BREAKING: Sir Keir Starmer Abstains on White Supremacy

Today, Sir Keir Starmer appeared on an LBC live phone-in...

That in itself should be enough to set alarm bells ringing. I don't listen to LBC myself, but I'm constantly told it attracts all kinds of racists and right-wing nutters. It's exactly the sort of place you'd expect a Labour leader to avoid, especially when his lot spent five years insisting you don't share platforms with undesirables.

NOTE: Their idea of undesirables is often left-wing activists like Black journalist Kerry-Anne Mendoza. We've mentioned her a lot recently and for good reason. She's been relentlessly targeted by the Labour hard-right, and Starmer issued orders that anyone who attended an antiracism event she attended would be suspended. Yes, he told Labour members they would be suspended for listening to a Black woman tell us why she thinks racism is bad. You really couldn't make this shit up, but I digress...

Watch Sir Keir Starmer fail to challenge caller on far-right "great replacement" theory or her disgraceful suggestion Britain should have a nation state law so only whites have self-determination. You can draw your own conclusions. pic.twitter.com/38hMtSu0Jb

— RD Hale (@RDHale_) December 14, 2020

So Starmer appeared on an LBC phone-in. So far so bad. And it's about to get so much worse...

Starmer thought it would be a good idea to debate the legitimacy of people kneeling for Black Lives Matter and discuss whether Millwall fans should've booed kneeling footballers. Now in fairness, Starmer did defend those footballers in his own feeble way, but an antiracist really should not need to debate this shit! 

Let me spell it out for those who are confused...

You don't debate with a racist why racism is bad. You shut them down. You simply explain anyone who booed those footballers is racist. End of conversation. You do not lend legitimacy to the opposing view. It's like debating whether the Earth is flat, or having a friendly chat about whether the slave trade was a bad thing. It's not a conversation that needs to be had.

But it somehow gets even worse...

The caller went onto discuss far right "great replacement" theory and ask why Britain can't be turned into a white ethnostate. I shit you not...

"Should white people also start playing identity politics before they become a minority themselves by 2066?"

And when Starmer gave his piss-weak answer, she continued:

"If anything, the racial inequality is now against the indigenous people of Britain because we are set to become a minority by 2066... And we just have to look across to the middle-east where Israel has a state law that they are the only people in that country to have self-determination. Well, why can't I, as a white British female, have that same right?"

Obviously, Starmer shut her down immediately and told her such ideas are completely unacceptable in modern Britain, right? Wrong!

He simply replied: "We all have those rights" (not in an ethnostate, they don't, Keith) and then went on to waffle about kneeling for Black Lives Matter again. Starmer had an opportunity to condemn white supremacy handed on a plate and he declined that opportunity. 

And it turns out this was not any old caller either. This woman is reportedly a supporter of far-right group Patriotic Alternative. According to Red Flare, she has a YouTube channel where she shares videos with charming topics like "White lives matter." Click on the below tweet to see the thread in full and make up your own mind.

This caller, introduced as "Gemma from Cambridge", is a supporter of Patriotic Alternative (PA), the new fascist party founded by former members of the British National Party in September last year.

— Red Flare (@redflareinfo) December 14, 2020

Now you could argue Starmer had no control over which caller would appear on the show, but LBC apparently do have some control. After all, they speak to their guests before putting them live on air. 

Those who've listened to LBC tell me it's flooded with right-wingers and suggest LBC vets their callers accordingly. I can't say whether this is true, but LBC's reputation should've been a red flag for the leader of a socialist, antiracist party (unless that is no longer what he wants the party to be).

Some very serious questions must be asked.

Why is Starmer going on shows which attract a racist far-right crowd when he's telling Labour members they'll be expelled for speaking to/interacting with/sharing a platform with anyone he declares a non-person? (Even a Black journalist discussing her experiences of racism!)

You could argue that in politics you must speak to a wide range of people, which is fair enough, but to declare left-wing journalists beyond the pale and then happily chat with the far-right is a horrifying double-standard.

