Showing posts with label Mandelson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mandelson. Show all posts

23 June 2026

Good Riddance to the Most Hated Prime Minister in British History

 Starmer’s Legacy Will Be That He Supplied Weapons to and Defended Israel’s Genocide in Gaza Whilst Destroying Civil Liberties in Britain


Mehdi Hassan Interviews Owen Jones About His Initial Support for Starmer & What Burnham Represents

You will forgive me if I can’t help gloating at the fall of the most amoral, unprincipled liar to have darkened the doors of No. 10. Compare to Starmer even Liz ‘Lettuce’ Truss and Boris Johnson smell like roses.

Even in his resignation speech Starmer couldn’t help but lie. He claimed to have ripped out the poison of anti-Semitism from the Labour Party whereas what he did was to expel the supporters of the Palestinians, opponents of Zionism and the Genocide that he helped enable.

I Hate Keir Starmer

Starmer managed to expel a record number of Jews, anti-Zionist and anti-racist Jews of course. Being Jewish in the Labour Party meant you were five times more likely to be expelled than non Jews. This was how Starmer fought ‘anti-Semitism’.

Underneath the rhetoric, Starmer was an anti-Semite. Jews were there to legitimise British imperialism. Anti-Zionist Jews were invisible as they didn’t suit his foreign policy agenda. Anti-Semitism and Zionism have always gone together and Starmer was the personification of the anti-Semitic non-Jewish Zionist.


I am surprised though that he forgot to mention in his statement the debt he owed to Peter Mandelson. It was Mandelson who brought Morgan McSweeney in from the cold and enabled his candidacy for Labour Leader even if he was in the end responsible for triggering the process that led to his resignation.


I thought at first it was an oversight but then I realised that paying tribute to a corrupt friend of Jeffrey Epstein, a Zionist and paedophile, would have been a step too far.

There was also no mention of Starmer’s role in attacking basic civil liberties alongside a compliant judiciary. All in the name of ‘national security’. Like in all police states there is no longer a right to demonstrate or protest. There was no difference between Starmer and Sunak/Truss when it came to the constant attacks on the right to protest.


I welcome the fact that the rat has deserted the sinking ship. It is no comfort of course that Starmer’s successor, Andy Burnham, will be no different. Changing the captain when the ship is heading for the rocks will make no difference unless it also changes course.

The failure of Starmer’s ‘Labour’ Government was not simply because of his own palpable inadequacies. The problem lies with the political project that sees Labour propping up a failing imperialist state.

Despite my loathing for Starmer and all he stood for, I take pride in two things. First the fact that Starmer was the first person to welcome my expulsion from the Labour Party, with a solitary word, ‘good’. One of his characteristics is that he is a man of few words and even fewer ideas.



Like Horatio Bottomley Starmer was a corrupt right-wing nationalist but unlike him he was anything but popular. Starmer’s corruption was not so much financial, though there was  plenty of that, but a corruption of the political process. Starmer came to power through the Labour Together outfit, who hid their donations for fear of what they might reveal.

Starmer also hid the donations he received from right-wing Zionists, businessmen and crooked financiers from Labour Party voters when he stood for Labour Leader. He relied on the rules rather than being honest and open about who was funding him. His cynicism was such that he stood on a left-wing manifesto whilst relying on right-wing businessmen to fund his campaign.

Amongst those who donated to Starmer was

Lord Waheed Alli         £100,000 (he also gave financial backing to Andy Burnham in the 2015 Labour leadership contest).

Bob Latham        £100,000. 

Martin Taylor      £95,000, a hedge fund manager.

Clive Hollick,       £50,000 a businessman & co-founder of the Institute for Public Policy Research. 

Trevor Chinn       £50,000 a notorious Zionist who funds Labour Friends of Israel. 

Peter Coates       £25,000, Bet365 owner. 

Martin Clarke     £25,000, former AA finance director

Paul Myners       £10,000, ex-CEO at Marks & Spencers. Along with Martin Taylor, Myners helped finance the anti-Corbyn group Labour Tomorrow.

This totalled £455,000 compared to £81,400 from three right-wing trade unions, UNISON, Community and USDAW. This is how Starmer’s Labour Party was captured.

It was an honour and pleasure for me to know that I had antagonised Starmer to the extent that he blocked me on X. Clearly my pearls of wisdom riled him.

Alexei Sayle brought out a brilliant video ‘Why I hate Keir Starmer’ which summed Starmer up perfectly. However I don’t hate Starmer, I despise him and all he stands for.

