Down with Keir Starmer & Consorts, Part 1: Starmer’s Shady Past
In my earlier article in German from February 26, 2020, I already elaborated on why Keir Starmer is entirely unfit to lead the UK Labour party. After endless sabotage against Jeremy Corbyn, Starmer is now the Labour leader. An article series on why he and his ilk need to be ousted, especially in light of the April 11-12, 2020, #LabourReport, #LabourLeak, #LabourLeaks.
(Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. Part 6. Part 7. Part 8. Part 9. The missing links will be added gradually)
Starmer’s Top 5 Disqualifying Attributes
I already reported on why Starmer does not qualify to lead Labour in my earlier article. In the interest of creating a comprehensive series and for the sake of completeness though, I will do so again in greater detail.
1. Starmer’s Trilateral Commission membership
As already reported by Dorset Eye on February 2, 2020, Sir Keir Starmer is a year-long member of the capitalist elite and invitation-only group Trilateral Commission that was founded by the arch-capitalist and billionaire powerhouse David Rockefeller (also see the official membership list from the official Trilateral Commission homepage here: Starmer is listed as a member under the “European Group”).
Starmer’s year-long membership in the Trilateral Commission in which we can also find absolute scum such as war criminal Henry Kissinger, the oligarch Michael ‘Let’s buy the DNC’ Bloomberg, and even the convicted and recently deceased sex offender Jeffrey ‘Got Suicided’ Epstein (member until 2008) — not to mention all the usual bankster and other rotten establishment figures — creates a perfectly obvious conflict of interest:
On the one hand and in his function as Labour member and now even Labour leader, Starmer is supposed to represent the interests of at least a certain part of the 99%. On the other hand, his membership in the Trilateral Commission can only be interpreted as Starmer being a willing and useful idiot for the 1% (of the 1%) — otherwise, those who run that club would have had no reason to invite him. As such and for that utterly disqualifying reason alone, Starmer should be nowhere near the Labour leadership, let alone a member of the Labour party.
Let us now take a look at some of the dirty and underhanded work that Starmer appears to have done for the degenerate 1% and against the interests of the 99%.
2a. The Starmer CPS’s political persecution of Julian Assange
In 2008 and as also stated in his wikipedia entry, the then Attorney General Baroness Scotland of Asthal made Starmer the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), effective November 1. Starmer fulfilled that function until the end of October 2013.
Shortly afterwards in the 2014 New Year Honors on December 31, 2013, Starmer was appointed Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB), allegedly for “services to law and criminal justice.” Hence the “Sir.” On July 19, 2017, Starmer was even sworn into the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, “a formal body of advisers to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom.”
Those were rewards from the powers that be for acts of loyalty to them, the 1%. This begs the question of precisely how Starmer has displayed his loyalty to them, especially when head of the CPS.
Enter the world famous whistleblower and journalist Julian Assange. With his for us very revealing and for the 1% very damaging Wikileaks plattform that was founded in 2006, the truth-speaker Julian Assange has most likely managed to piss off more parties among the powers that be than any other person currently alive. Obviously, these power hungry sociopaths were and are trying to have their revenge on him. Given that Assange is still falsely imprisoned and show-trialled in the UK as well as endangered by the Coronavirus, they are currently succeeding pretty well at that.
Enter Keir Starmer as those powers’ useful little idiot and helper. There are credible reports that, when head of CPS, a high official and possibly to likely Starmer himself assisted in the political persecution of Julian Assange that was then based on invented sexual assault charges:
In the present, Starmer continued to play his role in the political persecution of Julian Assange, for instance by taking
[…] a thinly-veiled swipe at Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell over his support for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
Mr McDonnell has spoken out in defence of Mr Assange, who is being held on remand while the US tries to have him extradited over the publication of hundreds of thousands of confidential American military communications in 2010.
The Shadow Chancellor has rowed in behind the Wikileaks founder, saying he is in the centre of “a major political trial in which the establishment is out to victimise an innocent”.
But Sir Keir, a former director of public prosecutions said “independent” judges would make a decision on “whether the evidence is there to extradite someone”.
“So all of those in the Assange case or any other case, who say it’s all a big conspiracy are either missing the point that this is an independent judge-made decision or they’re implying that our High Court judiciary is corrupt,” he added.
In other words: According to Starmer, those who expose war criminals such as Julian Assange should be thrown under the bus. Those who committed or assisted in committing war crimes such as Alastair Campbell (Iraq War), on the other hand, are welcomed back into Labour — and if that means breaking some party rules, who cares.
Mr Campbell, an avowed opponent of Brexit who was Downing Street director of communications under Mr Blair, was expelled from Labour last May after he revealed that he had voted for the pro-EU Lib Dems at the European elections.
