The Prime Minister has admitted he is yet to speak to the father of London Bridge terror attack victim Jack Merritt, who accused him of trying to “make political capital” from his son’s death.
Boris Johnson sought to blame Labour for the early release of convicted terrorist Usman Khan who killed 25-year-old Jack and 23-year-old Saskia Jones in the attack at London’s Fishmongers’ Hall last month.
He claimed Khan, who was freed halfway through a 16-year jail sentence, was on the streets because of laws introduced by a “leftie government” and has committed to changing sentencing law.
But David Merritt said his son, who was the course co-ordinator of a prison rehabilitation programme, “would not wish his death to be used as the pretext for more draconian sentences or detaining people unnecessarily”.
Speaking to ITV News London, Johnson said: “I have every sympathy with the families of both Jack and Saskia, who lost their lives at London Bridge in the attack by Usman Khan.
“What I would say, is that I stick to my position, which is that actually, I don’t think its sensible for people who are convicted of crimes of terrorism to be out on early release.
“I said that long before the event took place – I said it in August.”
Pressed on whether he would speak to Merritt, the Prime Minister
replied: “I will keep my contacts with families of victims private, if that’s alright.”
Previously writing in the Guardian, Merritt said Jack would be “livid” if he could comment on his death.
“He would be seething at his death, and his life, being used to perpetuate an agenda of hate that he gave everything fighting against,” he said.
Merritt later accused the Prime Minister of lying during the BBC Election Debate with Jeremy Corbyn, saying Johnson was taking people “for a ride”.
When discussing security in the debate, the Tory leader said the automatic release of offenders like Khan was “wrong”.
But Merritt said on Twitter that there was no justification for cutting the early release tariff and claimed it was just trying to “look tough”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel