UKH

If this is true, it's quite disturbing:

https://novaramedia.com/2021/03/02/keir-starmer-is-a-long-time-servant-of-t...

Probably the most disturbing bit:

"Starmer treated allies and employees of the US–UK security apparatus somewhat differently to its opponents. In 2010 he was asked to rule on the case of Binyam Mohamed, a terror suspect who had been arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and tortured under the supervision of four FBI officers. Mohamed was kept in a 2m by 2.5m cell, beaten frequently with a leather strap and hung from the ceiling for an entire week. During this period, he was visited by MI5 agents who observed his punishment first-hand, and warned that if he did not answer their questions he would be sent to a country whose laws would permit the use of more extreme interrogation tactics. This is precisely what happened three months later. The CIA transferred him to a secret prison in Morocco, where his captors repeatedly slashed his penis and chest with razor blades, burnt him with hot liquid and forced him to stay awake for 48-hour periods while playing loud repetitive music. MI5 continued to oversee the operation from afar, providing Mohamed’s interrogators with specific questions about his contacts in the UK and discussing the timescale of his detention with them. After he was released without charge, Mohamed produced evidence of British involvement in his torture, and it fell to Starmer to decide whether the lead MI5 officer would be prosecuted. Starmer declared he would not. He later made the same ruling in relation to an MI6 officer accused of sanctioning the torture of detainees in Bagram Air Base."

Of course, if it's false I look forward to the legal eagle's swift action to have it taken down. It's been said that his legal expertise is the reason the right wing press have not been publishing negative press about him, I guess the left wing press will just have to learn the hard way.

Have you considered that he probably declared that within the legal framework that existed at the time? You cannot just prosecute people for something if there is no legal case, even if they are guilty. Remember that the state has gone to great lengths to make their questionable/immoral covert operations technically legal.

Can't say I'm surprised.

I had high hopes for Keir Starmer before he was elected - he ran on a supposedly "soft left" ticket, but I have been profoundly disappointed with his leadership and I find it immensely distasteful for a supposedly left wing Leader of the Opposition to be crapping on about "family values" - this is Tory talk, FFS!

This sums him up for me:

youtube.com/watch?v=bi2_2ogPMvo&

I don’t see the OP calling for prosecutions. Just possibly calling for more negative press. 

The negative press is based on failure to prosecute. There's a world of difference between Starmer (or the CPS) not prosecuting on political grounds if there's a case to answer, or not prosecuting because there's no legal way of doing so.

The CPS don't prosecute ordinary criminals on a regular basis, if they think the police don't have a totally watertight case.

That'll upset Rob Exile Ward!!!

I'm sure it will cheese off a lot of folk!

Then there's this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/mar/02/lawyers-complain-to-labour...

Ah, more anti-Semitism, eh...?

I have. Did you read the article?

What do you find anti-semitic about the suggestion the party shouldn't be hiring people from regimes involved in illegal occupations?

I think there's bigger issues here than me being upset.

Though I have to say, the glee which people display as Labour make themselves more and more unelectable is pretty puzzling.

Well I counted four lies in the second paragraph and stopped reading.

What's the digital equivalent of the phrase "wouldn't wipe my arse with that rag"?

What don't you understand about the use of an ellipsis to denote irony?

People objecting to the hiring of an Israeli. Therefore, obviously anti-semites, eh...?

That's all magically disappeared now though, hasn't it?

It's like it all fooked off when Corbyn was no longer a threat of becoming PM. Supposedly rife within the party and nest of vipers as it were, but lose one bloke who fought against racism and injustice for most of his life and it all disappears.

I wasn't sure either, but took it to be ironic.

I find smiley faces more use to demote irony or "quotes".

I suppose this answers the question “Does anyone really take Novara Media seriously?”

Why would some “luxury communists” want to engage in Orwellian reality bending? Could it be that Sir Keir (or Keith if you are a certain kind of moronic dickhead) has committed the crime of not being the blessed Jeremy!

