Which all comes back to Cooper (at the time) and Starmerās bloody mindedness. The Starmer of today is a hardliner, IMO Cooper is weak (and a personal disappointment) and was only doing his bidding. she will also be a disaster in the FO.
This excerpt from a Guardian article captures the Starmer conundrum well I think, and explains why I dislike the man more with everyday that passes. I think most of his fans must now be in Reform because heās doing a wonderful job to boost their party.
" The international human rights system ā the rules, principles and practices intended to ensure that states do not abuse people ā is under greater threat now than at any other point since 1945. Fortunately, we in the UK couldnāt wish for a better-qualified prime minister to face this challenge. Keir Starmer is a distinguished former human rights lawyer and prosecutor, with a 30-year career behind him, who expresses a deep personal commitment to defending ordinary people against injustice. He knows human rights law inside out ā in fact, he literally wrote the book on its European incarnation ā and has acted as a lawyer at more or less every level of the system. (Starmer is the only British prime minister, and probably the only world leader, to have argued a case under the genocide convention ā against Serbia on behalf of Croatia in 2014 ā at the international court of justice.) He is also an experienced administrator, through his time as director of public prosecutions (DPP), which means he knows how to operate the machinery of state better than most politicians do.
Unfortunately, thereās someone standing in Starmerās way: a powerful man who critics say is helping to weaken the international human rights system. He fawns over authoritarian demagogues abroad and is seeking to diminish the protections the UK offers to some vulnerable minorities. He conflates peaceful, if disruptive, protest with deadly terrorism and calls for musicians whose views and language he dislikes to be dropped from festival bills. At times, he uses his public platform to criticise courts, whose independence is vital to maintaining the human rights system. At others, he uses legal sophistry to avoid openly stating and defending his own political position, including on matters of life and death. He is, even some of his admirers admit, a ruthless careerist prepared to jettison his stated principles when politically expedient. That person is also called Keir Starmer."
Now Even Banksy is the āenemyā. I think his mural sums up the state of affairs in SS GB well.
Has he missed the point? The judges havenāt yet delivered any verdicts on the current Palestine Action matter. Surely, at this time, it is the executive not the judiciary that should feature?
Or the blind man in his wheelchair holding his sign upside down. Those brave boys are certainly going after the difficult, hardline ring leaders.
The Met has a dreadful reputation anyway, corrupt, misogynistic, racist, etc. etc. I wonder when yet again weāll hear another Met commissioner uttering the meaningless words ālessons have been learntā.
Not really a question I can answer. Itās an organisation made up of 50,000 (?) individuals. It doesnāt take very many to dent a reputation. Look at the Wayne Couzens effect. In my time I came across a few people I didnāt like, and maybe one or two I didnāt trust. I also came across many decent and hardworking officers and civil staff. All of the former would go to an armed incident with a piece of wood shoved in their trousers.
Iām afraid I think itās a pointless question. I wouldnāt damn the staff of Bristol Childrenās Hospital because of what happened there. Or an entire Social Services department because of Maria Colwell, or Victoria Climbie. Robert Mark did inherit a corrupt part of the Met, but I know of officers who turned down the opportunity to join CID or The Sweeney because they wouldnāt accept a brown envelope. What large organisation hasnāt got issues that need addressing? But, if you are the management of such an organisation you need to be eternally vigilant.
I donāt think that the mural is about judges in particular, but rather that the judge in the mural is depicted as representing the āStateā in general by using a visual that everyone can instantly recognise.
I believe that the Government has a PR problem of their own making by taking to law to suppress an organisation which is viewed by many as being expressive of public opinion, whilst at the same time failing to take any meaningful action in relation to Palestine and the ongoing genocide in parts thereof. Additionally, the UK Governmentās supply of arms to Israel, and failing to apply any really effective sanctions against Israel, makes it easy for people to identify with the school of thought that believes that the UK Government is effectively complicit in the genocide.
People perceive the UK Government as not only failing to take appropriate action, but at the same time seeking to suppress the one organisation that demands said action.
Donāt just cancel trade talks ā- try banning all trade. Donāt just sanction some Israeli government members, but sanction all of them. Ban EL AL from UK airspace and send a warship or two to protect the humanitarian flotilla currently en route to Gaza.
IF the UK Government is seen to be taking all the action that it can, then there will be no need for demonstrations in Parliament Square.
I think (and Heaven forbid that I try and interpret a Banksy) that he was showing how the pillars of the State are being bent to the corrupt wishes of an elite few, Starmer and Cooper. The judge isnāt the target, heās just the tool. Like the police.