Starmer was a man of few talents with the exception of his ability to lie. Who else could make 10 Pledges to get elected and then break every single one?

The Pledge I loved the most was No. 4 – Titled ‘Promote peace and human rights’. He said

‘No more illegal wars. Introduce a Prevention of Military Intervention Act and put human rights at the heart of foreign policy. Review all UK arms sales and make us a force for international peace and justice.’

Starmer's idea of ‘peace and human rights’ was supplying arms and intelligence to Israel so it could carry out a genocide in Gaza. Starmer denied that there was a genocide in Gaza despite Israel massacring tens of thousands of civilians, destroying 90% of buildings including hospitals and schools and ethnic cleansing, raping and torturing. But Starmer had no problem describing other massacres as genocide.

Starmer never did explain why 8,000 dead in Srebenica was a genocide but Gaza wasn’t a genocide. I doubt that even the worst neo-Nazi holocaust denier could match him.

On 2 February 2020, two months before Labour’s leadership election, I wrote a blog Keir Starmer is the candidate that the Deep State & the British  Establishment want you to vote for’ .

Unfortunately most Labour Party members weren't able to see through Starmer and his record as Director of Public Prosecutions when he persecuted Julian Assange and protected Jimmy Saville.

There is less excuse for Owen Jones who wrote an article for The Guardian 'Starmer can succeed, and he deserves our support.'  There really was no excuse for this as a cursory dive into his record as DPP would have shown he was fiercely reactionary and pro-Police and contemptuous of civil liberties.  I take no pleasure in once again being right but the reason why it was so obvious was that I looked beyond the sound bites and the wishful thinking to what Starmer's actual record was. And incidentally there was no excuse for being taken in by Starmer's nonsense about 'antisemitism' either, except that Owen Jones too had not yet seen the light.

However let it not be said that Starmer didn’t provide us with a certain amusement. The man who proclaimed his honesty and integrity ended up taking over £100,000 in freebies. The highest of any MP. Lord Ali provided him and his wife with thousands of pounds of clothes. Even her knickers were paid for by the generous Ali.

Starmer declared himself a ‘Zionist (i.e. racist) without qualification.’ And he told LBC that Israel had the right to starve the Palestinians of Gaza and cut off water and fuel, before denying he said it.

Starmer was so right-wing that even the anti-Semitic Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, praised him.

Despite being a practiced liar Starmer was never very good at it. Indeed he was never very good at anything. His speeches were wooden, like a child trying too hard, with that squeaky voice which  told us he didn’t mean a word of it.

Starmer came to power via Labour Together as Paul Holden documented in The Fraud. He then rewarded the central players in the conspiracy, including Josh Simons and Morgan McSweeney. As soon as the heat became too much Simons abandoned him for Andy Burnham leaving Starmer high and dry. The irony is that Labour Together was anything but together.

Many people have commented on Starmer’s lack of personality or charisma. In a blog ‘Mogadon Man Assumes the Leadership of the Labour Party’ straight after he was elected Labour Leader I saw that Starmer’s personality was a reflection of his dishonesty.

To Starmer truth and lies were mere matters of convenience. All that mattered was choosing which was most beneficial. Starmer settled a libel action with Labour Party staff alleging ‘anti-Semitism’, even though they didn’t have a case, because he thought that that would ‘prove’ that Labour under Corbyn was anti-Semitic. The kind of trickery that lawyers regularly engage in.

Starmer’s lack of charisma was because he believed in nothing apart from his own personal advancement. Starmer was a human rights lawyer who didn’t believe in human rights.

It was no wonder that in his first speech as Labour leader all he could do was invent a story about his father. It was tedium magnified to listen to the same story about his toolmaker father who also owned the factory he worked in! Ironically Starmer’s dad was a Jeremy Corbyn supporter. He would have turned in his grave to see how his son turned out.

None of us know whether the rent boys who tried to set fire to Starmer’s house had something on him. Difficult as it is to imagine, there is clearly more to this story than meets the eye. And the one thing they were not is agents of Russia as the BBC tells us.

Still no one can say Starmer didn’t manage to achieve anything. He obtained the second highest Labour majority on the lowest vote for a majority government (34%), 6% less than Corbyn in 2017. Starmer even managed, as an incumbent Prime Minister, to secure a lower percentage of support in his own constituency in 2024 than in 2019. His majority was halved from 22,766 in 2019 to 11,572 in 2024.


