Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 16:16:01 GMT
Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile. Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when it was decided there was insufficient evidence to charge Savile.
Do you know what 'insufficient evidence' means?
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 10, 2023 16:19:09 GMT
Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile. Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when it was decided there was insufficient evidence to charge Savile.
Do you know what 'insufficient evidence' means? Yes.
It means that when Starmer was no longer the DPP, and Savile had popped his clogs the evidence against Savile became OVERWHELMING, so much so there is no way he wasn't a person of interest, what it means it was too delicate for Starmer to handle, so therefore there was 'insufficient evidence' .... LOL
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 10, 2023 16:22:33 GMT
IIRC Harriet Harman naively, as a member of some free speech organisation made a point of accepting free speech for a pedophile campaign group that joined the group she was in. There is no evidence or charge against her that she was involved in pedophilia. I didn't say there was but it proved to be a poor decision on her part. Yes, and IIRC she did eventually acknowledge that.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 10, 2023 16:31:40 GMT
Do you know what 'insufficient evidence' means? Yes.
It means that when Starmer was no longer the DPP, and Savile had popped his clogs the evidence against Savile became OVERWHELMING, so much so there is no way he wasn't a person of interest, what it means it was too delicate for Starmer to handle, so therefore there was 'insufficient evidence' .... LOL
All you have is your seriously biased opinion, but you are correct everyone learnt about Savile after his death, that's when all the information emerged. But you cannot show that Starmer or the DPP had the full knowledge on Savile before his death. If you have such PROOF please post it, along with: the quotations in quotation marks, the names and the dates. If you cannot then I suggest you at least consider that you have it all wrong, but you like it that way
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Apr 10, 2023 16:37:35 GMT
Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile. Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when it was decided there was insufficient evidence to charge Savile.
Do you know what ' insufficient evidence' means?Yes but you don't.
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 10, 2023 16:40:24 GMT
I didn't say there was but it proved to be a poor decision on her part. Yes, and IIRC she did eventually acknowledge that. .....but very belatedly and she and Dromey should never have gone along with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2023 16:42:04 GMT
All without context of course, and all relying on using the truth to insinuate a lie. Tory DNA to a ' T '. Imbecile... Some of us who were actually in the party at the time spotted Starmer's brand of "honesty" and "integrity" early on, and have been drawing attention to it ever since. It is the same brand of honesty and integrity you might expect from a dodgy used car salesman. His opponents will naturally keep drawing everyone's attention to it as the election nears, all his opponents, not just us on the left. The right wing tabloids will do a number on him and as the message sinks home his poll lead will diminish. Many people do not want to be led by yet another blatant liar prepared to say anything to get elected and meaning none of it.
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 10, 2023 17:06:33 GMT
Yes.
It means that when Starmer was no longer the DPP, and Savile had popped his clogs the evidence against Savile became OVERWHELMING, so much so there is no way he wasn't a person of interest, what it means it was too delicate for Starmer to handle, so therefore there was 'insufficient evidence' .... LOL
All you have is your seriously biased opinion, but you are correct everyone learnt about Savile after his death, that's when all the information emerged. But you cannot show that Starmer or the DPP had the full knowledge on Savile before his death. If you have such PROOF please post it, along with: the quotations in quotation marks, the names and the dates. If you cannot then I suggest you at least consider that you have it all wrong, but you like it that way Without stating the obvious, it was far harder for Savile to deny any allegations of being a pedophile, and he had the best defense of all ..... He was Dead.
Starmer was told to drag it out until Savile and Co. were so old and no longer a danger to children and when they snuffed it Starmer would be off the hook, but that's not the case now, it's becoming clearer and clearer that Starmer knew exactly what Savile was up to, so now we need answers. I hope Labour have no choice but to elbow Starmer and vote for a new leader.
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 10, 2023 17:11:59 GMT
Starmer has been an absolute idiot on this one. He has stood by a poster that is absolute nonsense, which is going to excuse the nonsense he gets back. How can he now complain about smears against him on failing to prosecute Saville and grooming gangs, when he has just doubled down on Labour doing the same to Sunak? To make it even worse, the fucking idiot was on the group that decides how sentences will be applied haha.
He has lost all moral authority now, and he has opened the floodgates for personal attacks on him and his fellow Labour MPs.
Personally, I think he has to go. He is rapidly turning a landslide into a hung parliament.
|
|
|
Post by vlk on Apr 10, 2023 17:17:20 GMT
He will be a one term PM but a PM nevertheless.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 10, 2023 19:06:28 GMT
Starmer was told to drag it out until Savile and Co. were so old and no longer a danger to children By whom, and what evidence do you have of this, or is this just a case of you making stuff up again?
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Apr 10, 2023 19:51:42 GMT
Starmer was told to drag it out until Savile and Co. were so old and no longer a danger to children By whom, and what evidence do you have of this, or is this just a case of you making stuff up again? Errr no it's one of those putting 2+2 together and making sense of things, but hey-ho you are one of the last people who would understand that theory ...
Let me fink why ?? ... LOL
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 10, 2023 19:59:18 GMT
So made up then, but posted as "fact".
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 10, 2023 20:19:44 GMT
So made up then, but posted as "fact". Listen up Mr. Brown. I couldn't say with any certainty that Fairsociety's version is correct but what I can say, with considerable certainty, is that mainstream party politicians will connive, tell lies and commit other jiggery pokery, either of their own volition or on instruction from above, including the party whips. I've met and/or questioned many politicians, some at the top of the game but I've only met one who I would say was totally honest and he lasted one term in office. That's since I became what you might call politics aware over 70 years ago and I've been trying to get hold of footage from a sixties TV series called "The Interlocutor", including writing to the presenter, Michael Mansfield. Since I've got nowhere I suspect the footage was destroyed on the basis it was too embarrassing for politicians, civil servants and other charlatans of all main parties..
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Apr 10, 2023 21:20:03 GMT
A Labour government will: Bring back neighbourhood policing by putting 13,000 extra neighbourhood police and Police Community Support Officers on our streets. This would mean that there would be 13,000 more neighbourhood police officers and community support officers ON TOP OF THE NUMBERS AS OF 2010, it would not be another bent figure or bent statistic as used many times by the Tories, including for example the "40 new hospitals". First off I agree with your earlier post referencing Tory police cuts but as with so many other things we have been ill served by the main parties for decades. Looking at the above post and pcso’s who inflicted that waste of money on us,yep labour and Blunkett and now you think more will be a good idea,a copper I know described them thus “plastic coppers soddin’ ‘opeless” like so many institutions failed by short term ideas and often political dogma and the attitude it’s not our fault guv it’s the other lot.
|
|