Our Attorney General Exposes Himself—Broken Britain
Nazi comparisons, review refusals, and more partisanship...
There are moments that cut through the noise and reveal a situation for what it really is. The recent comments from our Attorney General, Lord Richard Hermer, was one of those moments.
Speaking at the RUSI defence think tank last week, Hermer claimed that politicians threatening to withdraw from international conventions like the European Convention on Human Rights were echoing “1930s Germany”—pre-Nazi Germany.
This is the same ECHR that human rights lawyers frequently cite (usually Article 2 and Article 8)—and judges routinely uphold—to block the deportation of foreign criminals.
To give you an idea of its use, or rather misuse, in recent months, an Iranian father who used fake IDs avoided removal after an immigration judge said that he would not be able to cut his son’s hair “remotely”. A Nigerian fraudster who stole Covid bounce-back loans was allowed to stay because two of his children have autism. And a convicted Iranian sex offender avoided deportation because his drink and drug use made him distrust authority.
Hermer’s remarks naturally triggered immediate backlash. Farage called it “a disgrace”, so did certain Conservatives.
All pointed to what should be obvious: the British public wants control of its borders, not ideological interference from woke lawyers and judges via selective readings of vague international laws.
But the real scandal came days later.
Following inquiries by The Telegraph’s Jacob Freedland and The Daily Sceptic’s Laurie Wastell, Hermer’s office confirmed that he personally signed off on the prosecution of Lucy Connolly—the wife of a Conservative councillor, sentenced to two and a half years in prison for a social media post.
As Attorney General, Hermer oversees the Crown Prosecution Service and has the power to prevent certain prosecutions.
Curiously, during the Southport protests/riots in August 2024, he warned: “You cannot hide behind your keyboard—you will face the full force of the law.”
Note: the man Hermer is referring to in the post below is Tyler Kay—a father of three who copied, pasted, and uploaded Connolly’s post to show support after her arrest.
Connolly’s post came almost immediately after the Southport child-murders, where she called for mass deportations and stated she wouldn’t care if migrant hotels were attacked.
Her sentence has been widely criticised as disproportionate. Senior politicians, media pundits, and various commentators (some even on the left) have since called for her release.
Then, the hammer dropped.
The Telegraph discovered that Hermer’s office had also declined to review “unduly lenient” sentences handed down to a convicted rapist, a paedophile, and a terrorist fundraiser.
All three received softer sentences, with the convicted rapist receiving 28 months compared to Lucy’s 31.
It is understood that Hermer’s office would have looked at the Sentencing Council’s guidelines to make decisions on these cases.
The same Sentencing Council that recently tried to bake explicit racial bias into judicial procedure via pre-sentence reports (that often lead to more lenient sentences) for offenders who are ethnic minorities and/or from “faith minority” communities.
More recently, they quietly reissued guidelines for four key immigration offences, including illegal entry and use of fake identification, encouraging judges to issue sentences below twelve months.
That matters because anyone sentenced to more than twelve months becomes eligible for automatic deportation. In essence, they’ve taken power away from authorities to carry out deportations.
It might come as little surprise that Hermer hasn’t had much to say on the matter. Nor has he had much to say on Lucy’s sentence.
For context, Hermer is the same barrister who fought a legal battle for one of the 9/11 plotters, representing Mustafa al-Hawsawi—who last year pleaded guilty to the murder of 2,900 people in the 2001 attacks on the United States.
He also argued that ISIS bride Shamima Begum should have been allowed to return to the UK to take part in her appeal—when he intervened on behalf of Liberty in Begum v Home Secretary.
Similarly, he sought compensation from the British government for an al-Qaeda chief linked to the July 7 terror attacks—representing convicted terrorist Rangzieb Ahmed when he attempted to sue the UK over alleged torture by Pakistani authorities.
This is the government's chief legal advisor, who doesn’t just oversees bodies like the CPS, but the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the Government Legal Department (GLD). He has tremendous oversight and decision-making powers.
Funnily enough, it was Starmer who handed him his peerage in July last year—effectively making him a Lord, just so he could take up the role of Attorney General, or so it is thought.
They both worked together at Doughty Street Chambers in their capacity as barristers.
Everywhere you look, Britain’s justice system appears captured—politicised from the top down. And we haven’t even touched on the judges who work for refugee charities while ruling on immigration cases.
Not to forget: the police chiefs who want to discriminate against white candidates in a bid to “boost diversity”.
And they still expect people to have faith in the system…
*Later edits were added to include details of Hermer’s past work.
Do you really believe our best days lie ahead?
Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can, genuinely, make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 100 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and put another dent in the system.
That clip is worth paying close attention to, as it reveals the malevolent dishonesty which Hermer's remarks were based on. He basically makes a false distinction between following a rules-based system of international law, and pursuing a path of naked national power, like the Nazis. There is no other position: no possibility that a country might refrain from subjecting itself to international law, and yet still act ethically, in accordance with its own self-imposed sense of what is right and good. It's like saying that unless a person is followed around by a policeman or submits to being electronically tagged, he will inevitably embark on a course of theft, violence, and rape.
I don't know what's worse: the sixth-form level of argumentative acumen, or the pompous bluster with which he tries to hide it.
He is indeed a piece of work. Credit to you for collating this material about Hermer and presenting it so clearly. By joining up the dots like this, you enable readers to see the whole picture.
I'm left wondering about the motivation of the devious creepy little midwit. It's certainly not love of country or respect for justice. All too often I find myself falling back on concepts from clinical psychology, but nothing else seems to fit.
🤢 🎪