Ironically this was because of the 7,312 votes of ex-ANC MP Andrew Feinstein, who besides being a Jewish anti-Zionist is, unlike Starmer principled.

However Starmer does have one achievement to his name. Starmer was the most hated and despised Prime Minister on record.

I won’t wish Starmer well in whatever new career he takes up because there are too many dead Palestinian children who might have lived but for him.

Contrary to the view of Mehdi Hassan in the interview with Owen Jones, I don't believe that Andy Burnham represents any fundamental change with Keir Starmer. He has already made his position clear that he doesn't believe there is a Genocide in Gaza.

It's not any surprise therefore that he has been given a warm welcome by the Israel Embassy front, Labour Friends of Israel. 

It is also reported that has had a blazing row with Starmer because he wants to increase 'Defence' i.e. War expenditure. If so we are  in for more of the same but with a smiling face .

I suspect that Burnham will have an equally short honeymoon to that which Starmer enjoyed or rather didn't enjoy. He supported the Iraq War and was a devoted Blairite. There is nothing left-wing about Burnham. His only virtue is not being Keir Starmer.

Tony Greenstein 

Posted by at 9 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 May 2026

What Does the Publication of Anti-semitic Caricatures Tell Us About The Real Motives for Attacking Zack Polanski?

 Conservative & Upper Class Anti-Semitism Hasn’t Disappeared - It’s Simply Morphed Into Zionism, a Jewish Form of Anti-Semitism

The growth of the Green Party from a fringe into a major party has resulted in the launch of the same ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign that destroyed Jeremy Corbyn.

Candidates’ posts were scrutinised for any sign that they opposed Israel’s Genocide. If they confused the term ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’ then that was held to be a major crime. The fact that Zionists spend most of their time telling us that Israel is a Jewish state and that opposition to Zionism is anti-Semitic is irrelevant. If you blame Jews then you will be targeted.

The Zionists  drew up the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism which says calling Israel a racist state or comparing it to the Nazis is anti-Semitic. This is Orwellian Doubletalk.

The real ‘crime’ of some candidates was not anti-Semitism but having misspoken or believing the Zionists assertion that their crimes are Jewish crimes.

Their real ‘crime’ in the Zionist and Establishment’s eyes was not hatred of Jews but hatred of Zionism and Israeli Apartheid. The Zionists don’t understand that using children as target practice for the Israeli Defence Force is not something most people approve. A refinement on this is shooting boys in their testicles.

Palestinian boys shot in testicles as “target practice”


Last weekend Peter Tatchell was assaulted and violently ejected from a demonstration which was purportedly against anti-Semitism but in reality was in support of Genocide in Gaza.

Peter Tatchell attacked by Zionists on Rally Against 'Antisemitism' in reality a Rally4Genocide

Peter genuinely believed, his naivety notwithstanding, that this was a demonstration against anti-Semitism and that opposition to Genocide in Gaza was irrelevant. Not so. The demonstration was organised by virulent Zionists for whom ‘anti-Semitism’ is not hatred of Jews but hatred of Zionism, Genocide and Apartheid.

The Green Party have an advantage, in fact two advantages, over Corbyn. One is that they have an articulate Jewish person as leader whereas Corbyn was inarticulate, bumbling and clueless.

The second advantage is that they have the benefit of hindsight. They can see that the anti-Semitism smear campaign against Labour led to the most corrupt, right-wing and racist ‘Labour’ government in history.



Corrupt because Starmer came to lead Labour under false pretences. Corrupt because he hid the financing of his campaign until it was all over. Corrupt because he spent his leadership taking freebies – even his wife’s knickers were paid for by Lord Waheed Alli. Corrupt because Starmer became leader thanks to the Fraud of Labour Together that Paul Holden exposed. 


Starmer made a corrupt and perhaps paedophile friend of Epstein, Peter Mandelson, into US Ambassador and then lied about what he knew. Corrupt because he ennobled friends of paedophiles like Matthew Doyle and Mike Katz, Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, a Zionist group which nurtured paedophiles in its ranks  including Ivor  Caplin, its former chair and Liron Velleman, former policy officer and councillor.

The consequence of the false anti-Semitism smears against Corbyn were the rise of a Labour leadership which was racist to the core. Shabana Mahmood, a key player in Labour Together from the beginning, who sought to outdo Reform in her proposals on the naturalisation of refugees. So appalling were they that Tommy Robinson praised her proposals.