According to Labour Party rules, any member “who joins and/ or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Party” will “automatically be ineligible to be or remain a Party member”.
But, in an interview with HuffPost UK, Sir Keir said he would “want anybody who wants to be in our party to be in the party”.
The real criminals are after all not war criminals but those falsely accused of antisemitism. Starmer even stoops low enough to commit a contradiction by speaking out against as well as in favour of expulsions. As long as it serves the dual purpose of throwing good people out of the party and bringing Blairite scum back in, it is good enough for Starmer I guess:
The Shadow Brexit Secretary added: “Alastair is a constituent of mine. And he was a long standing Labour member, a huge contribution to the party. I think we need to get past this whole question of chucking people out and expulsions, etcetera.
“The cases we should concentrate on are cases, for example, of anti-Semitism or other racist behaviour within the party.
“And I use Alastair’s case an example to say, if you can be chucked out of the party, almost straight away, for supporting another party at a [euro] election, surely you can be chucked out of our party in an absolutely clear case of anti-Semitism, and the mismatch was huge there.”
2b. The Starmer CPS’s political persecution of environmental and anticapitalist activists
Rendering such secret services to the degenerate power elites did and does not stop with the political persecution of Julian Assange. Under Starmer’s CPS, evidence in favor of environmental and anticapitalist activists was suppressed. That in turn led to wrongful convictions, some of which were later overturned by the courts. To quote from the following article:
Keir was DPP when revelations were published about the first known modern ‘spycop’, Mark Kennedy. Kennedy infiltrated environmental and anticapitalist groups between 2003 and 2009. In 2011, a trial of environmental activists accused of plotting to break into Ratcliffe power station collapsed after it emerged that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had covered up vital evidence. This evidence consisted of recordings Kennedy had made of planning meetings. Starmer was present in court the day the case was thrown out.
To continue:
[T]he Campaign Opposing Police Surveillance claims:
If the other 150 or so officers have similar tallies [as Kennedy], it means about 7,000 wrongful convictions are being left to stand. Even if we conservatively estimate just one false conviction per officer per year of service, it adds up to about 600. It may well be that spycops are responsible for the biggest nobbling of the judicial system in English history.
So Starmer’s suggestion that Kennedy’s actions were not systematic is bullshit.
To also quote from the following article on how the CPS overstepped its bounds:
CPS instrumental in keeping Kennedy out of sight
What we found was that the miscarriage of justice was not just the creation of the police. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was working with the police from a very early stage: before any alleged crime took place, even before most of the activists knew something was going to happen.
The CPS is supposed to examine police evidence of crime and, if it stands up, bring a case. Working before any crime as at Ratcliffe seems to amount to entrapment.
Environmental and anticapitalist groups uniformly act against the degenerate 1% and their profit over everything motives. Starmer in turn acted against them by trying to pretend that the suppression of evidence was not systematic even though it was, thereby once again revealing whose interests he actually represented when head of the CPS.
2c. The Starmer CPS’s mishandling of a Jimmy Savile sex crime case
Based on infamous and recurring examples throughout recent history such as the Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019) saga in which heads of state (Bill Clinton and Donald Trump), royalty (Prince Andrew) and many other famous people are involved in various ways, we know that paedophile rings, grooming gangs and sex trafficking exists in the highest levels of power.
Another such infamous example is Jimmy Savile (1926–2011), a UK entertainer but also sexual predator who personally abused over 500 people — both children and adults — throughout his life. As the following report indicates, Savile already committed sex crimes in the 1960s:
The Stoke Mandeville [Hospital] report found Savile was an “opportunistic predator” who, from 1968 to 1992, abused 63 people connected to the hospital who ranged in age from eight to 40. It said Savile’s reputation as a “sex pest” was an “open secret” among junior staff and some middle managers. Several victims made informal complaints to staff but none was “taken seriously or escalated to senior management”.
The first known case of sexual abuse was even traced back to the 1950s:
Savile died on October 29th 2011 aged 84, 56 years after committing his first sexual offence in 1955.
Apparently, Savile was active unimpeded until close to his death:
As early as the 1980s a female reported she’d been assaulted in Savile’s camper-van in a BBC car park. The police couldn’t find a file documenting the claim.
In 2003, a victim walked into a West London police station to claim she’d been “touched inappropriately” by Savile on Top Of The Pops in 1973. She was reluctant to proceed unless there were other victims. Because the police had lost the original file, the matter was left to rest.
Three victims made allegations between 2007 and 2009. Although officers from Sussex and Surrey police knew about the other claims, they did not pass this on to the victims, who were reluctant to press a prosecution as a result.
