The court case was in London according to media reports, not Bristol. But I guess your wider point still stands.
This should have been a shut and dry criminal case (particularily the GBH), but Starmer politicized it by proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group. The initial justification was that they were attacking "jewish businesses" as some sort of kristallnacht. When people realized the business was a weapons manufacturer, the tone was already set that this was a political move to placate a country that most Britons have a negtive view on. Since then there have been months of indeed very peaceful protest with pensioners being hauled away for holding signs saying: "I support Palestine Action". Not many people are fiercely zionist in the UK and for most this was just a stupid way of using police resources.
For a bunch of unwashed thugs these activists seem much better at swaying public perception than the Labour party.
And it is another one in an increasingly long line of self-enforced errors by Starmer. He could have waited until the trial finished to suggest the terrorist designations. He could have led the case with the serious assault on the policewoman instead of "jewish businesses", but he literally cant help himself when it comes to virtue signaling towards zionists. So we are now in the interesting situation where a bunch of pensioners have been arrested and given tickets for supporting a "terrorist organization", but the state can not even get a guilty verdict for the absolute worst crime these Palestine Action activists have committed.
Another example of Starmers self-destructive loyalty to zionism can also be observed in the saga around Peter Mandelson. Starmer and his cronies were so eager to reward the foremost zionist operative in the labour party they were willing to overlook all the shady Epstein business. This one might actually lead to Starmers downfall as a PM.
Mandelson was involved far beyond his role as US ambassador (which he only wanted to do part time anyway). He was brought back to vet labour candidates before the last election. Quite a few were struck off due to being unsuitable, which usually meant having tweeted something slightly critical of Israel at some point. In one particular instance a local candidate who was almost certain to win, was unendorsed because she had liked a video by Jon Steward about Israel. Labour lost that seat. At the same time Luke Akehurst, who was an open Israeli lobbyist (and very disliked among labour party members), was parachuted in to a safe seat he had no connection too.
So Keir Starmer put one of Epsteins most famous british associates (and known as personally corrupt) in charge of deciding who was suitable to be a labour MP. Im sure the zionism was just a coincidence.
More options
Context Copy link