It’s hard to completely fathom what happened in the UK with the general elections which installed Sir Keir Starmer, a lawyer by training, into Downing Street. Certainly, two key aspects of July 4th were critical though. One, a low voter turnout with many Tory voters simply staying at home; and, secondly, a protest vote from the conventional Tory voters either to Labour – in great numbers – and to some extent fringe parties like Reform UK.
But we should also ponder the system itself which is well overdue for an overhaul. The first-past-the-post voting system which simply requires a party get more than 50% of all of the seats is woefully inadequate and a poor tool in representing the real political demographics of, in particular, smaller parties. In the case of the far-right Reform Party led by the mercurial Nigel Farage, the 14th of the entire voting share would have given his party 100 seats in parliament in a proportional representation voting system used by many European countries these days. In the event, it only gave him 5 seats.
Yet perhaps the real point on Labour’s so-called ‘landslide’ – if it can be called this, as, in reality only 34 percent of the voting population opted for them – is that all of the superlatives about the vote itself pale into insignificance when you look at the international geopolitical implications of this government taking the keys to Downing Street.
Keir Starmer, and a great many of his cabinet, are receiving money from Israel according to recent reports from investigative journalists in the UK who can’t be considered mainstream. The payments are seemingly small and are presented to the electorate as travel expenses for a number of MPs like Angela Rayner for example, who have travelled to Israel on so-called fact-finding missions. In reality, much more money has been put in their pockets which has not been declared, which would lead anyone with any sense of rational to ask the perfectly reasonably question was Kier Starmer and the Labour party installed by the U.S. and Israel as part of a Zionist plot to serve both Washington’s and Tel Aviv’s interests?
Certainly Starmer’s background is worrying given that he was a lawyer who no one has heard of until he was head hunted for the top job of chief of Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) a job which gave him enormous powers as Britain’s top police regulator and one which put him in direct contact with Mossad, the CIA, FBI and of course Britain’s own secret police MI6 and MI5. Was was he chosen for this position by the Americans? Much of the evidence of what we know about him would certainly indicate that as his behaviour while in this post smacked of someone being controlled by the secret police. But whose? America’s or Britain’s?
His appointment as chief of the CPS in November 2008 was suspicious at best, only trumped by his odd departure in 2013 immediately after the director of Mi5 retired. And then less than two years later, after leaving a law firm linked to money laundering scandals, he mysteriously takes up the offer of a Labour MEP earning a fraction of what he was taking as a lawyer.
It’s worth noting that intelligence agencies need people to help them launder money on behalf of the undesirable people they employ, who some might call ‘terrorists’. Such people cannot be officially paid so they need to be given dirty money, acquired through drug sales, arms trafficking or the spoils of war. The problem arises when the top people in these organisations insist on the West to assist in laundering the money that they have been paid so that they can relocate to the U.S. with their families. It’s not enough to allow a terror group, for example, to sell stolen oil on the black market or even for it to be allowed to send drugs into the U.S. They need to be able to legitimise their stash.
And so Keir Starmer’s links to a law firm which is tarnished with a reputation of money laundering should start to ring bells. But it’s his actions – or lack of them – during his period earlier as CPS chief which should have alarmed a number of journalists in the UK pushing them to scrutinize who exactly is this opaque grey man in a grey suit whose chief skill is to be so dull that most people forget almost everything he ever says? Perfect skills to hone as a double agent working as an alias, most intelligence officers would argue.
No journalists in the UK did this though and it only stinks even further that he has until now avoided the statutory ‘hit job’ from even one of them which reveals all his skeletons in the closet. Starmer’s actions while CPS chief would, at a distance, seem to be the exact same as what you would expect the CIA to take if they were given the Assange dossier themselves. As the most powerful legal figure in the UK, when the Assange extradition case with Sweden came up – based on fake rape allegations trumped up by an overzealous Swedish prosecutor – he did all he could to try and get Assange extradited to Stockholm, knowing full well that the moment the Australian publisher entered a police station there America would have legal ground to nab him. Starmer even went as far as to deny the opportunity for Swedish police officers to come to the UK to interview him in London.
Starmer also has a dark side when it comes to intelligence agencies as one of the first tasks he sets himself to do is build himself an international spy network dressed up in the auspices of British lawyers advising heads of state of Global South countries how to deal with human rights issues or torture techniques. It is hard to imagine that a man so absurdly bereft of imagination and creativity came up with this idea. Was it a brainchild of a CIA operative? Is that why Starmer got the CPS job in the first place? Certainly, his relations with intelligence organisations in the U.S. are well documented as is his stoic behaviour in defending British MI5 and MI6 officers from investigation of torture allegations. Each and every time all efforts by victims was blocked by Starmer, even going as far as to prevent a former MI5 director facing charges.
