Breaking comment

Jewish Voice for Labour comments on Starmer and the Holocaust Memorial, Hodge and the CAA

Left-wing Jewish group has complained on several occasions to Charity Commission – but notes that MP Margaret Hodge was a supporter of the group until it criticised Keir Starmer

Left-wing group Jewish Voice for Labour has issued a statement on Keir Starmer’s offensive exploitation of the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin as a backdrop for his political campaign video – and both right-wing MP Margaret Hodge’s decision to defend him and the condemnation of his actions by the right-wing Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) group (among others):

JVL has complained to the Charity Commission about the CAA being a partisan political organisation and its flagrant breach of charity rules. The Charity commission has informed us they are investigating the body.

But Margaret Hodge is a patron of the CAA and supported it until the CAA correctly called out the appalling, offensive, actually upsetting misuse of the Holocaust memorial in Berlin as a back drop by Keir Starmer and David Lammy.

JVL’s complaint to the Charity Commission about the political activities and bias of CAA, which has charity status, submitted in early 2021 reads in part:

The first [new] example is an announcement by the CAA which was placed on its website on 16th December 2020, summarising a complaint [rejected] the CAA had made to Ofcom, concerning an eight-minute feature which had been broadcast on Channel 4 News the previous day.   In the feature, a group of young adults of Palestinian heritage, all based in the UK, spoke about their life experiences and about the tensions they have encountered when seeking to discuss their cultural histories and their views on the Israel/Palestine conflict.  CAA’s complaint, and the news feature can both be viewed here.

Put simply, the feature gave young Anglo-Palestinians (a section of society whose voice is rarely heard) the chance to give their side of the Israel/Palestine story and to express their points of view, drawing on their and their families’ personal histories of exile from their homeland and the forms of both subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination that they have suffered.   The feature also contained supportive comment from Prof. Avi Shlaim, a Jewish academic who has written critical histories of the foundation of the State of Israel; and it contained an explanation of why, from the young protagonists’ point of view, the so-called IHRA Working Definition of Anti-Semitism has a potentially chilling effect upon discussion around these issues. …

Nevertheless, the reaction of the CAA was as follows:

“It is extraordinary that Channel 4 News could have devoted an entire segment to discussing defining antisemitism without including a single representative of the mainstream Jewish community . . in which there is a consensus in favour of widespread adoption of the [IHRA] Definition. [This] represented a failure by Channel 4 News to show due impartiality in its programme, which is also a breach of Ofcom’s guidance . . . . If the programme had done, it might have realised that it was promoting the antisemitic ‘Livingstone Formulation’ that was used to such unlawful effect in victimising Jews in the Labour Party” (Emphasis added)

The CAA’s complaint to Ofcom failed. The Charity Commission told JVL that it was investigating their complaint. A further JVL complaint to the Commission was sent in March of this year, following an attack by the CAA on journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who they said had “overstepped the line” for an article written in December 2021 where she suggested “criticism of the state of Israel is deemed anti-semitic.”

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

120 comments

  1. I have commented before on the monster devouring its offspring and it looks like the AS scam is coming to a head with fallouts amongst the rabble.
    JVL have been onto the dirty tricks of the labour party right from the beginning with activists and even the labour party leader jeremy corbyn ruined by lies and smears against them.This starmer “plant” and his gang deserve to get criminal charges against them but I doubt it will ever happen especially as the media and the establishment are in the thick of it.and are part of it.

  2. I see the CAA, still, cling to the IHRA for grim death, despite one of the lead authors of the IHRA declaring it is unfinished and should not be used to define what is, and what isn’t, antisemitism.

    The advice is to use The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.

    If someone wishes, they can use The JDA to amend and update the IHRA, but why use two documents when The JDA is there and, now, pre-eminent?

    There can only be one answer to that question. To sow unnecessary doubt in people’s minds.

  3. I have to say, that at least unlike Hodge and other Labour figures rushing to defend Starmer, the CAA is consistent. At the very least they are intelligent enough to realise that in order to keep a semblance of integrity before the public they needed to call out Starmer on his fault pass.
    I seriously doubt that Starmer did it intentionally, but for a man that is using antisemitism to witch hunt those supporting Palestinian rights within the LP, he should have paid more attention.
    In the same way that Starmer and its minions don’t allow a careless mistake on others that straight into antisemitism without having intended to and use it to hunt them out of the Party, Starmer deserve to be outed as an antisemite. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    1. Point of information on the CAA and the notion of ‘semblance of integrity’.
      In summer 2014 Israel bombed Gaza according to the UN with “6,000 airstrikes, 14,500 tank shells and 45,000 artillery shells unleashed between July 7 and Aug. 26”. Israel consequently killed “2,251 Palestinians – 551 of these were children.”
      Before the corpse of the last killed Palestinian child had cooled in its grave, immediately the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) was formed.
      Given that few corporate media sources since then mention the dead civilians or many more subsequently killed by Israel, it seems inescapable that overwriting Israel’s crimes with claims of anti-Semtism is the CAA’s primary function. It does this along with attacking traditional anti-colonial anti-racist activists such as those historically found in Labour grassroots.

