It is their plan though. They’re happy trans kids are killing themselves.

wow say you're saying keir starmer knew peter mandelson was a pedo loving corruption magnet and that's exactly why he appointed him?

Keir Starmer is a remarkably unlucky guy when it comes to how many of the people he tries to get cushy jobs for turn out to be friends with paedophiles.

the Mandelson scandal would not now be happening if the media had done their job and properly scrutinised him resuming involvement with top-level politics several years ago.

It wouldn't be happening if his influence didn't extend deep into the structurally dominant clique in 1 of 2 main parties

Also: Peter Mandelson was seen having a piss outside George Osborne's house, and has been much more pally with several Tories than he has been with even *Brownies* in Labour, let alone anyone on the actual left.

Yeah Starmer really needed Robbins to tell him that Peter Mandelson was a wrong un. I think the fact that Starmer is currently caught in two scandals about appointing nonce defenders says it all.

Keir Starmer is a man without any integrity.

He throws other people under buses for no other reason than to save his own skin.

He's not fit to be prime minister - and those who spent years presenting him as a decent man need to have a hard look at themselves.

We've got to at least be honest about what Starmer is. He's not a decent guy, floundering, or badly advised, but well-meaning.

He never was.

Don’t forget about how he refused to do anything about the officers who shot Jean Charles De Menezes.

a philosophy student. Alfie Meadows, was assaulted by a police officer who hit him so hard with a truncheon that he had to undergo emergency brain surgery. While the officer escaped without charge, Meadows himself was prosecuted for violent disorder. After two trials returned inconclusive verdicts, Meadows's lawyers wrote directly to Starmer begging him to drop the case. Starmer declined, and the defendant was brought to trial for a third time. Like Brown, he Was finally acquitted on all counts.

Eagleton quite rightly criticises Starmer's failures in respect of Spycops both as DPP and as Labour leader. He commissioned a whitewash report into the possibility of Spycops-tainted convictions at the CPS, and whipped MPs to abstain at all three readings of the Covert Human Informant Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill. But. as Rob Evans and Paul Lewis point out in their 2014 book Undercover, while Starmer was helping Helen Steel and Dave Morris with the McLibel litigation brought by McDonalds, his legal advice was being passed back to the police spy John Dines (who had deceived Steel into a relationship) Evans and Lewis think it 'highly probable' that the 'confidential legal strategy the activists were receiving from Starmer [...] was passed on to McDonalds' This is an outrage by anvone's standards. and it's hard to imagine how a lawver would react to their legally privileged advice being shared with both the state and the opposing side. The extraordinary thing is that Starmer was, in a certair sense, a personal victim of the Spycops scandal. There are bound to be Home Office reports with his name in them, How did Starmer react? It's not clear when he found out about the scale of Spycops, or his connection to it, and it was 10 months after he stepped down as DPP that the CPS decided not to prosecute four of the officers who had formec relationships with women (it is unknown whether Starmer's spy, Dines, was among them). But he must have known about it during the passage of the CHIS Bill last year, which introduced legal immunities for covert operatives. Starmer was so passionately unopposed to the Bill that he picked a fight with the PLP over whipping them to abstain (suffering a number of resignations), and ensured the defeat of Shami Chakrabarti's House of Lords amendment, which tried to to prevent impunity for undercover agents. Ive struggled to understand this, and the book left me wondering still

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,

Starmer is not a decent person though.

He's been perfectly happy to make morally repugnant decisions throughout his entire career. It has culminated in participation in genocide. He's showed us who he is, again and again. It's our job to believe him. And our fault if we don't.

Setting up a clockwork orange machine so I can strap every ‘Starmer is a decent man’ person and make them rewatch how Starmer treated Diane Abbott (and many other people of colour) for the rest of their natural lives.

Bullshit. Starmer is not a "decent" person. He is a demonstrable, calculating liar who attained the leadership on a platform he then cynically abandoned, point by point. He has also enabled a genocide. Centrism seems to involve an ongoing blindness, obliviousness.

He really fucking isn’t.

Yes.

Her platform already being palatable to someone as far right as Liz Cheney is not making the point you think it's making.

That’s a lie dude. Come on.

David Cameron got that pig's head pregnant and thats where wes streeting came from

It's going to be even worse the next time they appoint Peter Mandelson

what level of leftism is it when you make strong claims about locking up benjamin netanyahu for war crimes to get elected, then pal around for photo ops with war criminals

I hate Labour because I hate Tories, not because I support them.

repost if you hate starmer, the current government or UK labour party

Yes.

He's mad that Trump isn't *enough* of a Nazi, you monumentally useless buffoons

That is what you’re saying though. That Starmer needed Robbins to tell him that the guy who had to resign twice from the government for corruption and who was a known friend of a convicted child molester was in fact a bad guy.

Entirely consistent with e.g. “this was Peter’s project”, “Sir Keir has only ever been a bonnet ornament on a car driven by McSweeney, with Peter shouting directions” and “this has never been explained to the public”. As well as “Peter approved himself for the job because what he wants, he gets”.

Bzzzt wrong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_P...

So right. Absolutely no way to know that the guy whose literal nickname is the Prince of Darkness wasn’t on the level.

I find it hilarious that Starmer’s fans are having to start from the premise of ‘come on, who could have known the guy who had to resign twice could possibly be corrupt’

You know what she’s right. There is zero way for Starmer to have known that the Prince of Darkness might be corrupt.

Starmer being honest;