Hermer Reported To Bar Standards Board For Serious Professional Misconduct

 

Starmer & Hermer – The Traitorous Duo Who Hunted Our Own Soldiers While Knowing the Claims Were Filthy Lies

 

Listen up, you spineless, virtue-signalling Westminster reptiles.

While brave British soldiers were out in the dust and danger of Iraq, risking life and limb for this country, two ambitious human rights lawyers back home were busy sharpening their knives. One of them is now our Prime Minister. The other is his Attorney General. And together, Keir Starmer and Richard Hermer helped unleash one of the most disgusting witch-hunts against our own veterans this nation has ever seen.

Let’s call it what it is: betrayal dressed up as “justice.”

Back in 2007, Starmer didn’t just dip his toe in. He worked for free — oh yes, the noble warrior insisted on doing it pro bono — alongside his mate Richard Hermer and the now-disgraced Phil Shiner. They pushed a landmark legal case that extended European human rights law into active war zones. The result? Hundreds of British troops dragged through years of investigations, interrogations, and public smears over alleged war crimes.

One soldier in particular — Sgt Richie Catterall — had already been cleared twice of murder. Twice. But that wasn’t good enough for Starmer and Hermer. They personally urged the courts to order yet another inquiry, sneering that the previous military investigations were “perfunctory” and “wholly inadequate.” They got their wish. The man was hounded for another 13 years. His life was wrecked. He became suicidal. All based on claims that later collapsed.

But here’s where it gets truly sickening.

Recent revelations show that Richard Hermer knew — or was explicitly warned — that many of the allegations against our troops were lies. Deliberate, fabricated, bogus Iraqi claims. Emails and documents now in the public domain prove he was alerted to inconsistencies, to witnesses who couldn’t keep their stories straight, to evidence that stank of fabrication. Yet he ploughed on anyway. He backed the claims. He helped publicise them. He pursued compensation and fresh inquiries against decorated British soldiers.

This wasn’t ignorance. This was ideological fanaticism. Human rights lawyer syndrome at its most poisonous — where foreign accusers are automatically believed, and our own fighting men are presumed guilty until proven innocent a dozen times over.

And who was right there with him? Keir Starmer. The man who now stands in Downing Street pretending to “support our troops.” The same man who, as soon as he got into power, moved to scrap protections for Northern Ireland veterans — opening the door once again to vexatious prosecutions against elderly ex-soldiers who served during the Troubles. While IRA terrorists walk free or get comfortable pensions, our boys face the prospect of being hauled into court in their 70s and 80s.

This is two-tier justice in its purest, most revolting form.

One rule for the terrorists and foreign claimants who hate Britain. Another rule for the men who wore the uniform and actually defended this country.

Starmer and Hermer didn’t just enable this. They were architects of it. They built their glittering careers on the back of smearing British soldiers. Starmer’s “pro bono” work wasn’t charity — it was career advancement. Hermer’s dogged pursuit of dodgy claims wasn’t principled — it was reckless and, in light of the warnings he received, borderline contemptible.

Now Hermer sits as Attorney General, the government’s top legal advisor. The man who knew the al-Sweady claims and similar accusations were built on sand still has the power to direct prosecutions. Think about that. The same bloke who helped hound innocent veterans is now in charge of deciding who gets pursued by the state.

This isn’t oversight. This is a national disgrace.

Our soldiers didn’t sign up to fight under rules that treat every split-second battlefield decision like a Sunday afternoon courtroom debate. They didn’t risk everything so that ambulance-chasing lawyers and ideologues could turn war into a human rights lawsuit factory.

The message Starmer and Hermer have sent to every serving member of our Armed Forces is crystal clear: we don’t have your back. We’ll throw you to the wolves the moment it suits our international lawyer friends or our desire to look “ethical” on the world stage.

To every veteran who was dragged through hell because of these people: you deserved better. You deserved leaders who understood that fighting wars isn’t the same as filing paperwork in The Hague. You deserved gratitude, not suspicion.

To Starmer and Hermer: history will record you as the pair who chose activist lawfare over loyalty to the men who kept this country safe. You didn’t serve Britain. You served your own egos and your precious human rights ideology.

And the British public are waking up to it.

Enough is enough. Protect our veterans. Stop the witch-hunts. Sack the ideologues who treat our soldiers as the villains.

Britain’s fighting men and women deserve leaders who put them first — not lawyers who put foreign complaints and European courts first.

The shame belongs to Starmer and Hermer. The debt of gratitude belongs to the soldiers they tried to break.