      1. I agree Bernie, the whole purpose of the CAA is to defend Israel no matter what. Hence, by default any criticism of Israel, never mind its validity, is deemed proof of antisemitism.
        The CAA never had an interest in defending the right of the Labour Party but, rather Israel. Thus, the CAA has not interest in protecting Starmer but rather use Starmer faux pass to send the message that any deviation from their agenda would not be tolerated, no matter who deviates.

  4. UH…SteveH? SteveH? Isn’t this the part where you jump in and say it’s STILL all Corbyn’s fault? Missed your cue, Steve.

  5. Starmer is NOT a politician – and is hopeless at it.

    Incidentally the IHRA so called definition is nothing of
    the kind – for though it does provide what it calls
    a definition it then provides “so called examples”
    of it which are not even covered by the definition.

    Furthermore the examples are ambiguous and
    confused – for “Israel” is first used as an example
    of a collection of Jewish people and secondly as
    a “state”.

    Now the actions of a “state” are the actions of
    whoever governs that state .. and do not
    necessarily conform to the desires of the people
    it governs ..

    IN other words the so-called “definition” is
    an attempt to extend an original and
    understandable definition to one which is
    confused and ambiguous.

    Ironically the Israel imagined by Herzl in his
    “Old New Land” is totally unlike the current
    Israel and I have just discovered this interesting
    article – here is a link

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267096669_A_Place_for_the_Palestinians_in_the_Altneuland_Herzl_Anti-Semitism_and_the_Jewish_State#fullTextFileContent

    (You may have to click on “Full text available”)

  6. Starmer is a disgrace in my view.
    Oh by the way according to Len McCluskey’s excellent biography ‘Always Red’ Ms H made 200 complaints to Labour about AS which turned out to be 111 and only 20 were Labour members.
    I have always felt some of the AS bile on social media was by the Far Right – blent their warped spleens & pretend to be pro-Corbyn, a double whammy?
    I remember being stood on the streets with others from the Left putting ourselves at risk, confronting the Far Right and as I looked around NONE of our critic were also there!
    And Far Right US billionaires at this time were funding Far Right Groups & individuals (including here) around the world (Hope Not Hate).
    It could be argued Right Wing Jewish groups seem to have an homogenous view of Jewish people (?) when the reality is Jewish people are wonderfully diverse as the excellent JVL demonstrate.
    Diverse working people of the world unite!

  7. This desperate nonsense has the same level of credence as the similarly manufactured outrage that there was over Michael Foot and Jeremy Corbyn had.
    I’m surprised that ‘the left’ are belittling themselves by emulating the despicable tactics that they rightly condemned when they were utilised by the RW against Foot and Corbyn.

    1. Are you implying that The Tikvah Institute and the CAA are on “the left”?

      1. Goldbach – Don’t be silly I said nothing of the sort, you’re embarrassing yourself.

      2. Oh dear! More childish insults. I was simply asking a polite question.
        If The Tikvah Institute and the CAA aren’t the targets of your comment, then who is?
        If you could make it clear, it would be easier to assess whether to agree with you or not.

      3. goldbach – It wasn’t a childish insult it was an observation on your comment. The likes of the CAA have their own agenda. I’m surprised at the naivety of ‘the left’.

      4. Of course the CAA have their own agenda. It doesn’t take much ability to realist that, as you have demonstrated.
        But you still haven’t made it clear who you think are those “on the left” who you say are “belittling themselves by emulating the despicable tactics that they rightly condemned …….”.

      5. Ah!
        Well, as far as SW is concerned my assessment would be rather different. Maybe he will correct me if I’m wrong.
        If you take the view that Starmer started a war against the left (and that’s a wholly reasonable view to take), and you are “on the left”, you have two options. One is to fight and the other is to give in. If you choose to fight, we all know that all is fair in love or war.

      6. Respectfully SteveH, “it was an observation on your comment” delivered very combatively, which closed down any discussion or further exploration.

      7. qwertboi – What was there to discuss, it was an idiotic comment?