Apparently you haven't because it was not followed due to lack of evidence. If there was suitable evidence to support a prosecution, it would have been harder to dismiss the case. Do you think for one microsecond that any of the shit MI5 and MI6 get up to is not done with great care not to leave evidence that would incriminate them?

And yes, I did read the article, it goes to great lengths of character assassination of that particular non-pragmatic type I'm used to seeing from both the left and the right, ignoring political realities, diplomatic relations, international relations with allies etc. If Starmer had done *one* of the things that article states he should have done he'd be out of a job in the blink of an eye.

Let me give you a good example:

"Even then, Starmer could have challenged this legally dubious action by pressing ahead with the application. But he was unwilling to do so, as a CPS spokesperson attested: “The DPP has refused to give his consent to the private prosecutor to make an application to the court for an arrest warrant. In considering this application, he has consulted the attorney general, but the decision is his.”"

Are you people insane!? Have you got any idea what would happen if the CPS just requested the arrest of a cabinet member from an allied country here on official business, for something that in the eyes of said ally was a defence matter, i.e. was an act of their state?

No, it's just that the Labour party is no longer a safe haven for racists. They've spent the last year suspending and expelling them. They've been holding disciplinary hearings twice a week for the last ten months to get through the backlog and implemented a process where AS complaints can be raised. Others have left the party. About 80000 members have left but have been replaced by about the same number. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on.

The folk in Novara Media, the Canary, Skwawkbox are watching with horror as their jobs are now under threat. Hence the increasingly desperate attempts to smear the leader. They're more interested in the preservation of the crank left gravy train than putting the Labour party into government.

It's only Tory talk because the Tories have been allowed to co-opt the term as a right-wing signifier. The traditional working class was always strong on family values, and to appeal to a broad spectrum of voters the Labour Party needs to remember that this is still the case for many people. The task Starmer has is to reframe 'family values' as being liberal, equalitarian and open, not narrowly conservative and prejudiced. 

This piece from last summer pretty much agrees with you in that it shows how the left online media have become marginalised and isolated:

https://theconversation.com/how-left-wing-media-sites-have-changed-their-co...

- and opted to smearing and criticising the Labour leadership. As ever, they aren't really interested in electing a Labour government. 

How many were expelled?

How many have been prosecuted, after all it's against the law?

While I'm not saying there wasn't a problem, the daily reporting of AS in the Labour party and how deeply ingrained it was, went over a cliff edge, the day after the election. Not much different in membership or people expelled from the week previous.

Don't want to get into defending Corbyn or whether AS was blown up for political means, but you don't think it's a little fishy it disappeared overnight?

I'd suggest it never was a safe haven for racists, there were a few simpletons who had difficulty expressing themselves and a few outright racists which should have been dealt with better.

At the time there seemed to be at least a couple of Jewish groups, who supported Labour, which never had their voices heard, it was always the Board of Deputies, who seemed to have the ear of the press.

Membership is on the decline though and since people need to renew on a yearly basis, I'm not sure you can read too much into those figures.

Is this an impartial trusted source?  Who sponsors this commie outfit?

Infokrieg alert

looks as if you have at least been assumed to have posted trusted info by other posters so now you have the target, 10 rounds repeat for effect, feed that OODAloop

Absolutely and somehow the sainted Assange is also involved as a victim of Starmer according to this piece! 

You don't think Assange's publication of innocent people being killed by a US helicopter gunship, worthy information?

Edit: for which no one has yet been prosecuted. Do you think it's OK for governments to hide such murders from the world?

Membership isn't declining. It waxes and wanes and it may be down on its all time high but hasn't changed from typical numbers from the last five years.

I can't remember how many have been expelled in the last year.I saw a report recently but don't want to rely on my memory to quote a number which included cases of various flavours of racism. However the number of cases that have been dealt with is far in excess of the numbers processed in the last five years.

Assange dumped around a quarter of a million documents on the internet, one of which was the gunship video. There would have been a vast amount of sensitive information in there that would be extremely useful to insurgents and terrorists in developing tactics, identifying vulnerabilities and planning attacks. 