The Betrayal of Britain: Starmer and Hermer’s Spineless Retreat from Duty

 

As the clock strikes 12:05 PM BST on June 23, 2025, the United Kingdom finds itself led by two figures—Sir Keir Starmer and his very close friend Attorney General, Richard Hermer—who appear determined to erode the nation’s credibility and abandon its allies at the most critical juncture. The latest scandal involves their deafening silence on the potential U.S. bombing of Iran and their refusal to affirm whether Britain, as a NATO ally, would stand by America if Iran retaliates. Hiding behind a flimsy legal interpretation that NATO obligations don’t compel military assistance, Starmer and Hermer are not just dodging responsibility—they are actively weakening the UK’s global standing and betraying the British people.

Dodging the Bullet: A Spineless Stance on NATO

The breaking news from Joe Rich (@joerichlaw) on X this morning—reporting Hermer’s assertion that Britain’s NATO treaty obligations do not mandate military support for the U.S. if attacked by Iran—has sparked outrage. This claim hinges on Article 5’s ambiguous phrasing, which allows members to determine what “necessary” assistance entails. Yet, this legalistic wriggling ignores the spirit of NATO, forged in the fires of the Cold War and solidified by the unanimous support for the U.S. after 9/11. Hermer’s position suggests a calculated retreat, one that Starmer seems all too willing to endorse by his conspicuous silence.

 

Why the hesitation? Are they afraid of upsetting Iran’s regime, or are they pandering to a domestic base wary of foreign entanglements? The refusal to commit to supporting the U.S.—a nation that hosts critical UK military bases like Diego Garcia—sends a chilling message to allies: Britain can no longer be relied upon. This isn’t statesmanship; it’s cowardice dressed up as legal nuance, and it risks painting the UK as a fair-weather friend on the global stage.

A Pattern of Weakness: From Chagos to Veterans

This evasiveness is no isolated incident. Starmer and Hermer have built a track record of actions that undermine British interests and sovereignty. Take the Chagos Islands surrender, finalised in May 2025, which The Telegraph reports could cost the UK up to £30 billion. This deal, brokered by Starmer, hands over a strategically vital Indian Ocean territory to Mauritius, jeopardising the joint UK-U.S. military base at Diego Garcia. 

 

Critics, including campaigners like Bertrice Pompe, argue it breaches human rights, yet Starmer pressed ahead, allegedly to avoid a legal challenge. Is this leadership, or a craven capitulation to international pressure?

 

Then there’s the assault on free expression. As ARTICLE 19 warned in June 2024, the UK government has seen a decade-long decline in free speech protections, a trend accelerated under Labour. Hermer’s legal manoeuvres have supported proposals like the Criminal Justice Bill’s restrictions on protest anonymity, while hate speech laws have been weaponised against dissenters. This isn’t defending democracy—it’s lawfare to silence it.

 

Most egregious is the persecution of British veterans. Labour’s push to scrap the Legacy Act, which shielded Northern Ireland Troubles veterans from endless legal battles, has sparked a “mutiny” within the armed forces, per the Daily Mail (May 14, 2025). Regiments like The Rifles have publicly condemned these reforms, with veterans calling it a “total betrayal.” Hermer’s legal framework enables this, turning the law into a tool to harass those who served rather than protect them.

Whose Interests Are They Serving?

The question looms large: why are Starmer and Hermer so assiduously working against the British people? Their progressive agenda, influenced by groups like the Labour Foreign Policy Group, seems to prioritise globalist ideals over national security. Hermer’s RUSI lecture (Spectator, June 3, 2025) comparing ECHR withdrawal advocates to Nazis reveals a mindset hostile to British sovereignty, while Starmer’s Chagos deal suggests a willingness to trade strategic assets for political expediency.

 

Could it be personal ambition? Starmer’s forensic image takes a hit with every dodge, yet he clings to Hermer, a man X users like @CathyMo41926708 and @FedUpNowGo call “evil” and “dangerous.” 

 

Or is it ideological? Their actions align with a vision of a diminished UK, less reliant on the U.S. and more subservient to international bodies—a vision that sacrifices the military, free speech, and national pride on the altar of progressive virtue.

A Call to Account

The British public deserves answers. Why does Starmer tolerate Hermer’s anti-Western folly? Why surrender Chagos for £30 billion when the strategic cost is incalculable? Why prosecute veterans while shielding your own political flanks? And why, when Iran’s cyberwarfare capabilities threaten global stability (Daily Mail, June 18, 2025), do you cower behind legal technicalities instead of standing with NATO?

 

This duo’s leadership is a disgrace. Their legalistic evasions weaken the UK’s reputation, alienate allies, and erode the trust of their own people. It’s time for Starmer to sack Hermer and for both to face the electorate’s judgement. Anything less is a betrayal of the nation they swore to serve.

Lord Hermer: The Activist Attorney General Undermining Britain’s Interests

 

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.