      8. To lie about your opponent when you have no answer to his/her policies (a la Hodge, Starmer) is to lack integrity.
        To highlight the idiocy, deceit and opportunism of your opponent is not to lack integrity.
        To persistently highlight your opponents failings is fair is politics (and in love or war), and that is what SW is doing here.

      9. Thank you, qwertboi, for springing to my defence. It isn’t necessary because he reveals himself with every comment.
        In the words of the great Jake Thackray, “the thicker the bull shite falls”.

      10. Thanks to Goldbach for supporting socialist, anti-racist sensibilities.
        But instead of normalisng the rightwing troll’s postings, you do have to wonder what is the point of engaging it. Page after page, story after story, the troll attempts to subvert everything the Labour Party was created for and evolved to defend? None of the troll’s arguments are made in good faith. Its postings are designed to misdirect socialist Labour supporters from real issues.
        The alien red-Tory deserves to be condemned to rhetorical isolation.
        If forced to it is possible to refute the trolls misdirection, while refusing to acknoledge it’s red-Tory identity has legitmate existance on this site.

      11. Thank you, Bernie.
        You are correct, of course, and I try to minimise the frequency of such interactions. However, occasionally, I think that is necessary to make my point.
        During my work life, I encountered mean-spirited individuals from time to time and, for the most part, avoided unnecessary interactions. I shall continue with that strategy.

    2. This is the guy that was supposedly on the left when Jeremy was leader……. And now he supports a right-wing fascist!

      1. Allan – I supported most of Jeremy’s policy platform, was I wrong to do that?

      2. Oh FUCK OFF!
        You have not posted one single genuinely passionate post here about Jeremy Corbyn or The UK Labour Party (NOT talking about your Neo-Labour Parasite TORY Party), since you plonked your Sayanim HQ ass here on this blog! To do everything that you can to discombobulate anything socialist! Feel free to prove me wrong!

      3. Meanwhile…..

        ‘You sat there when Labour BROKE law!’ Starmer given huge public dressing down in Commons

        SIR Keir Starmer has received a huge dressing down from Conservative MP Richard Holden MP over the antisemitism row which engulfed Labour under former leader Jeremy Corbyn.

        The Conservative MP for North West Durham intervened in the motion of confidence debate in Parliament on Monday to demand why Sir Keir Starmer had not taken action when the Labour Party was deemed to have broken the law over the issue of anti-Semitism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

        Mr Holden told Parliament: “The Right Honourable gentleman sounds like it’s describing his own actions.

        “When for year after year he sat there while the Labour Party were found guilty of breaching the law by the ECHR on the antisemitism of the Honourable member of Islington North.

        “Why didn’t he have the courage to stand up at the time?!”

        https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1642369/Labour-Party-news-vote-of-no-confidence-keir-Starmer-latest-House-of-Commons-today-live-vn

        Because they had him lined up to replace Jeremy Corbyn, and so he had to keep a low profile in respect of the A/S scam.

        Until after he was elected leader, that is!

      4. And now you support the person who has pretended the A/S scam was legitimate and purged the left from the party!

        Oh, but THAT’s OK, hmm?!! No problem whatsoever, eh?!!

      5. Allan – I like a lot of the policies and I believe that a Labour government would be better for the country, how about you?

        Come back and tell me all about it when you have a credible alternative to the Labour Party, until you have that to offer you are to put it politely a waste of space.

      6. Oh, right, like his 10 Pledges.

        The man is a complete and utter phony! Just like YOU!

      7. Allan – You are are under the misapprehension that I care much one way or t’other what you think

    3. SteveH, I have not doubts that Starmer didn’t intend offence. However, he did it.
      Thus, when Starmer and his minions have engaged in a witch hunt against socialist defending Palestinian rights within the Labour Party, many of them Jews themselves, from my point of view what you call “despicable tactics” towards Starmer, I called “just deserts”.
      Starmer in my opinion is a fascist so he fully deserves all the criticism he is getting. Moreover, if the CAA wish to keep a semblance of integrity, it should refer the Labour Party under Starmer back to the EHRC for antisemitism within the Labour Party at the highest level.
      What Starmer has just done from the CAA’s point of view should provide clear proof of antisemitism and the EHRC shouldn’t ignore the evidence, alongside the fact that it is mainly Jewish members that are being targeted for suspension and expulsion from the LP under Starmer’s leadership.

  8. Now that the Tory party have thrown out of office
    the worst leader ever – the press will be
    turning their attention to finding another prey.

    So who is directly in their eye-line?

    Starmer can run but he can’t hide….