He may well have ended up causing far more civilian casualties than that gunship crew. If he'd only leaked that video, (or videos with similar content), then I'd say it was a principled thing to do. As it is, I just think he's an irresponsible tw*t with an unhealthy interest in 'surprise sex'.

Interestingly after your post I had a google about 25 get kicked out on one day last year.

There's no chance to appeal or represent yourself and they've been asked not to have it on the agendas of the local meetings! See below the post from one expelee.

I also found an article about a University not accepting the IHRA AS recommendations, which made headline news for a few days when Labour declined to sign up, IIRC the Tories haven't signed up to that either.

With this in mind it's not easy to right off completely the accusations weren't in some way politically motivated, at least to some extent or in some cases.

[I] Joined the Labour Party in 2016, when it opened its doors to socialists – who are, by definition, anti-imperialists. I regret I am now among the numerous victims of a purge driven by right-wing heresy hunters, bureaucratic enemies of free speech . But at least I can use this occasion to promote the views I have been advocating for many years; in particular, socialist opposition to the Zionist project of colonisation and the Jewish-supremacist regime of the Israeli settler state. For a start, I urge you to read my three articles referred to in Item 7 of the Notice of Suspension. Two of them are available online:
* ‘Messianic Zionism: The ass and the red heifer’ (Monthly Review, February 2020).
*  ‘Weaponising “anti-Semitism”’ (Weekly Worker 23 April 2020).

Moshé Machover December 3, 2020

Moshé Machover (Hebrew: משה מחובר‎; born 1936) is a mathematician, philosopher, and socialist activist, noted for his writings against Zionism. Born to a Jewish family in Tel Aviv, then part of the British Mandate of Palestine, Machover moved to Britain in 1968 where he became a naturalised citizen. He was a founder of Matzpen, the Israeli Socialist Organisation, in 1962.

Anyhow, I thought it was interesting.

There's also the Panama papers though, and plenty of other stuff (the video was low hanging fruit), so it wasn't just a few videos. What you're asking for is for him to be the arbiter of what's OK and what isn't.

For people to attack him, surely they should also go after the people involved, it seems to me a lot of people are  only interested in prosecuting him, and they don't care about the people involved. What is sauce for the goose, and all that.

Actually the Panama papers were an example of how it should be done, a conglomerate of proper journalists from America, U.K. and Germany received the info not wiki leaks and spent some considerable time investigating and building a coherent story from the info.

They didn’t just dump people’s and companies banking details all over the web.

This may have been true in the time of Queen Victoria but not now. 

Depends on what you mean by "many people". If you mean a few hundred thousand, that could count as many, but his pathetic efforts to pander to "middle England" risk him losing the current youth vote that Corbyn was building.

He's really arsed that up!

Yes, but that has nothing to do with his refusal to go to Sweden to face his accusers for the completely unrelated sexual assualt charges.

IIRC, that was leaked from US sources to Wikileaks. I'm not sure how the UK government had anything to do with hiding or not hiding US potential war crimes. 

I think given that it is a digital publication, it would be quite messy if you tried!

The Panama papers were leaked (responsibly) by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Assange actually criticised them for assessing the possible impact, to which they responded “We're not WikiLeaks. We're trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly" 

I'm asking him, or anyone, to consider the consequences of what they're leaking on innocent people. I'd certainly apply that morality to myself.

Assange is no different in attitude to Billy-Bob the gung-ho apache gunner. It's all about the kudos of getting the 'bad guys', hosing down the entire village with 30mm to do it doesn't register with them as being wrong. 

I'd be more than happy if both 'sides' ended up in a call.

Another off-the-peg bit of Starmer derangement. Novara have settled on astroturfing this ridiculous shit as it's their only chance at a level of engagement where Aaron Bastani doesn't have to get a proper job.

They saw that whilst Corbyn only talking to people who already agreed with him won't win you anything it will get you a gaggle of unquestioning and devoted followers.

Grifting, I think it's called.

"DPP Makes Difficult But Legally Correct Decision" doesn't get as many clicks, you see.