The number of cases of him covering up scandals and any flak coming the way of intelligence bosses is too many to dismiss. Starmer is certainly part of this family and his proximity to Israel as well only leads the humble journalist to wonder whether he is Israel’s creation which the U.S. backs, or in fact he is a product of years of Langley searching for a left-wing stooge who would finally rise to the ranks of Prime minister. Expect a lot of fake news about Israel and Gaza surrounded by smoke and mirrors for the dim-witted Westminster press pack who haven’t even picked up how he delayed an ICC judgment being carried out against a former Israeli minister while she visited London, when he was CPS boss – given her just enough time to leave the country unscathed.
Kit: Keir Starmer faces renewed scrutiny over allegations he protected Jimmy Savile
In October 2012, a documentary exposed how veteran British media personality Jimmy Savile sexually abused vulnerable, underage girls throughout his lifetime. This led to an eruption of reports of abuse, spanning decades, and official inquiries into multiple institutions to which Savile was linked. Today, the full extent of his crimes, and the total number of his victims, is unknown. It has nonetheless been confirmed that the BBC, NHS, British police, and many journalists had full knowledge of his pedophilic and necrophilic perversions well before his death.
Along the way, there were multiple “missed opportunities” to stop Savile’s industrial scale sex crimes. Most substantively, in 2007, police made contact with a number of women who had come forward to testify they were assaulted and raped by Savile, leading to the star being grilled by police about the allegations. That investigation was however shut down, and never publicly acknowledged. Details of how the probe was torpedoed didn’t emerge until much later, implicating both investigating officers and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
The CPS was at that time led by Keir Starmer, now His Majesty’s Prime Minister. As previously documented by The Grayzone, Britain’s new premier has a deep, long-running relationship with London’s national security establishment and security and intelligence apparatus, as well as the elite Trilateral Commission. He helmed the CPS when the Service protected MI5 and MI6 spooks from prosecution for torture, and connived to sustain a bogus rape case against Julian Assange.
The CPS destroyed key emails related to this subterfuge, which served to keep the WikiLeaks founder holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy while facing extradition to Sweden, when prosecutors in both countries knew the charges had no substance. During this time, the Service also shredded all records of Starmer’s four trips to Washington DC. It may be no coincidence that every file held on Savile by the CPS also disappeared in breach of basic protocol.
To say the least, Starmer has clear, grave questions to answer about what he knew about Savile’s crimes, and the role he and his then-agency played in insulating the serial pedophile and necrophiliac from justice. The same British media that has fueled Starmer’s ambitions has aggressively shielded him from critical scrutiny on the matter. What follows are the dimensions of a very British coverup.
Prosecutors insulate Savile from justice
In February 2022, during a parliamentary joust, disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson accused Starmer of having spent his time as CPS chief “prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile.” The broadside ignited a public firestorm, with British politicians of all parties and the entire mainstream media lining up to condemn the premier’s comments as a repulsive libel. A senior Downing Street staffer resigned in disgust. The pressure grew so severe, Johnson retracted his comments in a matter of three days.
However, the fact remained that Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when British authorities possessed persuasive evidence of Savile’s heinous sexual crimes over many years, and he inexplicably refused to move against the pedophile. Sources within the CPS have claimed that he had no knowledge of the decision to drop the case. It is also commonly alleged that a formal inquiry he ordered in 2012 into the failure to prosecute Savile condemned investigating police, not the CPS.
As the inquiry report’s contents make clear, this characterization is completely false. Officers who interviewed Savile’s victims in 2007/8 were indeed slammed for not providing them with more information – namely, that others had independently come forward, telling disturbingly similar stories. The report concluded their testimony should’ve been acted upon, as “there was nothing to suggest that the alleged victims had colluded in their accounts, nor that they were in any way [unreliable].”
Despite this, “police treated them and the accounts they gave with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required.” It is nonetheless clear officers shut down the investigation under express CPS direction. The Service’s designated “reviewing lawyer” on the allegations – an “extremely experienced ‘rape specialist’” – told police “at an early stage” he “would not be inclined to prosecute these cases because they were ‘relatively minor’,” and due to the time that had elapsed since the offenses were allegedly committed.
The CPS lawyer’s “relatively minor” appraisal of Savile’s heinous crimes “troubled” the inquiry investigator. “I would hope that any prosecutor would regard a sexual assault as being in and of itself serious,” they wrote. “These particular assaults were far from trivial: they represented a course of conduct against vulnerable women and girls by a man who was in effect in a position of trust.” As a result, the investigator had “reservations about the way in which the prosecutor reached his decision”:
“The allegations made were both serious and credible; the prosecutor should have recognised this and sought to ‘build’ a prosecution. In particular, there were aspects of what he was told by the police…which should have caused him to ask further questions…I have been driven to conclude that had the police and prosecutors [emphasis added] taken a different approach a prosecution might have been possible.”
Starmer’s irresistible, corrupt path to power Despite these grave criticisms, the investigator concluded, “I have seen nothing to suggest that the decisions not to prosecute were consciously influenced by any improper motive on the part of either police or prosecutors.” Which might be true, if only because all CPS files on Savile were destroyed in October 2010. The report was therefore “dependent on material provided by the police to show what documents were seen by the reviewing lawyer and the advice which was given.”
