BORIS Johnson saw an opportunity to score political points in the aftermath of the London Bridge terror attack when most people saw a tragedy, the father of one of the victims has said.
Dave Merritt's 25-year-old son Jack died alongside Saskia Jones, 23, in the attack by Usman Khan during a prisoner rehabilitation event at Fishmongers' Hall in central London last month.
Merritt said there had been no attempts made to contact the family from either the Prime Minister or Downing Street. He said the family had turned down a meeting with the Home Secretary.
Following the attack, Johnson spoke of his anger and claimed that scrapping early release from prison would have stopped convicted terrorist Khan killing two people.
He said that because the "broken hung parliament was preoccupied with blocking Brexit", the Government was unable to make the changes required to keep violent offenders and terrorists in jail for longer.
In an interview with Sky News, Merritt said: "What was required was just a dignified approach whereby the politicians would express their regrets, express their condolences to the people affected, and would then get on with campaigning in the election. It wasn't an election issue.
"Where most of us were watching this and seeing a tragedy unfolding in front of our eyes. Instead of seeing a tragedy Boris Johnson saw an opportunity and he went on the offensive.
"He saw an opportunity to score some points in the election – he immediately said 'oh this is Labour's fault, they allowed this to happen, they had this early release policy' and so on.
"At that point... well I had to say something."
READ MORE: Boris Johnson slammed for refusing to look at picture of sick child
Merritt was asked how he felt about his son's picture being used alongside headlines about changing sentencing and comments from the Prime Minister.
He replied: "Pretty much as you would expect. It just reinforced my views and my feelings about the way in which this situation was being exploited.
"It just struck me as being crass and insensitive and, as we've already said, Jack would have been extremely upset at the way in which things were developing."
It was put to Merritt that some people may say that he himself has politicised his son's death due to not liking Boris Johnson.
He replied: "I would say that if anybody has a right to say something about this situation then it's me and his family.
"We have lost Jack. Jack can't speak for himself anymore. Had there been no comment in the way that it was made, then I wouldn't have said anything.
"I would have just carried on grieving and helping to support my family.
"I think the way that it happened and the fact that it was used in such a political way, and I could see the good work that Jack did and that his colleagues did starting to perhaps unravel, it was important that somebody said something.
"And that just happened to be me. And obviously my son's been killed, people are going to listen to me."
Merritt said his son knew Khan, adding: "It makes it more unbelievable because, again, I can't ... imagine someone who had been befriended and helped by someone like Jack could then in a fairly calculating way kill them."
A Conservative spokesman said: "The PM has expressed his deepest condolences to Merritt for his tragic loss – an experience no family should have to go through.
"The PM's view remains it is 'extraordinary and wrong' that Khan had been released halfway through his prison sentence and has long argued that sentencing should be tougher for violent and extremist offenders."
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