  9. Bernie Sanders was not allowed to progress twice and called an antisemite, even though he is Jewish
    The let them eat cakes, kleptocracy or whatever you choose to call them, never stop until their heads fall into the bread basket
    So what’s new and why do we always react like Civilians
    Martin Lewis has predicted Civil Unrest if the Tory Cost of Living Crisis is not addressed, who are we to argue with the Great man
    I hear the sound of Madame Le Guillotine trundling along the cobbled stones

  10. “and I believe that a Labour government would be better for the country, how about you?”

    Seriously, no! The Labour Right have crossed the Rubicon and are no-longer Labour.

    As in 49 BC, this is a declaration of war – a war they cannot win. Whether it’s the Roman Senate, Pompey or democratic socialism, the targets of such reckless leadership have to defend themselves. So me, I will never vote for a Rubicon-crossing Labour party, ever!

    Joe Biden, Justin Trudeau, Emmanuel Macron, the next RW leader of Labour to enter Downing Street will be worse.

      1. qwertboi – I said credible! Is that really the best you could manage to come up with?

    1. Toffee – “but essentially what you’re saying is You mean stuff you’ve made up?

      Ok nonce apologist. Point out on this thread where I said but essentially what you’re saying is…

      You won’t find it ANYWHERE, nonce apologist.

      Because YOU made it up.

      I said: therefore you are telling us.

      Quite distinctly NOT asking any question bit making a statement of fact.

      The gift that just keeps giving Trouble is, I’d rather do without you and your nonce apologist tendencies & policies.

      Now go away.

      1. CORRECTION:

        It appears I DID say that.

        But so what? It doesn’t alter the fact you have persistently mitigated for smarmer ORDERING his party to ABSTAIN on several important issues – most recently – and notably – ORDERING the lords to ABSTAIN on a vote to feed hungry children, and ease the crippling burden on hundreds of thousands of families up & down the land.

        But it wouldn’t have made any difference you bleat.

        That right? People like me should know our place, shouldn’t we? We MUST be content with our lot. Keef has decreed it so.

        Maybe the Jarrow crusaders should never have bothered then. Made no difference. There’s still unemployment & hunger and nobody to speak for them (Is there, keef?)

        Or the allies against the nazis – Made no difference. There’s still far right extremism & antisemitism is rife – isn’t it madge & keef?

        Maybe there shouldn’t be any women”s refuges – Makes no difference. Women & kids will still be abused.

        Maybe that’s why keef refused to prosecute savile. It’d have made no difference. There’ll always be nonces.

        Yes that right isn’t it, wee shithouse?

        People like me should know our place.

      2. Do you want a fucking good hiding?

        You’re going the right way about it. You might get away with your arrogant shithouse attitude over the net – you wouldn’t in person.

    2. Good points qwertboi!
      But no reason to keep engaging with the entryist Blairite troll that keeps trying to subvert topics and debate on this site.
      Let’s be honest what is the point of supporting Starmer if he plans less council house building than Clement Attlee, less free grant supported educational provision and welfare support than Harold Wilson? And less Trade Union allegiance than Jim Callaghan? If you’re worse than Labour fifty/sixty years ago who need you?
      He’s now bringing in Tories to the Party while banning ‘the stop the war coalition’. This means that pacifist Party founder Kier Hardie couldn’t join the Labour Party nor, former candidate Dora Russell, or her husband and CND activist and philosopher Bertrand Russell, or even Vera Brittain.
      It also seems likely that Starmer would keep former leader Michael Foot out of the Party along with former cabinet minister Tony Benn.
      There’s no point voting Labour if the Tories are running the Labour Party!

      1. >>> what is the point of supporting Starmer if he plans less council house building than >>> Clement Attlee, less free grant supported educational provision and welfare than >>> Wilson? And less Trade Union allegiance than Jim Callaghan

        Not only worse than Jim Callaghan – but worse than
        Harold McMillan .. and even Ted Heath in some ways ..

        It seems as though Starmer will be hoist by his own petard –
        for in his deceit he has condemned himself.

        Ironically Holden was the MP who slandered Claudia
        Webbe on Any Questions.

        I did complain to the BBC about that and this is on-going as
        I made an error of timing in what he said.

  11. NEVER forget that hodge is a pederast enabler

    Not only free to walk the streets, but a high profile member of a political party.

    A symbol of everything that is wrong with this country.

  12. Allan – I supported most of Jeremy’s policy platform, was I wrong to do that?

    And now, by virtue your oitright refusal to condemn keef for whipping the lords to abstain on giving hungry schoolchildren a meal at school, you defend keefs ‘policy platform

    Tell us, are you a fan of the pederast enabler Hodge? You’re apparently reluctant to criticise her conduct on several matters.