Eight members in Wales were suspended just three weeks ago. You keep repeating the conspiracy trope though, because that is in no way really dodgy to suggest Jewish members just made up antisemitic abuse to hurt Jez.

Thanks for repeatedly proving on here why we can be glad he's gone. Just wish the rest of his fan club would f*ck off as well now. It's possible to be left wing and not an apologist for lies, failure and antisemitism. Many of us manage it everyday.

I stand corrected then, cheers. How about this one ->

US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp 

Date: November 2007

The Leak: One of Assange and WikiLeaks first big releases was of a 238-page Army manual from 2003 on "standard operating procedures" for the Camp Delta prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Revelations: The manual showed the Army had a policy of keeping some prisoners from Red Cross inspectors and holding new prisoners in isolation for two weeks to make them more compliant for interrogators. 

Did you read the rest of my post, or just get too angry to?

"While I'm not saying there wasn't a problem..."

I think also said, I'm not a fan of Corbyn, of it I didn't I have many times before.

I could just as easily accuse you of not wanting to hear anything which might support Corbyn NOT being AS.

Even you might be surprised by the lack of interest in the eight Welsh members being evicted, by the MSM.

Maybe you could give us your thoughts on that, it seems as valid now we should know about it as it was then, I think you'd agree.

My point and you've sort of proved it, is why has everyone lost interest, if AS still exists, and I've always been sure it does and always has, why doesn't anyone care any more?

Why do you think *everyone* has lost interest?

They haven't. Try checking out The Jewish Chronicle for example.

Worth bearing in mind of course that something else started at roughly the same time as Starmer took over as leader. It seems to have been grabbing most of the headlines for the last year or so.

What on earth do you think "family values" are?

You won’t win an election with student politics. Nearly 50 years since a Labour leader other than Tony Blair won an election. 80 seat majority from family values. Middle ground!

The trouble is that in the modern doctrine of information conflict you have won if people engage with the crap posted.  I wasn't joking when I said OODA, look up the link with vote leave - it explains the doctrine you can see being acted out in "Brexit - The Uncivil War".  Best to challenge the motive of the source rather than waste time engaging as the enemy is already regrouping for another thrust

Engaging just propagates the argument and statistically some people will be added to the list of believers

It's a bit early for the 'he made decisions as DPP' attack isn't it? Whatever happened to keeping the powder dry.

Jk

Of course, I'd forgotten your other efforts...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/whats_starmer_got_against-73162...

WWCD?

MSM then, I did mention that in my earlier post.

Not what I'd call MSM. When was the last mention on the BBC?

I realise there are a number of other things happening in the world, but it was like there WASN'T anything else going on in the world, at the time.

It feels like it's gone from one extreme to the other. I believe and always have there's probably a middle ground, where there are some AS in the Labour party and it would be nice if there wasn't, but there's also some AS in "real life" and it would be nice it there wasn't, there's most likely some AS in the Tory party and it would be nice if there wasn't.

The other thing which was tantamount to being burned at the post at the time was Labour not signing up to the IHRA document, I note no one here has picked up on the fact the Tories have adopted the recommendations yet.

This was used to "prove" Labour were all AS at the time of publication.

Why should I answer that question? Surely it's more important what swing voters think.

Well, you could just use one digit...

Why wouldn't you answer that question?

If you can use "family values" to push your politics you must surely be capable of explaining why you think they are a problem?

You don't think the majority of swing voters live in families, love their kids,  care about their environment and plan for the future? 

I know Swampy is probably a swing voter and not quite so committed to those values, but there is only one of him. 

What Would Chuck Do?

People who commit war crimes would find it harder to move around the world with impunity?

Starmer’s not ‘pandering to middle England’- he’s trying to regain the vote in the ‘red line’ constituencies of the North. As for ‘arsed it up’, yes, he needs to be a bit more subtle in his approach than waving a flag or two but this is a work in progress. 

"Political Party Undertaking Mandated Steps To Resolve Problem as Promised By Leader" I would suggest is a less newsworthy headline than "Party Of Social Justice States Antisemitism Problem Overblown As Investigation Instigated by EHRC", but what do I know, I'm not a Fleet Street editor.