Starmer’s ‘Labour’ Government supplied arms to fuel the Genocide in Gaza. Starmer even defended the right of Israel to starve Palestinians and then denied that he had said so.

At the same time the Government introduced more police-state legislation attacking the right to protest. Starmer is now proposing banning Palestinian marches because he alleges they are the cause of the anti-Semitic attacks in recent months. All without a scrap of evidence. And then there was the ban on Palestine Action which provoked mass civil disobedience.

Many socialists have found themselves in the Green Party, not out of choice but because of a lack of choice. If Corbyn hadn’t been determined to witchhunt socialists and had turned his attention to building Your Party instead of stifling it, then we might now have a genuine mass Left Party.

In July 1982 Corbyn was the "provisional convener" of "Defeat the Witch-Hunt Campaign". In 2025 he became the Witchfinder General and inserted the unelected Karie Murphy into a position of power in YP. From 850,000 initial inquiries and an 18% poll rating at one time, YP has now all but disappeared. If Corbyn hadn’t destroyed an emerging Left Party then it’s doubtful that the Green Party would grown. 

Zack Polanski should thank Corbyn for having recruited so many Green Party members. What we face is a situation where the old Green Party establishment and Green Party Zionists such as Elise Benjamin and supported by Rachel Millward have adopted the media’s anti-Semitism narrative.



That is why it is worth taking a closer look at the bona fides of this rejuvenated smear campaign and where it is coming from. The national media have accepted that the Green Party today is anti-Semitic and that Polanski is to blame.

It is interesting that the Media have resorted to publishing anti-Semitic caricatures of Polanski which resemble Nazi cartoons. The Times, Mail, Sun & Telegraph have demonstrated that what they are not interested in is opposing genuine anti-Semitism.

Their imagery has included all the traditional features of Jews like big noses, grasping, leering, lecherous features. All the stuff of Julius Streicher’s famous Nazi paper Der Sturmer .

Reform were first off the mark when their Brighton and Hove branch published an anti-Semitic cartoon of Polanski. The Board of Deputies said they would be ‘raising the issue’ with Reform. This did not stop them from inviting a Reform speaker to their demonstration against 'anti-Semitism'. If it had been a socialist paper that had published an anti-Semitic cartoon then they would have been singing from the rooftops.

However the BOD and CAA did refuse to invite Polanski to their rally, which clearly demonstrates where their priorities really lie.

The Zionist 'antisemitism' march that was a thinly disguised march for genocide

This hypocrisy is why we should treat with contempt the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign against Green council candidates and welcome the fact that so many of them, like Mark Adderley, have been elected.

Having spoken to a number of them I can confirm the fact that they are not anti-Jewish. What they are concerned about is the savagery and brutality of the IDF in Gaza and the fact that these crimes are supported by a majority of Jewish people in this country.

It’s not surprising when so-called Jewish representative bodies like the Board of Deputies and the misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism support the genocide and attack opponents as anti-Semitic that people confuse being Jewish and Zionist. Being Jewish and a racist are not synonymous although many Jews in this country are Islamophobes like Gary Mond, former senior-vice president of the BOD.

To misspeak is not to be an anti-Semite. Historically Zionists were the best friends of the anti-Semites and not much has changed. The anti-Semites wanted Jews to leave the countries they lived in and the Zionists were happy to oblige.

The Zionist idea of a ‘Jewish Return’ to Palestine was anti-Semitic because it assumed that Jews did not belong in the countries they lived in. As the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, wrote in his Diaries: 

The anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.’ It was true then in 1895 and its true today.

But what the anti-Semitic cartoons of the press demonstrates is that beneath their support for Zionism there still remains the traces of upper class anti-Semitism which they reserve for those opposed to their colonial project. To these people, even the most obsequious and loyal Zionists are still not 'one of us' however hard they try. 

Tony Greenstein

Posted by at 3 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

6 February 2026

Victory for the Filton 24 As Jury Acquits Them On The Most Serious Charge of Aggravated Burglary

Let Noone Be Under Any Doubt That It is ‘Perverse’ Acquittals Such as This That Are Responsible for Starmer & Lammy’s Attempts to Abolish Juries

Press Conference & Speeches at the Acquittal of Six of the Filton 24 4.2.26.

It says something about the fake democracy in which we live that the Filton 6, whose trial has just ended, faced life sentences for trying to prevent genocide, whereas the legal system, represented by Judge Jeremy Johnson, did its best to convict them.  Because in trials today of Palestine solidarity protesters we face two prosecutors – one in the well of the court and one on the bench.