Why was this person so seemingly comfortable raising such hideous topics with the Labour leader, anyway? Could it have anything to do with him previously describing Black Lives Matter as a "moment", or saying those who toppled the Colston statue were "totally wrong", or that he had "no truck whatsoever" with the Black Lives Matter organisation. Could it have anything to do with Starmer apparently failing to address the outrageous racist bullying outlined in the Labour leaks report? Or the fact he is allegedly close to some of the culprits?

Why is Starmer so comfortable, not just going on LBC call-ins, but writing for newspapers which have racist headlines on a daily basis? Why is Starmer never declaring racist right-wing journalists non-persons like he does Black left-wing journalists? Why does he completely fail to address concerns of Islamophobia and anti-Black racism in the Labour Party? Starmer is more than comfortable addressing antisemitism concerns, and rightfully so, but does he think these other forms of racism are less important?

I'm hearing Black people and Muslims say the Labour Party is no longer a safe space for them. On a personal level, I have a Black wife and kids and I don't trust the Labour leader on matters of racial justice at all.

Instead of addressing our concerns, Starmer is having cosy chats with white supremacists and writing for racist publications behind pay walls. Are these clumsy errors of judgement? Or part of a deliberate strategy to appeal to the right-wing? I know what I think, because whoever Starmer is appealing to, right now, it sure as hell isn't the left, and especially not our Black and Muslim comrades.

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations can help us massively and enable us to continue our work. 

Please click the button to donate

Thank you for your support

email: r.d.hale@outlook.com

British Police Officer Filmed Punching Black Child Outside His School

Watch the shocking moment a Met police officer twice punched a 16 year old boy in the face outside his school in Tottenham. It was reported police officers received injuries during the encounter, but the footage suggests their actions were excessive, and they were met with loud protests from onlookers.

Police thugs assault a young kid in Tottenham - his family have called a protest at 2pm today outside Parkview school. No justice, no peace #blacklivesmatter #Nojusticenopeace pic.twitter.com/jfMAM9u8FF

— Socialist Workers Party ✊🏽 (@SWP_Britain) December 11, 2020

The boy was later treated in hospital for facial injuries and the incident has been referred to the police watchdog for investigation. I understand a small protest took place today, outside Parkview School in Haringey.

Tensions between police and the local community have been running high in Haringey, due to racial profiling and stop and search techniques. Ironically, the police claim their methods are used to reduce violent crime, but some might suggest police are often the violent criminals themselves.

I have a Security Industry Authority badge, meaning I am trained in proper restraint techniques or physical interventions. While I am unaware of police training procedures, I can confirm that restraining someone's limbs and neck, and then punching them in the face would be unacceptable in the security industry. 

It's not just the striking that seemed problematic either. Restraining someone's neck and dragging them to the ground is dangerous and can result in death or serious injury, particularly in those with health conditions or disabilities. You just don't know who you're dealing with during such an encounter. This is something which was explicitly stated during our training and I have trouble believing police would not understand it.

The officer could have employed multiple techniques to restrain the boy's arms without touching his neck, let alone punch him, especially when you consider he was bigger than him.

If a person in the security industry acted in this manner, not only would they almost certainly lose their badge, due to excessive use of force, but they'd be prosecuted. This was a grown man versus a teenage boy - a minor - who had his limbs and neck restrained in a dangerous manner. There was simply no justification I could see to throw those punches, regardless of what may or may not have taken place during the build up. I cannot see how those actions protected the officers or helped in the restraint of the boy. They actually risked escalating the situation and inflaming an already emotional crowd of onlookers.

Whichever way you look at it, this looks terrible for the Met. If anyone is still asking why we in Britain say Black Lives Matter, this is why. Police brutality is not just an American phenomenon.

If you appreciate what we do at Council Estate Voices, even the most modest of donations can help us massively and enable us to continue our work. 

Please click the button to donate

Thank you for your support

email: r.d.hale@outlook.com