    Y/ou won’t give a straight answer. Although we KNOW you most certainly are a fan of the nonce non-prosecutor keef, and his child-harming propensities.

    1. Toffee – I am delighted that Hodge will soon be gone but I am disappointed that the ‘the left’ failed to get their act together when they were gifted the opportunity to get rid of her.

      1. Really…😙🎶

        You’re disappointed are ya?

        Sea quite clear to me that the CAA (NOT of the left, no matter how much you want to contest it) have shown at least a semblance of consistency in justifiably criticising the hard right keef.

        You’re disappointed that keefs’ demonstrated his abject hypocrisy.

        Meanwhile, not nobody else is either disappointed OR remotely surprised that you evaded the question you were asked and the answer you gave.

        We KNOW what you are….

      2. Toffee – I’m quite happy to stand by my previous answers to similar questions.

  13. Apart from Starmer’s incorrigible zionism, being a pederast enabler would give her common ground with Keir Starmer, who,once he became DPP, followed the example of his political mother, Mrs Thatcher, in protecting Jimmy Saville from prosecution and worse, but it’s her obvious tax hypocrisy that I find most annoying about her – apart from everything else about her of course.

    1. qwertboi – We both know that you have FA evidence to support your ‘assertions’ plus both Savil’s victims and their solicitors have already said that you are wrong.

      1. Let’s see….

        Prosecuted Chris Huhne**. Said so in the commons.

        …But didn’t prosecute savile (another ‘friend of israel’) . Nowt to do with him.

        Ok. 😙🎶

        **Also didn’t<prosecute damien grope or grant shafts, despite being fully aware of both cases

      2. Toffee – I have repeatedly answered questions on your nonsense about Grant Shapps, as for Damian Green I haven’t looked into that. Perhaps you could provide further details.

      3. No you haven’t answered about grant shafts.

        You have condoned keef for planning/attending his leaving do instead of doing his fucking taxpayer-funded job.

        Everywhere I’ve ever worked I’ve been expected to do the job I was getting paid for on my last day.

        Prick.

      4. So doing the job you’re paid for is stupidity is it?

        Knobhead.

      5. “We both know that you have FA evidence to support your ‘assertions’ plus both Savil’s victims and their solicitors have already said that you are wrong.”

        Of course the paedo perp’s solicotors would say that – and knowing how corrupt politicians like Sir Keir work, they’ll now be in his little black book as people whom he owns.

        However painful his death (and I won’t mention the UK’s ‘vaccine’ adverse reactions), it’ll be too good for him (or as my aunty Sadie used to say “Meesa masheena”).

      6. qwertboi – Your response doesn’t make any sense. I was obviously referring to the victims’ solicitors.
        Why do you feel that you are in any way qualified to dismiss the opinions of Savil’s victims when they are so obviously in a far better position to reach an informed judgement than you ever will be.

      7. Forde Report – Off subject but I thought it would be of interest to some

        It appears that the Forde Report may be presented to the NEC today (not before time), my concern is that some doubts have been raised about whether it will be published

        “Labour’s ruling body is meeting today. Whether national executive committee (NEC) members will or won’t be presented with the long-awaited Forde report remains somewhat uncertain as rumours have abounded overnight – but it is now thought the report will be put to the NEC and members will decide whether or not it will be published. Those reports alone have caused a bit of consternation as they would seem to go against the inquiry’s terms of reference – specifically that “the report shall be presented to the [NEC] before being made public, and the panel will provide the report in a form suitable for publication, in accordance with applicable law”.
        https://mailchi.mp/260db8d65c16/nadine-vs-big-tech-4201268

      8. Carry on digging

        Says the bellend who’ll not only exonerate the country’s former top prosecutor for deciding NOT to prosecute perhaps the highest-profile child sexual offender, but happily overlooks keef taking the day off, instead of prosecuting grant shafts….Despite the met plod telling the nation that shafts’ actions: May have constituted FRAUD

        And who condones keef ordering his party to ABSTAIN on a vote to provide a meal for hungry children because the ouitcome would be the same.

        Filthy, despicable, nonce apologist shithouse that you are.

      9. Toffee – As I said above, please feel free to carry on digging. I’m going to make myself some popcorn.

      10. SteveH “Your response doesn’t make any sense. I was obviously referring to the victims’ solicitors.”

        My point is still MEGA-RELEVANT tho’ (to me), but yes, sorry, my mistake I see your reasoning, however……

        The victim’s solicitors were working in/with the given-situation – and the given situation was created by Keir Rodney Starmer (as DPP) deciding NOT to prosecute Saville.

        Starmer as DPP was central to the paedo let-off however you look at it.