It was a long 10 weeks trial at Woolwich Crown Court for the six defendants. They were charged with aggravated burglary, criminal damage and violent disorder. Samuel Corner was also charged with grievous bodily harm.

On the most serious charge, of aggravated burglary, all 6 defendants were acquitted. Since all of the Filton 24 were charged with this, it logically follows that since the first 6 have been acquitted that this charge should be dropped against the other 18. It is after all a ‘joint enterprise’ charge.

Even Lammy, the Injustice Secretary, should be able to understand that if all 24 enter a factory and 6 are not guilty of burglary that it makes no sense to try the other 18.

On the next most serious charge, violent disorder, which carries a 5 year sentence, 3 of the defendants, Fatema Zainab Rajwani, Zoe Rogers and Jordan Devlin were acquitted and the jury failed to reach a verdict on the other 3.

On the question of whether they were guilty of criminal damage the jury could not agree. They also could not agree whether or not Samuel Corner was guilty of grievous bodily harm.

One thousand new recruits as Palestine Action ban tabled, with Asa Winstanley

In other words, after 8 days of deliberation the jury didn’t return a single guilty verdict. From the perspective of the Crown Prosecution Service, it throws into doubt their whole strategy of criminalising Palestine Actionists as terrorists and seeking to lock them up for years.

Judge Jeremy Johnson - represented MI6, ruled Assange's Deportation Could Proceed - Reactionary to the Tip of his Toes

Judge Jeremy Johnson did his best to obtain a conviction. When a juror asked whether they were allowed to acquit because the defendants genuinely believed that they were destroying weapons to prevent their use in genocide, Johnson replied ‘no’.

It also explains why, given the doubts that must have existed as to whether these charges would stick, the CPS, which is de facto a government department, sought to deny the defendants bail.

They did this knowing that the Judiciary, despite its much proclaimed  independence, is in reality about as independent of the government as a dog on a leash. Judges have historically been in the forefront of government repression and today they are behaving no differently.

Yvette Cooper and Starmer had, in complete defiance of legal norms, pronounced that members of Palestine Action had attacked the police with a sledge hammer as justification for the proscription of Palestine Action even before this fact was or was not established in a court of law.

Elbit security guard attacking Palestine Action defendants with sledgehammer

This was widely publicised by the prostitute press as fact when it was hotly disputed. As it turned out Samuel Corner had been blinded by Pava, synthetic pepper spray and was responding to what were called ‘blood curdling screams’ by Zoe Rogers who had been tasered twice and then dragged around by a police officer with his foot on her stomach.

The violence of the security thugs that Elbit employed to defend their factory of death were not been mentioned by Starmer or Cooper. Nor was the violence against the protesters who had come to dismantle the quadcopters and other systems that Elbit produces in order that Israel can murder civilians and children.

When it comes to Andrew-Mountbatten then the Police are remarkably unconcerned about the Royal Rapist

We also know from the Epstein Affair that Starmer and his friends are remarkably unconcerned about child abuse, including the mass slaughter of Palestinian children. Israeli religious figures like Rabbis Mali and Dov Lior have explicitly endorsed the murder of Palestinian children to prevent a new generation of resistance fighters being born.

Those who support Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its mass murder of children cannot expect us to take seriously their proclamations of horror at Epstein’s friend, Peter Mandelson, being appointed as Ambassador to the United States. What is remarkable though is the lengths to which the mass media are determined to sensationalise the Epstein saga and keep Israel out of it when we know that Epstein was running a honey trap for Mossad.

There has also been a concerted attempt in recent years by politicians and judges to withdraw defences for protesters. In particular key defences such as "justification" and "lawful excuse".

The most significant shift occurred through Attorney General’s Reference (No. 1 of 2023), March 2024 in the wake of the Colston 4 trial in January 2022. The Attorney General, Suella Braverman, made the reference to the Court of Appeal who gave her what she wanted.

This ruling dramatically curtailed the "belief in consent" defence. The Court of Appeal ruled that a defendant’s political or philosophical beliefs (such as opposing the arms trade or genocide) are not "circumstances" of the damage that can be put to a jury. Juries are supposed to believe that groups of people, for some unknown reason, have taken such a dislike to a factory that they get together to smash it up.

This prevents protesters from explaining the reasons for their actions (e.g., stopping war crimes) as a legal justification for damaging property. Trial judges now have greater authority to withdraw these defences from the jury before they even deliberate if the judge decides the legal threshold for "circumstances" hasn't been met.