Meanwhile, in 2008, the appalling revelations of the Haut de la Garenne child abuse case on Jersey gripped the headlines. Savile was considered and denied having been there, but photographs later emerged showing him having visited the site.
If you are asking yourself how all of that was possible, an obvious answer is that people were swooning over Savile being a celebrity. Two further answers are contained in his wikipedia biography:
Savile is estimated to have raised £40 million for charity.[2]
If Savile was a regular as opposed to a merely honorary Mensa member, it means that his IQ was in the top 2% of the population, i.e. at around 130 or higher, since that is the entry requirement for that high-IQ-society.
A fourth answer to Savile remaining undetected is that he must have had a lot of help from the powers that be. Take, for instance, Margaret Thatcher who was also very good at destroying not just lives but society in general with neoliberal ideology and policies. Ironically and despite warnings from advisors, Thatcher fought to knight Savile:
And Savile, who had already received an OBE in 1972, did indeed end up getting knighted even twice in 1990, first by the Queen (Knight Bachelor) and then by the Pope (KCSG; also see this video, 0:39–0:45).
As far as Keir Starmer’s role in all of this is concerned…
The “we did not know anything about that”-excuse was also one that plenty of Nazis or Nazi-sympathizers had used after World War 3, and Keir Starmer’s excuse appears to be about as thin. On January 11, 2013, he merely issued the following statement:
“I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases,” Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions.
Note that this statement of Starmer already refutes any claim to the extent of a possible Starmer-Savile connection being just a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory (I myself was subjected to such smears by libtards):
If we furthermore take into account additional evidence such as the following from here
In an interview by Dr Anthony Clare for the radio series In the Psychiatrist’s Chair in 1991, Savile appeared to be “a man without feelings”.[50][51] “There is something chilling about this 20th-century ‘saint’”, Clare concluded in 1992 in his introduction to the published transcript of this interview.[52] Andrew Neil interviewed him for the TV series Is This Your Life? in 1995 where Savile “used a banana to avoid discussing his personal life”.[53][54]
here,
Former Sex Pistols and Public Image Ltd vocalist John Lydon alluded to sordid conduct committed by Savile, as well as suppression of widely held knowledge about such activity, in an October 1978 interview recorded for BBC Radio 1. Lydon stated: “I’d like to kill Jimmy Savile; I think he’s a hypocrite. I bet he’s into all kinds of seediness that we all know about, but are not allowed to talk about. I know some rumours.” He added: “I bet none of this will be allowed out.”[108]
[…]
In 2012, Sir Roger Jones, a former BBC governor for Wales and chairman of BBC charity Children in Need, disclosed that more than a decade before Savile’s death he had banned Savile from involvement in the charity, because he felt his behaviour was “strange” and “suspicious”, and had heard unsubstantiated rumours about his activities.[125]
Richard Harrison, a long-serving psychiatric nurse at Broadmoor Hospital, said in 2012 that Savile had long been regarded by staff as “a man with a severe personality disorder and a liking for children”. Another nurse, Bob Allen, agreed with assessments of Savile as a psychopath, and stated: “A lot of the staff said he should be behind bars.” Allen also said that he had once reported Savile to his supervisor for apparent improper conduct with a juvenile, but no action was taken.[165]
it seems pretty clear to me that Starmer could have known if he had wanted to know. There is also a good chance that Starmer intentionally did not press charges for a variety of reasons such as not wanting to endanger his career, his life or that of loved ones or being ordered to stand down like a good boy. Examination into Savile and a proper case against him while he was still alive could or would after all most likely have revealed a powerful international paedophile or sex trafficking network à la Jeffrey Epstein’s, and those in that network clearly did not want that too happen (which is also why Epstein most likely got suicided while imprisoned).
So no matter the reasons and whether he did it intentionally or unintentionally, Starmer once again helped the utterly rotten power elites also in this case. That in turn shows a rather consistent picture of which side Starmer really served in the end when head of the CPS, and it also helps us explain why he received a nice and shiny medal from the 1% right after he left his position as head of the CPS.
Throw in other potentially mishandled sex perpetrator cases such as the Worboys case or the Rochdale grooming gang scandal that also happened under Starmer’s watch (see the following article), and the optics become even worse.
