied two Communications Act offences which involved two online messages which were "grossly offensive" and “menacing," claiming he was merely “clumsy” with his choice of words.

But after a two-hour trial at the city’s Rickergate court, he was found guilty of both allegations.

The defendant’s defence lawyer said the case was happening against a backdrop of “political pressure” linked to riots and argued that Burns was entitled to express his views strongly, despite others disagreeing with him.

Burns, of Briar Bank, Belah, was convicted after District Judge John Temperley rejected his claim that he posted his comments because he wanted people to express their concerns about illegal immigration “passionately but peacefully.”

That claim was “entirely implausible,” said the Judge.

Read more: Maryport man jailed for Facebook post on police bid to stop disorder

Prosecutor George Shelley outlined the case, describing how a local woman contacted the police after seeing two Facebook posts from Burns, the first appearing on the public page run by the Save Our Streets CA campaign group.

It was posted on August 4 after police were targeted during riots that broke out in the wake of the horrific murders in Southport of three young girls as they attended a Taylor Swift themed dance class.

The message from Burns said: “Can’t wait for the next demo. It’s been too long since the last march.

“If things turn ugly, please leave people’s businesses and properties alone. All anger should be channelled at the police. After all, they are Starmer’s dogs. Time to break them and make them come and stand on the right side.”

In a second post on the same day, which was part of a Facebook conversation with a friend which he intended to be private, Burns went further in comments about the civil disorder.

He wrote: “To be fair mate, I sat and thought about the riots which have been happening this week. I strongly agree with them.

“However, attacking people’s businesses and mosques is the wrong way to go about it. Attacks on the police, in my opinion, are totally justified as they are the government’s front line.

“Two-tier Keir needs to be shown the government works for us and not against us.”

He added: “The British public needs to destroy their vehicles and equipment, night after night, break their morale, make them take off their helmets, lay down their batons and CS spray and make them stand on the right side of history.”(Image: Newsquest)

Mr Shelley said: “The Crown say that he is effectively encouraging members of the public to assault the police, break their morale, destroy their vehicles and equipment, night after night.”

The trial’s first live evidence came from the woman who reported the defendant’s two Facebook posts to the police. She said she felt it was her duty as a citizen to do so.

“I’m a member of the public and I have seen across the country the riots and the harm against the police and other innocent people,” she said. “I don’t want to see something like that taking place or happening to the police or any other member of the public.”

Commenting on the Save Our Streets CA post in which Burns called for anger to be “channelled” at the police, she said: “I believe his comments were an incitement to violence against the police and the general public.”

Under questioning from defence lawyer Kate Hunter, the woman rejected the suggestion that the defendant’s comments were “not a genuine threat to the police.” Miss Hunter said Burns was simply “clumsy” with his language.

The woman replied: “Freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you from the consequences of your speech if it's incitement to violence.”

Read more: Elon Musk attacks Cumbrian crackdown on 'racist' online content

In a statement prepared after his arrest, Burns said his Facebook comments resulted from his “frustration” with the current situation in the UK where “police are prioritising certain sections of the public over others.”

“I know members of the public share my frustration,” he said. “I have previously engaged in a peaceful march in support of the people of Carlisle 18 months ago.”

In his evidence, Burns said he joined Save Our Streets CA some 20 months ago because he wanted to take part in a “peaceful protest” about “illegal immigrants” being housed in Carlisle area hotels.

Asking about his Facebook comments, Miss Hunter said: “Did you mean to be offensive?” Burns replied: “No.” Nor had he meant to be menacing, he said. He wanted people to express their concerns passionately but peacefully, he said.

He said he wanted protests but not attacks on the police.

Miss Hunter then asked Burns about the impact of the prosecution on his life and he answered: “In the last three weeks, my life's been turned upside down. I lost my employment, and all of this has left me feeling suicidal.”

Mr Shelley told Burns, who worked as a lorry driver until his prosecution became public, that he had encouraged people to “act against the police.”

The defendant said: “No, I didn't.” He accepted being aware of the civil unrest. Mr Shelley said: “You were aware attacks on businesses, people’s homes, and police officers?”

Burns replied: “Not police officers being attacked at the time – no.”

Asked about his plea to “channel anger at the police,” Burns said: “All I meant was for people to voice their frustration and concerns to the police.” His reference to the police as “dogs” was a “throwaway comment,” he said.

Burns repeated his claim that there was “two-tier policing” of different communities in the UK. He did not want police officers to be attacked, or towns and cities vandalised, he said.

Asked about his comment that he agreed with the riots, Burns said: “That not me advocating it.”

Mr Shelley asked next about his comment that attacks on the police were “totally justified,” telling Burns: “So, you’re happy for the police to be attacked?”

Burns said: “No, I’m not. They can make a choice to lay down their riot gear, and stand beside us in peaceful protest.”

Burns added: “I’ve said words in the heat of the moment; we’re all guilty of doing that, saying words we don’t mean.”

Mr Shelley said the woman who reported Burns’ posts was a “credible and reliable witness” who felt so strongly that his posts were inciting violence that she felt duty-bound to contact the police.

Miss Hunter said: “He is entitled to express his opinion strongly, but the question is whether, in doing so, he used language that was beyond the pale of what is tolerable in our society. There is no racist language, no swearing.

“I don’t think it is beyond the pale.”

Finding Burns guilty, District Judge Temperley said: “The context is crucial.

"At the time those messages were sent, on a nightly basis, we were witnessing the police being attacked and at times seriously injured in various towns and cities up and down the country.

“Violent disorder was rife.

“The defendant suggested that he wanted people to voice their concerns to the police passionately but peacefully.

"I find that suggestion entirely implausible. It lacks credibility.” Claiming that the second Facebook post was intended to promote "peaceful protest" was contrary to common sense. Burns was not a credible witness, said the judge.

The judge told Burns: “The context of the offending is important. You may not have gone out on to the streets as others did in various parts of the country and attacked police officers and shops.

“But by posting the messages you did; you were undoubtedly encouraging others to do so. Thankfully, those events were relatively short-lived but the fact that there is no longer violence ongoing does not detract from the seriousness of what took place.”

He jailed Burns for 14 weeks.