Following the "Stansted 15" and subsequent cases, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that the defence of "necessity" (acting to prevent a greater harm) is generally unavailable to protesters who choose "maximally disruptive" tactics.

Attorney General's Reference No. 1 of 2022 also ruled that the right to protest under Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR cannot be used as a "lawful excuse" for "significant" criminal damage. 

Nonetheless juries, such as that in the Filton 6 trial have often ignored the rulings of judges because in their eyes the purpose of a trial is to see that justice is done. If that means disregarding the bigoted views of reactionary judges then that is what they are prepared to do.

This is called a ‘perverse verdict’ or ‘jury equity’. The key case is that of Edward Bushell’s in 1670 when two Quakers, William Mead and William Penn were charged with preaching to an unlawful assembly. Despite being instructed by the judge to return a verdict of guilty, the jury refused to do so, even after having been imprisoned in the Tower for two days without food, fire, tobacco or water.

Perverse verdicts occur when a jury acquits a defendant despite believing they broke the law, often because they find the law unjust, its application unfair, or the punishment too harsh, effectively "nullifying" or invalidating the law in that specific case. Examples include that of Clive Ponting, the Trident Ploughshares and Randle and Potter cases. The same happened in the United States in cases involving the Fugitive Slave Act and Prohibition laws.

Jurors have the power to deliver a "not guilty" verdict, which cannot be overturned, though courts discourage openly encouraging nullification, viewing it as a controversial feature of common law rooted in the jury's right to decide a case as they see fit, even if contrary to the evidence.

It was perhaps best expressed by Thomas Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord, described by fellow judge Lord Hope as the greatest jurist of his day.

Bingham addressed the issue of acquittals contrary to the evidence by reference to a number of high-profile acquittals:

“... the acquittals of such high-profile defendants as Ponting, Randle and Pottle have been quite as much welcomed as resented by the public, which over many centuries has adhered tenaciously to its historic choice that decisions on the guilt of defendants charged with serious crime should rest with a jury of lay people, randomly selected, and not with professional judges. That the last word should rest with the jury remains, as Sir Patrick Devlin, writing in 1956, said (Hamlyn Lectures, pp 160, 162): ‘an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man’s idea of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement… The executive knows that in dealing with the liberty of the subject it must not do anything which would seriously disturb the conscience of the average Member of Parliament or of the average juryman. I know of no other real checks that exist today upon the power of the executive.’”

There is therefore a tension between Jury Equity and the instructions that judges give to juries.

There is no doubt that Lammy’s attempt to restrict jury trials to offences carrying over a 3 year prison sentence has nothing to do with delays in the hearings of trials, for which there is no evidence. His real concern is ‘perverse’ verdicts. Lammy knows that judges can be relied on to convict in political and direct action cases when a jury would refuse to do so.

Starmer’s regime is proving itself in every sense anti-democratic at home and genocidal abroad. It is riddled with corruption and none is more corrupt than Starmer himself who came top of the league when it came to getting ‘freebies’ from rich individuals and corporations. Fortunately it would appear that the days of Starmer, in the wake of the Mandelson Affair, are numbered.

Particular praise should go to Rajiv Menon KC who made a quite remarkable speech, sections of which are in a post by Jonathan Cook.

The result of the trial is that once again a jury has defied expectations. In the case of the charges of criminal damage Judge Johnson said that this was :

unlikely to cause you difficulty, given there was no dispute that the defendants who had given evidence at least intentionally damaged property in Elbit’s premises”.

How wrong this reactionary judge was. When the verdicts were read out it would appear that the charge of criminal damage caused great difficulty. So much so that the jury could not agree on a verdict!

However you will not be surprised to learn that the Board of Deputies found the verdict ‘troubling’ if not anti-Semitic. It urged the government to

provide clear direction in tackling hate crime and extremist violence. This incident underlines the urgency of the Home Office’s current review into public order and hate crime legislation.

This was because Palestine Action was a group ‘whose activities have included targeting businesses linked to the Jewish community in London and Manchester.’ In other words because Elbit is owned by Israelis British Jews are complicit in their genocidal activities.

Tony Greenstein

Victory for Palestine Action as “Filton 6” acquitted

Supporters respond as first six Filton 24 prisoners walk free

Palestine Action activists cleared of aggravated burglary at Israeli defence firm site

UK pro-Palestinian activists acquitted of 2024 aggravated burglary at Elbit factory


Posted by at 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)