And what did Starmer do about it? He engaged in historical revisionism and bemoaned a situation for which he himself as head of CPS was chiefly responsible:
Add this, and you get the overall picture:
3. Starmer’s opposition to Corbyn
Corbyn was one of those rare leaders who was indubitably on the side of the 99%. Any opposition to Corbyn would thus strongly suggest that this is due to the fact that said opposition works primarily for the 1%. Together with many others traitors, Starmer amounted and still amounts to precisely such an anti-Corbyn and hence also to an anti-99% figure:
He was urged by a number of activists to stand to be leader of the Labour Party in the 2015 leadership election following the resignation of Ed Miliband, but he ruled this out, citing his relative lack of political experience.[37][38] During the campaign, Starmer supported Andy Burnham, who finished second to Jeremy Corbyn.[39]
Corbyn appointed Starmer to the shadow Home Office ministerial team as Shadow Minister of State for Immigration, a role from which Starmer resigned in 2016 in protest at Corbyn’s leadership, along with numerous other Labour MPs,[40][41] arguing that it was “simply untenable now to suggest we can offer an effective opposition without a change of leader”.[42]
As such, we have arrived at yet another compelling conclusion for why Starmer represents first and foremost the interests of the 1% and why he is an abysmal Labour leader, because those pro-1% priorities might work for a Tory leader but they certainly wont do for a proper Labour leader.
4. Starmer’s (intentional) mishandling of Brexit
Corbyn is not fault-free in his own downfall, because due to being overly kind — something that might work with people but that certainly does not work in politics (look at what happened to the overly nice Ned Stark in Game of Thrones (he got offed by sick fuck Joffrey Lannister)) — he kept Starmer in the game in what amounts to in incredibly crazy and stupid move:
Shadow Brexit Secretary
Following Corbyn’s re-election as leader in September 2016, Starmer accepted an appointment as shadow Brexit secretary, replacing Emily Thornberry in this role.[43]
The proper move would have been to kick Starmer out as soon as his Trilateral Commission membership or his mishandling of cases when head of CPS became known. Corbyn, however, did not know about that or was far too lenient.
Starmer ‘thanked’ Corbyn by what many, including myself, regard as an intentional mishandling of Labour’s Brexit strategy. After an admittedly Bankster instigated, tax evasion motivated and Cambridge Analytica manipulated close pro-Brexit vote — three facts that were never properly communicated and that could have changed people’s opinions in favor of remain — Starmer positioned Labour to be ground up between the pro-Brexit camp that was dominated by the Conservatives and the Brexit party and the pro-Remain camp that was dominated by the LibDems under Swinson, thereby guaranteeing that Labour lost votes to both leavers and remainers. A too naive Corbyn did not see through it and had to suffer the consequences in and after the less than glorious 2019 election, with the traitor Starmer replacing him at the helm.
5. Starmer’s failure to disclose his donors
It is another well-known fact that plenty of politicians are bought by powerful donors who would prefer to remain unknown for obvious reasons. The politicians who have been bought obviously also would not want to reveal that. Transparency about the funding is consequently required to ensure that politicians are not just bought puppets of some powerful special interest groups which do not have the good of the 99% in mind.
Contrary to other leadership candidates such as Rebecca Long-Bailey, Starmer was entirely intransparent about his donors. The only logical explanation for that is that Starmer has been bought by some degenerates from the 1% such as, for instance, some of his handlers in the Trilateral Commission or perhaps also some filthy right-wing pro-Blairite or pro-Israel figures:
This is the fifth and closing reason for why Starmer, a complete traitor to the 99%, is entirely unfit to lead the UK Labour party.
* * *
EDIT/ADDITION on April 18, 2020: Information on the dark money funders of Starmer have come in and it is just as I predicted two paragraphs above and on April 14 (Israel and Blair):
To quote from the following article:
Trevor Chinn
Data published on the Register of Members’ Interests now shows that Starmer received a £50,000 donation from Trevor Chinn, a member of the executive committee of the British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM).
But it gets even better, because the traitorous piece of shit Starmer only accepted the donations about a month later so that he only had to report them after the Labour ‘leadership’ election was over:
Staggered donations
Starmer received business person Waheed Alli’s donation of £100,000 on 24 February, and accepted the donation on 23 March. Similarly, Starmer received Chinn’s donation on 26 February, and accepted the donation on 23 March.
According to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests Code of Conduct, “MPs must register within 28 days any interest which someone might reasonably consider to influence their actions or words as an MP”.
In accepting the donations in late March, Starmer was not required to register his interests until after the polls closed on 2 April. The Register of Members’ Interests shows that Chinn’s donation was registered on 9 April.
Relevant additional information:
In this directly related article at voxpoliticalonline an appropriate conclusion was drawn:
A responsible man would step back, (I think the word is) recuse himself and allow an independent investigation into the report and his donations, returning to office only if he is found innocent of any wrongdoing or corruption.
Trouble is, he hasn’t done that.
So much for confirmation of my earlier predictions about where Starmer’s dark money comes from and why Starmer is unfit to lead the Labour party (because he has received money from Labour’s and the 99%’s official enemies).
