BORIS JOHNSON: Fear and Loathing in Lefty Lawyer Land

How a Cabal of Legal Eagles Apparently Took Over Britain While Everyone Else Was Busy Having a Cup of Tea

Dear Boris Johnson,

I’ve just had the pleasure—if one can call it that—of reading your article, “We’re now run by a small cabal of Starmer’s Lefty legal chums who rejoice in the humiliation of Britain.” And I must say, it’s quite the theatrical tour de force. I laughed, I cried (mostly from laughing), and then I wondered how on earth this ended up in a national newspaper rather than a creative writing competition. Let’s unpack, shall we?

The Lefty Cabal: Britain’s New Supervillains

Your central premise—that Britain is now under siege from a shadowy alliance of Left-wing lawyers—is delightful. Truly. Are they meeting in an underground lair, Boris? Perhaps plotting the nation’s downfall over organic hummus and fair-trade wine? You paint a picture of Richard Hermer KC as some kind of legal Moriarty, sitting in a darkened room cackling as he plans his next move to embarrass Britain on the world stage.

But alas, the villainy seems to boil down to… doing his job? Representing clients, upholding legal principles, and adhering to the rule of law? The horror! How dare a barrister-turned-Attorney General fail to consult your sense of patriotic outrage before making decisions rooted in legal precedent? I suppose we should all be grateful you didn’t accuse him of secretly funding Gerry Adams’ Netflix subscription while you were at it.

Money, Madness, and Mythical Billions

Then there’s the money. You throw around the word “billions” with such casual abandon it’s almost endearing. What are we up to now? £9 billion? £10 billion? Why stop there? Why not go full Austin Powers and claim one trillion pounds is at stake? The problem, of course, is that you don’t bother to explain where these numbers come from. Are they based on facts, Boris, or are we back to the Brexit bus school of accounting?

And let’s not forget your dramatic claim that these payouts are a Left-wing conspiracy to “humiliate Britain.” I’m sure the courts in Northern Ireland were sitting there, rubbing their hands together, thinking: “Forget justice, lads—how can we really stick it to the Brits?” Or maybe they were just, you know, applying the law. But that doesn’t fit the narrative, does it?

Internment: A Masterclass in Historical Cherry-Picking

Your nostalgic pining for the “good old days” of internment without trial is a bold move. I’m sure it’ll go down a treat with readers who’ve forgotten that this policy did wonders for IRA recruitment. A minor detail, I’m sure. Never mind that it alienated communities and undermined trust in the rule of law—it’s easier to wax lyrical about the supposed “reality of life and death” without bothering with any of that pesky nuance.

You dismiss the European Convention on Human Rights as though it’s some bureaucratic quirk rather than a cornerstone of post-war European democracy. But no matter—who needs human rights when we’ve got your unflinching moral certitude to guide us?

Starmer: The Void That Walks Like a Man

And then there’s Starmer. According to you, he’s a hollow shell of a leader, presiding over a policy “vacuum.” Strong words, Boris, especially from someone whose entire Brexit plan once amounted to: “Don’t worry, it’ll be great.” You accuse Starmer of having no vision, no ideas, no plans for Britain. But what’s truly fascinating is how little you offer in the way of alternatives. You’ve turned criticism without substance into an art form.

And let’s not forget the name-calling. “Lefty legal chums,” “crazed legal maximalism”—you really went all in with the playground insults this time. It’s like reading a political column written by a tabloid headline generator.

Tone and Temperament: A Rollercoaster Ride

The article’s tone is a wonder to behold. Words like “madness,” “humiliation,” and “deranged” fly off the page with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer. It’s less of a thoughtful critique and more of a dramatic monologue delivered by someone gesticulating wildly on a soapbox.

And the structure—where do we even begin? One moment it’s Gerry Adams, the next it’s the Chagos Islands, then suddenly we’re in Kyiv. It’s like flipping through a political version of Where’s Wally?, except Wally is coherence, and he’s nowhere to be found.

Missed Opportunities: The Could-Have-Beens

What’s most disappointing, Boris, is what your article could have been. You could have explored how to balance reconciliation and justice in Northern Ireland—a complex but critical debate. You could have delved into the broader implications of the ECHR for British sovereignty. You could have provided a detailed critique of Starmer’s policies, outlining specific areas where you believe they fall short. But no, you chose melodrama over substance.

Instead of engaging with these issues, you opted to paint Starmer and his supposed cabal as pantomime villains. It’s entertaining, sure, but it adds little to the national conversation beyond stoking division and feeding confirmation bias.

Final Thoughts from the Peanut Gallery

Your article reads like a love letter to outrage, Boris. It’s big on bluster, light on logic, and completely devoid of nuance. But perhaps that’s the point—why wrestle with complexity when you can just whip up some good old-fashioned hysteria?

In the end, it’s a shame. These are important issues that deserve serious discussion, not the kind of performative outrage best left to Twitter trolls and late-night pub rants. So next time, why not trade the hyperbole for some actual ideas? Who knows—you might even convince someone who doesn’t already agree with you.

Yours with infinite sarcasm,

SPN

Don’t miss out on the next instalment of sarcasm, wit, and unapologetic takedowns. Subscribe now for a front-row seat to the chaos—you’ll laugh, you’ll cry (with laughter), and you might even learn something. Go on, click the button. It’s cheaper than Boris’s next creative accounting project.