1. Home
  2.  » 
  3. Behind The "News"
  4.  » Starmer and the dog that didn’t bark

Irish Savant – irishsavant.net Feb 21, 2022

The hypocrisy and double standards of the left-liberal establishment – which in reality is neither left nor liberal – has been brutally underlined by the current spat between Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer. Specifically Johnson’s claim that Starmer “wasted his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile”. The explosion of outrage from the chattering classes was instantaneous. Johnson was ordered to withdraw this “smear which was the scorched-earth tactic of a desperate, dangerous man” according to ((Jonathan Freedland)) of the Guardian. There are a number of ironies here, not least that those spluttering with rage at the “smear” had spent a good part of the previous few years smearing Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn. None more so than Freedland, who had spearheaded a vicious campaign against Corbyn for his ‘anti-semitism’. A less likely anti-semite than Corbyn would be hard to find, a fact well known to Freedland and the other media and political whores who moved in for the kill.

No, Corbyn’s real offence was that he either did not or could not root out the Jew-wise views of a rapidly growing cohort of party members, especially those in the Momentum movement who accused the Jewish Labour Movement of being more loyal to “a shady foreign power” than to the party. For instance Momentum’s then Vice Chair told a large meeting – to loud cheers! – that anti-Semitism was “no more special than any other kind of racism, and that if there is anti-Jewish feeling among Labourites, so what? The Labour Party, after all, is simply a reflection of society”. A prominent Jewish MP walked out of the meeting to a chorus of jeers and catcalls. Oh deary me. So Jeremy had to go. Hence the almost unprecedented smear campaign and worse, a plot by traitors within the party, lead by that doughty Englishman (Spear) Chukka Ummuna, to make Labour lose the 2017 General Election and thus trigger Corbyn’s removal. It worked.

And waiting in the wings was the controllers’ choice to replace him: Sir Keir Starmer. He ticked all the boxes: An unscrupulous back-stabbing careerist mired in corruption throughout his career and whose children “are being brought up in the Jewish faith of their mother and who attend shabbat dinners”. A safe pair of hands then. And he didn’t leave his side down. Immediately, despite explicit campaign promises to the contrary, he began purging the ‘anti-semites’ and promoting the traitors. Hence the love-fest from the media whores and their apoplectic reaction to Johnson’s “unsubstantiated smears”. Unsubstantiated smears were no longer unacceptable.

But were the smears unsubstantiated? Well, between 2008 and 2013, Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Savile died in 2011 before he could face justice. The Guardian again: “[Starmer] had no connection to decisions over the case, and the idea he did emerged later in conspiracy theories mainly shared among the far right.” When the public outcry reached a peak in 2012, Starmer played the go-to trick in the Establishment playbook. He commissioned an ‘independent’ lawyer he knew to write a report exonerating him. In ((Mishcon de Reya)) (“Money Laundering For Drug Dealers And Oligarchs Our Specialty”) Starmer chose wisely. Nothing to see here, lessons have been learned, let us move on. And move on he did when his term at the CPS ended. To……..((Mishcon de Reya)). No wonder his handlers love him. The suggestion of his not being involved in the Savile case is simply preposterous. The role of CPS Director is precisely to decide on sensitive high-profile cases such as this. And they didn’t come much higher with Savile having – as he himself warned police when pulled in for questioning – friends at the highest level of the Establishment. To an unprincipled careerist like Starmer this represented his passage to much higher things. Maybe even to Number 10 Downing Street itself.

Now to the dog that didn’t bark. I’m referring to Johnson’s other ‘smear’, that of prosecuting journalists. Clearly this referred to Starmer’s role in the hounding of Julian Assange. And what a role it was even though there was really no reason for the CPS to get involved as Assange had merely been questioned by Swedish police about an alleged sex crime after which no charges were deemed justified. However for some reason a prosecutor from another region took up the case. Assange was in London at the time and offered to undergo further questioning at the Swedish Embassy there but the CPS told the Swedes not to come. Eventually Swedish prosecutors did interview Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy and again decided that charges weren’t justified. This elicited a flurry of outraged emails (subsequently destroyed, and only recovered by an FOI request at the Swedish end) from the CPS. “Don’t you dare get cold feet” the Swedes were instructed and they, for reasons we can only speculate, agreed to keep the case open. Now why were Starmer and the CPS so tenacious and implacable in relation to an obscure unprosecuted sex case in Sweden while at the same time turning a blind eye to the child abuse scandals roiling under their noses in Britain? That my friends is what’s known as a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. Starmer was playing his role to perfection and Assange is now a broken man even of he never ends up in Guantanomo.

And let’s conclude with another rhetorical question: Why have the media whores entirely overlooked Johnson’s accusation of journalistic persecution? Surely this should have been the whores’ primary focus, you know, a fellow journalist and all that?

Again we know the answer to that.

It’s a sick world.

Source