        (I’m sure my aunty Sadie NEVER said this (but she could have done). “As a Schlump (pathetic human being), he’s as much a schlimazel as a schlemeil”. Doug’s grannie probably just said “there’s one born every minute”. They’d both have been right.)

  14. Only if you lack integrity

    Would you say pederast enabling, offshore account-holding madge hodge has integrity?

    And keef? *chuckles*

    Think about how you intend to answer, carefully. IF you intend to answer…

    And hurry up because my phone battery’s rapidly dimishing.

    1. Toffee – I don’t recall ever writing in support of Hodge or condoning her actions past or present.My point was the repeated inability of ‘the left to get their act together. One could be forgiven for thinking that there simply aren’t enough of them to make any appreciable difference.

      1. Therefore you’re telling us pederast enabler hodge’s attacks on Corbyn were ok because Corbyn chose to let it pass, but you cry foul when similar allegations are made against keef and pederast enabler hodge squeals loudest to defend him and prove its hypocrisy.

        Life’s just not fair when it happens to the oppressed, is it, wee fella? And there’s nobody more oppressed than madge n keef.

        Maybe if keef was still a shadow cabinet member under Corbyn it’d be a legitimate complaint, eh?

        A demonstration of how Corbyn allows things like this to occur…

        Away and shite.

      2. Toffee – Why would I waste my time responding to things that I haven’t said. Your fairy tales are your own issue, not mine.

      3. Toffee – “but essentially what you’re saying is You mean stuff you’ve made up?

      4. You’re only complaining because there’s no Corbyn to pin the antisemitism badge on.

        Hence you desperately and pathetically trying to shoehorn the left onto your stupid fucking argument.

        The buck starts and stops with keef. Nowt to do with the left Tough shit, buster.

  15. Toffee – I’m quite happy to stand by my previous answers to similar questions.

    Which are non-existent.

    1. Tofffee – Really? As I recall it I have recently pointed out that the vote in the House of Lords would have made no difference to the eventual outcome and that it has been reported that Labour have an alternative (hopefully more successful) plan to achieve similar outcomes.

  16. As I recall it I have recently pointed out that the vote in the House of Lords would have made no difference to the eventual outcome

    Well I don’t remember that but essentially what you’re saying is they should not have even dared voice their opposition because it wouldn’t have mattered?

    I guess kids who get physically and/or sexually abused shouldn’t show any opposition then eh?

    it’d make no difference to the eventual outcome.

    You fucking nonce apologist. Do something useful for society and die.

    1. Toffee – I guess this is yet another of those occasions when you’ve run out of anything sensible to say. Why do you repeatedly do this to yourself.

      1. You’re looking every bit like the nonce apologist you are with each post you make

        Fancy putting up a case for someone.who refused to prosecute a nonce. That’s every bit as disgusting as being one, in my book.

      2. Toffee – “You’re looking every bit like the nonce apologist you are with each post you make
        Fancy putting up a case for someone.who refused to prosecute a nonce. That’s every bit as disgusting as being one, in my book.”

        Yet more of your sad desperate and evidence free nonsense. I’m quite happy to leave it to others to decide whether they believe your nonsense or trust that Savil’s victims are far better placed to pass judgement than you are. Have you bothered to read the enquiry’s report?

      3. Evidence free?

        The evidence is there for all to see for themselves, you disgisting nonce apologist.

      4. Toffee – So you keep saying and yet for some strange reason you don’t seem to be able to put your finger on it.
        I wonder why? 🤔

      5. *sighs*

        Pretending you have no idea…again.

        Another of your shithouse modus operandii

        How about you’ve never once criticised keef for ORDERING his party to ABSTAIN on voting to give school meals to kids

        Anyone NORMAL would NEVER allow that.

        YOU, however, jabe more or less praised the cunt for it…it’d make no difference

        You’d allow kids to go hungry. No ifs, no buts no equivocation.

        And you’d allow nonces to walk. Re mitigating for keef about savile.

        And you’d happily allow toerags to walk, too. Like keef did

        Re green

        Re shafts

        And then there’s the cunteen other acts of abject shithousery you’ve NEVER called him out on…. Including selling you out on your remain.

        Bellend. And nonce apologist.

      6. Toffee – I’m still waiting for you to explain how Starmer was connected with the Damian Green case.

  17. Yet again New New Labour have been hypocritical. They’d be peeling Hodge off the Ceiling had JC done the same as Stammer, what a charlatan.

