Lord Richard Hermer, the Attorney General, has positioned himself as a lightning rod for controversy, consistently prioritising his ideological leanings over the interests of the British people. His tenure is marked by a troubling pattern of decisions and affiliations that raise serious questions about his suitability for such a critical role. From representing terrorists to orchestrating the Chagos Islands surrender, overseeing harsh sentencing for minor offences while ignoring lenient sentences for heinous crimes, and obstructing reforms to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Hermer’s actions reveal a man more committed to political activism than to serving the nation. The British public deserves better, and his immediate sacking is not just warranted—it is essential. Yet, under the weak leadership of Sir Keir Starmer, a fellow enthusiast of activist lawyers, Hermer’s position appears unshakable.
A History of Representing Britain’s Adversaries
Hermer’s legal career is littered with instances of defending individuals and causes that stand in direct opposition to British interests. He has represented figures such as Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Féin leader tied to the IRA, a group responsible for decades of violence against British citizens. Hermer’s advocacy extended to Shamima Begum, the ISIS bride who willingly joined a terrorist organization, only to later demand re-entry to the UK. Posts on X have also highlighted Hermer’s representation of Mustafa al-Hawsawi, a 9/11 plotter, and his legal actions against British soldiers, accusing them of war crimes. These are not isolated cases but part of a broader pattern where Hermer has consistently aligned himself with those who oppose or harm the UK, from IRA operatives to Al-Qaeda affiliates. Such a track record is not merely a professional choice—it’s a deliberate stance against the nation he now serves as Attorney General.
The Chagos Islands Debacle
Perhaps the most egregious example of Hermer’s anti-British activism is his role in crafting the Chagos Islands surrender deal. This agreement, which ceded control of the strategically vital British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius, has been widely criticised as a betrayal of national interests. The deal not only weakens the UK’s geopolitical standing but has also strained relations with the United States, reportedly leading to sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Critics on X have labelled Hermer the “de facto hardline leader” behind this decision, accusing him of prioritising foreign interests over Britain’s sovereignty. This move, far from being a diplomatic triumph, is seen as a capitulation that undermines the UK’s global influence and security.
The Lucy Connolly Sentencing Scandal
Hermer’s involvement in the sentencing of Lucy Connolly, jailed for inciting racial hatred, further exposes his selective approach to justice. While Starmer has publicly distanced himself from the case, claiming no personal involvement, evidence suggests Hermer played a direct role in signing off on Connolly’s harsh sentence. This stands in stark contrast to his apparent indifference to reviewing lenient sentences for far more serious crimes, such as those committed by paedophiles. The discrepancy raises questions about Hermer’s priorities: why pursue a heavy-handed approach against Connolly while allowing leniency for offenders whose crimes devastate lives? This selective activism suggests a justice system skewed by ideological bias, with Hermer at its helm.
Blocking ECHR Reforms
Hermer’s resistance to reforming the ECHR’s overreach into national affairs is another strike against him. Several European Union states have sought adjustments to the ECHR’s jurisdiction, particularly where it interferes in domestic matters that should remain under national control. Hermer’s opposition to these reforms aligns him with a supranational agenda that undermines British sovereignty. By blocking efforts to recalibrate the ECHR’s role, he ensures that foreign judicial bodies retain undue influence over UK law, further eroding the nation’s ability to govern itself. This stance is not just a legal position—it’s a political statement that prioritises globalist ideals over British self-determination.
A Call for Sacking, Met with Starmer’s Weakness
Lord Hermer’s record is a catalogue of decisions that weaken Britain’s standing, security, and sovereignty. His history of representing terrorists, his role in the Chagos surrender, his selective approach to sentencing, and his obstruction of ECHR reforms paint a picture of an Attorney General who is more activist than advocate for the British people. His immediate dismissal is not just justified—it is an urgent necessity to restore trust in the office of the Attorney General.
Yet, hope for such accountability is dim. Sir Keir Starmer, a fellow traveller in the world of activist lawyering, has shown no inclination to rein in Hermer. Starmer’s defence of the Lucy Connolly sentencing and his broader reliance on like-minded legal figures suggest he is too weak—or too complicit—to act decisively. The British public is left to bear the consequences of a government led by those who prioritise ideology over duty.
In conclusion, Lord Hermer’s tenure as Attorney General is a betrayal of the trust placed in him. His actions consistently undermine the interests of the British people, and his continued presence in office is a stain on the nation’s governance. The call for his sacking must be loud and unrelenting, even if Starmer’s weakness ensures it goes unanswered. Britain deserves an Attorney General who serves its people, not one who serves as their adversary.
No comments:
Post a Comment