He'd only need to be more subtle if the damage done by the previous leadership had been more subtle. Standing in front of the flag and saying the party is patriotic doesn't seem so extreme as a counter to "Let's send the Novichok to Russia and ask Putin what he thinks".

I was amazed to see Swampy back in the media again recently.

I'd been falsely told that he'd died a few years ago, of complications arising from a heart condition because he'd refused a bypass.

Well historically it's been commonly used shorthand for do as I say not as I do bigotry. Down with the gays, women know your place and all that. Who knows what Starmer means by it, nothing much probably, it's sufficiently vague people can read into it what they like, as they ever have.

jk

That is such a naive statement it doesn't even warrant a serious response. It should be entirely obvious to anyone that lives in the real world that it would cause a major diplomatic incident with both Israel and the US and would certainly result in the removal of himself and possibly everyone involved in his department. Diplomatic relations are set by the government of the time, not by the CPS. That would be a ridiculous overreach.

Or make a fist of it... 🤛🏻✊🏻

This Guardian editorial says more or less the same thing. As it says, Starmer needs to translate this vague notion into actual policy-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/11/the-guardian-view-on-...

I admit it might be uncomfortable for us if the arrest and fair trial of war criminals linked to Western regimes and their allies became the norm, but the judiciary should be independent and international law should be upheld regardless of our relationship with the transgressor.

Would you teach your children that they should call the police if they witness an assault by a stranger, but keep quiet if they see an assault by a friend?

Uncomfortable? Catastrophic is the word I would use about the particular scenario discussed here. There are ways to handle this and they involve international diplomacy, not snatching foreign politicians at the border. Imagine the same situation with some member of the Chinese government. Arrest them at the border and we are at war with a nuclear power, against the wishes of the government of the UK. If this is how you think the world works then I suspect that you would have been rather disappointed had St Jeremy of Corbyn had won the election, because it would be a hard crash into reality, just like Tsipras found in Greece.

Geopolitics is not the same as schoolyard spats, just like economics is not the same as the household budget.

Surely to arrest someone for war crimes would require an arrest warrant to be issued by the ICC or similar?

I don't think you can simply arrest foreign nationals, be they western or otherwise,  when they set foot in the UK based on something that was on Wikileaks and occured in another country in which we have no legal jurisdiction.

OK, apologies. The best I can do is this, succintly phrased by Wikipedia:

"values especially of a traditional or conservative kind which are held to promote the sound functioning of the family and to strengthen the fabric of society."

It is clear that in promoting "Family Values", KS is in danger of alienating large numbers of Labour voters (of all types), while driving swing voters to the Tories.

It's still pretty vague though, isn't it? I'd have thought strengthening the fabric of society is pretty uncontroversial.

TBH it's a meaningless soundbite (a bit like Brexit means Brexit) that you can read anything into.

I certainly don't think it's code for rounding up gay people or ethnic minorities and putting them in a camp somewhere, and I'm not sure Mr/Mrs/Ms Average Labour voter would either.

Is it? I may not be seeing clearly but it's not at all obvious to me where he's going with this, if anywhere. Given most people are quite attached to their families and assuming he can distance himself from the hypocritical 'back to basics' sleaze of the late 20th century it seems like an idea that could connect with voters and one that isn't axiomatically regressive. Let's see the policy behind the soundbite (if there is one) before we jump to conclusions.

jk

And I've spoken to Labour members and voters from non-typical, non-heterosexual, non-nuclear family backgrounds who actually felt really excited that the party were going to recognise *their* kind of family as a proper social unit in a modern society. To win against the regressives on both family and country, Labour need to show that there can be progressive definitions of both family values and patriotism. It's not natural easy ground for the party buy they've been on the run from this for years and it's important that they stop just ceding that ground to the Tories and other nationalists.

Those are very good points you make, but he did not mention such unconventional modern families. If he did, I would have no problem with the matter. As far as I know, he hasn't added this detail to his definition of "family values".