  18. Meanwhile, in much more worrying news, the Grauniad has gone full steam for lunacy and WW3 in an article written by one Simon Tisdall who has, inter alia, called for the use of “regime change as a political and military tool” – See Kiev 2014? It appears under the auspices of “foreign correspondent” Luke Harding (yes, he who cannot ever be believed) and is a call to war. Sheer lunacy.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/17/putin-is-already-at-war-with-europe-there-is-only-one-way-to-stop-him

    1. Absolutely!

      “regime change as a political and military tool”

      Yes, that is what caused the problem in the first place.

    2. Goldbach, If there was any evidence needed that the Guardian is the House Journal of the Establishment’s Security Services, here it is.

      They won’t be happy until we’re all fried to a nuclear crisp.

  19. “to ensure that we follow in the footsteps of the SPD”.

    How the SPD unwittingly helped the Nazis to power:

    “As one exhausted, tattered division returned to Berlin on December 10th, the Chancellor, leading social-democrat Friedrich Ebert, greeted the troops with the words: “No enemy has vanquished you.”
    Ebert’s intention was understandable: to welcome troops home, thank them for their sacrifice, and try to ensure their loyalty to the weak new state. Unwittingly, however, he helped launch one of the two most poisonous myths in the history of democratic Germany: the “stab in the back” legend. For if the army had not been defeated in the field, someone must have betrayed it.”

    https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/heritage/the-poisonous-myth-democratic-germany-s-stab-in-the-back-legend-1.3751185

  20. SteveH19/07/2022 AT 1:54 PM
    Toffee – I’m still waiting for you to explain how Starmer was connected with the Damian Green case.

    Here ya go, nonce apologist.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2009/apr/16/dpp-keir-starmer-statement-damian-green

    Now….Surely THAT has disabused you of the notion that it had nowt to do with your non-nonce prosecuting gobshite.

    Probly not.

    Didn’t want to prosecute green… But the leakers of the forde report + assange can swing from a stout hemp rope, in keefs’ view, fully backed by you.

    You filthy fucking nonce apologist mess.

    1. Toffee – Is that it?
      What a strange thing to choose to hang your hat on.
      I can’t even remember precisely what was leaked, can you?

      So having considered the evidence the DPP concluded that
      I have considered whether there is evidence of any additional damage caused by the leaks in question.
      I have concluded that the information leaked was not secret information or information affecting national security: it did not relate to military, policing or intelligence matters.
      It did not expose anyone to a risk of injury or death.
      Nor, in many respects, was it highly confidential. Much of it was known to others outside the civil service, for example, in the security industry or the Labour Party or parliament.
      Moreover, some of the information leaked undoubtedly touched on matters of legitimate public interest, which were reported in the press.
      I have therefore decided there is insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction against Mr Galley or Mr Green.

      The Home Affairs Select Committee Report into this case seems to agree that the police were more than a little heavy handed and on initial reading there doesn’t appear to be much in the way of (if any) criticism of Keir’s decision not to prosecute

  21. Bingo! I just KNEW you’d highlight the quote

    Much of it was known to others outside the civil service, for example, in the security industry or the Labour Party or parliament.

    Much of it was known to others outside the civil service, for example, in the security industry or the Labour Party or parliament.

    Well guess what? The fucking EXACT same thing applies to the forde report leakers, and keef wants them hanged

    Much of it (smarmer backed shithousery) was already known to non labour members (Thanks to skwawkbox and other left wing blogs).

    And plenty of that quote/reasoning applies to assange, and yet keef wants him to swing.

    Except they deserve it, eh, nonce apologist?!

    1. Toffee – Whoopee, who’s a clever boy?
      With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight you have now belatedly recognised the weakness in your argument and you are now desperately trying to paper over the cracks

  22. Here’s what your cos lawyer said

    Interestingly the CPS lawyer also added thatͲ!My conclusion should not be misunderstood. The
    unauthorised leaking of restricted and/or confidential information is not beyond the reach of the
    criminal law.
    The fact that the overall evidence of damage or potential damage in this case is not
    such that the offence of misconduct in public office is made out should not be taken to mean that
    the absence of sufficient damage actual or potential will always lead to a decision not to
    prosecute.

