Off Topic Kier Starmer Labour Leader

K. Starmer who said that Jimmy Savile should not be prosecuted. Enough said

 

An article I've just read may interest you.

I was particularly impressed with the comment that Sir Kier has achieved more in four days than Mr Corbyn did in four years.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...kle-anti-semitism/ar-BB12gzua?ocid=spartandhp

 

Well that wouldn't have been very difficult to achieve Poly, other than being a complete tool what did Jeremy actually do for the labour party?

 

Is that a direct quote is it?

 

The quote was relating to the anti-Semitism in The Labour Party.

HOPEFULLY, what Corbin did for The Party was to show them that the British Public will not vote for anything resembling a Left Wing Party.
Will they learn from this?
I doubt it, going on history.
Maggie has gone down as the least loved Prime Minister ever, yet she won three general elections on the trot against Callaghan (Centre), Foot, (Left) and Kinnock (left).

 

Add that to the recent years of Tory rule and Tony Blair's "new Labour" and it seems to me that the British public won't vote for anything that isn't right of centre.

 

Really good point that like. The Blair lot was the only Labour government I've known in my lifetime and they were right of centre imo. I still fume at working tax credits. It isn't the governments job to top up wages, it's the responsibility of business to give workers a pay rise in line with the cost of living.

 

I suspect that you may be waiting a long time for that one. Isn't social media allegation wonderfull (and damaging) sometimes. I wonder if parties have a dirty tricks section (just wondering)

 

They recognise it alright, but they know if they say something often enough, it keeps opponents busy answering the wrong questions, while the real objectives are achieved on the quiet.

 

Not sure if this is true or not but this appears to be doing the rounds and supposedly was head of the CBS and it was decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute Mr Savile. Make of it what you will

 

Evening Standard 11th Jan 2013, (Saville died 20th Oct 2011)

Jimmy Savile could have been prosecuted for sex offences while he was still alive but for blunders by police and lawyers, it was revealed today.

Britain’s chief prosecutor apologised for the failure to pursue four separate allegations against the BBC star, one made as recently as four years ago.


Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said there were failures by police in Sussex and Surrey and by the principal lawyer in dealing with the allegations. He issued a personal apology for the mistakes by the Crown Prosecution Service and announced a series of changes to improve the investigation of allegations by child victims.


A review of the CPS decisions and the police action concluded that a prosecution could have been possible in three out of the four cases. At the time the CPS lawyer concluded that because none of the victims wished to give evidence, no prosecutions could be brought.


However, the review of their actions by the DPP found police should have told victims they were not alone in making complaints, and that the CPS lawyer should have challenged police conclusions.

The first police investigation was sparked by a complaint to officers in Surrey in 2007. A woman, now in her mid-forties, told Surrey police that Savile assaulted a girl of 14 or 15 at the Duncroft Children’s home in Staines in the late Seventies.


Surrey police launched an inquiry and two further allegations against Savile were revealed, one involving an assault on a 14-year-old outside Stoke Mandeville Hospital in 1973. Another police inquiry was launched in 2008 by Sussex Police after a complaint that Savile assaulted a woman in her twenties in a caravan in Sussex. An inquiry by the CPS into these complaints revealed that both forces became aware of each other’s inquiries.

In October 2009, the CPS reviewing lawyer with responsibility for the cases advised that since none of the complainants was “prepared to support any police action”, no prosecutions could be brought.

The review by the CPS chief legal advisor Alison Levitt QC concluded there was no evidence of any “improper motives” in the decisions by either police or lawyers. But she said the CPS lawyer should have challenged the police conclusions and sought to build a prosecution against Savile.

The Yewtree inquiry also found that four separate police forces received complaints about Savile.

Two of these were received by the Met about allegations of sexual abuse in London. One involved Savile assaulting a woman in a camper van in a BBC car park in the Eighties.

In 2003 another victim complained at a police station in west London of being touched inappropriately by Savile on Top of the Pops in 1973. A crime report was created but the victim did not wish to proceed and the case was dropped.

Jersey police also investigated Savile as part of the inquiry into abuse allegations at the island’s Haut de la Garenne children’s home. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is now conducting an inquiry into claims of police failure to investigate Savile

 

Sunderpitt: You do realise that truth or facts have no place on a social media platform?

 

Thanks for the information. I wonder how this will get twisted to suit people agenda.

 

Hindsight is easy.

But think back to the time.
Saville had the status of something approaching Mother Tereasa.
Famous for his charity work and, apparently, everybody's friend.
If you are going to attack ANYBODY with that sort of public image, you have to be dam sure of your facts.

And we know that after Saville, the pendulum swung the other way.
The door was left wide open for some fantasist nutter to accuse a whole raft of the rich and famous of everything from sodomy to murder. And without any proof he was believed, so desperate were the 'powers that be to show that they had learned from Saville'.

It's difficult to get certain justice when dealing with the rich and famous.
For example, Ken Dodd was innocent whereas Lester Piggott was guilty. Alex Salmond was innocent but Harvey Weinstein was guilty.
If you can make any sense of these examples you are doing better than me.

Then we have that old fall-back, it's better that a hundred guilty men go free than that one innocent man is found guilty.
Good theory, bad practice.

I have no axe to grind here. No agenda
And much as I dislike the vast majority of politicians, I couldn't hang one out to dry because a decision he made at work, one that looked logical at the time. turned out to be wrong.

 

Not that I am particularly insightful or even clever. But I do recall arguing with my friends when I was 16-18ish, that I found 'Jim will fix it' a bit odd, or that he was. Rumours were around even then what went on in his caravan parked outside a hospital.
It was about this time that a TV programme had very young girls/boys dancing sexily to some pop music. It was taken off the air iirc.

 

Didn't do himself any favours on that Louis Theroux documentary.

 

2 weird looking ****ers together I had to turn it off after 5 mins

 

A report into allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour found the party was "responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination".

The Equality and Human Rights Commission identified "serious failings" in the party leadership's attempts to tackle anti-Jewish racism.

The Jewish Labour Movement said the party "cannot hide from the tough decisions needed to put this right".

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it was "a day of shame" for the party.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think anybody will be surprised by this although they were plenty of deniers about this issue.

 

As the guy being interviewed on Sky said ‘it was racism pure and simple’. The Labour Party needs to go back to its principles and stop pandering to every group with a grievance going.

 

I completely agree, mate. They'll win their support back in the heartlands if that happens.