Even these records were “in parts either incomplete or [contained] internal inconsistencies,” which “made it at points difficult to assess what happened,” and “impossible to recreate with any certainty” what was actually seen by the reviewing lawyer. For its part, the CPS had “no record at all” of the case. The inquiry was told this was due to the decision to take no action against Savile resulting in the Service’s files being “automatically deleted,” according to the CPS’ “normal policy.”
However, Service guidelines on “retention and disposal” of evidence clearly state that documents on “discontinued cases,” in which “no proceedings have taken place or where the case was discontinued before trial,” must be kept for five years. The destruction of the Savile file was a flagrant breach of these rules. The decision to violate the guidelines on such a high profile case had to have been made at the highest levels of the CPS. We are thus left to ponder whether Starmer himself made that call, and if so, why.
It is also an open question how, after reviewing the Service’s handling of the Savile case in 2012, Starmer reportedly “came very close to rubber-stamping the original decision not to prosecute,” before appointing his own CPS chief legal adviser, Alison Levitt, to conduct the formal inquiry. Her report’s findings unambiguously assert that Savile had a very clear case to answer based on the allegations collected against him at that time alone.
In April 2014, Levitt was rewarded for her CPS service with a lucrative job at high ranked law firm Mishcon de Reya. That June, Starmer joined her. The company has been fined enormous sums for facilitating money laundering, and frequently helps wealthy individuals and powerful corporations abuse the British legal system to “intimidate and destroy” journalists. Starmer was forced in July 2017 by then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to depart his well-remunerated position there, after taking a Shadow Cabinet role.
Starmer received over $20,000 for just 24 hours of work at Mishcon de Reya in 2016. Losing the post was undoubtedly a bitter pill to swallow, but he landed on his feet. His position as Shadow Brexit Secretary afforded ample opportunity to undermine Corbyn, pushing Labour towards a pro-Remain stance, contrary to the party leader’s official position, and against the will of swaths of its voters. When the May 2019 European elections rolled around, Starmer was openly demanding a second referendum on Britain’s EU membership, in defiance of other shadow ministers.
Due to intense bullying and threats from Starmer and other anti-Corbyn elements, Labour finally adopted a formal policy of a “people’s vote” on leaving the EU in July that year. It was a cataclysmic error, making the party’s crushing defeat in the December 2019 general election a fait accompli. Was this a conscious act of sabotage by Starmer and his clique to doom Corbyn, and pave the way for their own rise to power? Academic analysis from months earlier showed Labour’s only shot at victory was to target Leave-voting Conservative marginals.
It must not be forgotten that, as The Grayzone revealed, the second referendum policy originated with a little-known political party, Renew, set up by individuals tied to NATO’s stratcom division, MI6, and British Army psychological warfare unit 77th Brigade. On the contemporary campaign trail, Starmer has admitted he knew Labour would lose in 2019. Whether or not that was his explicit mission, it paved the path for his own premiership, and empowered his confederates within Britain’s security and intelligence services.
"....protest vote from the conventional Tory voters either to Labour – in great numbers – and to some extent fringe parties like Reform UK ...."
I may be wrong, but as I watched a few of the results coming in it looked like ... Or I assumed from basic back of envelope calc ... That most reform votes poss 75% came from ex Tory's as their numbers plus and minus seemed to balance ( with a smaller percentage to labour . Poss say 25%)
I haven't checked since. And hadn't factored in the idea ( evidence?) that Tories had stayed at home.
Every step Starmer took, would have been unacceptably risky to any of his predecessors ..
Yet he took each of those multiple steps, one after the other, with an absolute confidence in his own future: He did not flinch from any of them, or hesitate for a moment and had absolutely no thoughts of compromise as a prudent safety mechanism to avoid being remembered as someone who destroyed the party (note: Corbyn DID make numerous compromises for this reason).
People just do not behave like Starmer did, without at least a nod from the very top or having been ‘installed’.
While we were all anguishing about how Starmer could possibly be getting away with it, and when would “karma finally come to Starmer?” he was not anguishing at all - in fact the “script” he was following had enough wiggle room for him to say some ridiculous things along the way without ever being concerned about any consequences.
I don’t mean to seem ‘conspiratorial’, but it seems so compelling to me it is hard not to say something.
Re: Every step Starmer took, would have been unacceptably risky to any of his predecessors ..
Isn't this a recurring treachery from the Labour party, from selling out the general strike to ostracising Militant, to Blair's removal of clause 4? Leadership knows that the power interests will always support it in its role of gatekeeping against genuine leftist/revolutionary elements, hence the apparent confidence. I expect Starmer was reassured behind closed doors not to worry about alienating the membership or the unions because billionaires and the Israel lobby were prepared to pump money into the party to compensate for lost revenue from those sources. So I think you're right to say that 'People just do not behave like Starmer did, without at least a nod from the very top or having been ‘installed’' - or at least heavily steered by the gics.
on July 10, 2024, 3:53 pm