    So, NOT beyond the reach of criminal law…but keef CHOSE NOT TO PROSECUTE

    And here’s another tale of smarmer shithousery towards whistleblowers

    The Milton Keynes Journalist Case
    In 2007, Sally Murrer was a partͲtime journalist working for the NMilton Keynes CitizenR.She wrote
    a story about the star striker of the townQs football team being arrested at a private party. She was
    then accused of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office as it was alleged she broke the
    story by obtaining Police information illegally from Mark Kearney (a police sergeant).A third man
    who was a private detective was also charged with similar offences.
    Further chargers were brought forward around other articles as evidence that Murrer had
    obtained the disclosures illegally.They included a phone conversation where Kearney reminded
    Murrer she had written an earlier piece about a suspected murder suspect being convicted for
    selling cannabis.The final piece of evidence the Police had was a taped phone conversation
    between the pair about an Islamist being released early from prison even though he had boasted
    about building a bomb, however this story was never published.
    Nick Cohen in his piece for the Guardian sets the scene for the arrestͲ
    !The security services planned the arrest of the journalist with painstaking care. They bugged her
    contacts and assembled an elite squad to take her down. On 8 May 2007, eight detectives
    swarmed into her home and seized her address book, mobile, laptops and bank statements. In a
    simultaneous raid, a second team searched her newspaper officeͲgoing through everything from
    filing cabinets to boxes of CupͲaͲSoup by the office kettle.
    Once in custody, detectives kept her isolated from her two teenage daughters and autistic son for
    24 hours. Then they began the grilling.
    ‘You could go to prison,’ they told her.
    They let her go, but soon hauled her back in. Before her second interrogation, they left her
    shivering in a cell. Before her third, a woman officer put on rubber gloves and stripͲsearched her. After that, ‘I just lost my ability to think coherently,’ Sally Murrer said. ‘My brain went to cotton
    wool.’6 6

    In November 2008 the case collapsed when the trial judge threw the case out after ruling the
    taped phone conversation was inadmissible due to European laws that protected the rights of
    journalists and their sources.Even with this ruling the Police issued a statement saying they acted
    properly going on to say “the leaking of sensitive information is a serious matter which can
    jeopardise police investigations, put officers and members of the public at risk and lead to criminal
    and misconduct charges,” and !The public has a right to expect that officers and police staff who
    have access to sensitive information can be trusted to handle the material appropriately.

    More undeniable indefensible keef shithousery.

    And you support that. Nonce apologist.

  23. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sir-keir-s-selective-responsibility


    Does Starmer bear responsibility for decisions taken by his subordinates? The (recently-removed) biography on his Doughty Street chambers website seemed to think so: ‘As DPP, Keir was responsible for all criminal prosecutions in England and Wales.’

    Recently removed…after de piffle called him out on savile.,😙🎶

    But keef had NO part in it. He DID however prosecute Chris Huhne…


    As criminal barrister Anthony Lenaghan points out:

    Prosecution counsel in the trial of R v Huhne & Price was Andrew Edis QC. Interesting that Starmer, then DPP, takes credit for this prosecution yet seems to have had nothing to do with the failure to prosecute Jimmy Savile and the Rotherham child groomers, both during his tenure as DPP.

    And that ls from a criminal barrister…A PROPER one.

    Nonce apologist.

      1. Oh well it’s alright to have the chief magistrate of England hearing high profile cases involving MPs , isn’t it?

        I mean – that’s his job after all

        But keef delegated savile to others…Bit personally prosecuted Chris Huhne … Even though he NEVER.

        Go away, hypocritical smarmer-besotted nonce apologist.

      2. Toffee – Oh for goodness sake get a grip, it is part of the DPP’s job to decide on the prosecution of politicians and what went wrong with the Savil case has all been detailed in the report that Keir commissioned. As I have pointed out to you many times before even Savil’s victims disagree with your f’wit nonsense. Go away and do some research, read the various reports and then come back when you have more to offer than silly assertions.

  24. Being a big organisation is NO EXCUSE for being a nonce non-prosecutor.

    And even as the odious Galloway pointed out.

    De piffle responsible for partying in 10 downing Street

    But keef NOT responsible for not prosecuting savile?

    Hmmm….🤔

    Nonce apologist.

      1. Asks the KNOBHEAD who thinks being in charge of a large organisation completely exonerates you when you fuck up.

        Asks the KNOBHEAD who thinks you can party on your last day of work without getting things done.

        Asks the KNOBHEAD who CONDONED smarmer ordering his party to abstain on a vote that would’ve given hungry children a cooked meal.

        But then again, what else can anyone expect of someone who apologises for a nonce enabler?

        Nonce.

  25. Go away and do some research

    I’ve done it – and posted it on here.

    I don’t wank meself silly over the word of a nonce enabler, unlike you. Filthy nonce apologist.

      1. No. I won’t.

        It’s all there ^^^^

        Now stop obfuscating and accept we know what you are. You know we know what you are.

        Nonce apologist.

      2. Toffe – Now there’s a surprise,
        Could you please post a link to this no-where-land that you speak of so that we can all benefit from your wisdom?.

      3. Toffee – Is that a no then?

        Why do you keep doing this to yourself?

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: