At last a fully functioning opposition

Grany You were/are a fan of Corbyn......me, not so much?
Have to leave it at that.

I don’t know the ins and outs of the Savile case ( badly handled by police and others ) but think that Keir Starmer can’t be held personally responsible. It would have been decided on purely legal grounds/terms if a prosecution could go ahead.If others know any different, then please say so.

Well, I disagree. I think he has acted exactly correctly given the fractious nature of the party.

The New Statesman thinks Starmer and Rayner actions are the right one. You will find others agree. My MP being one of them.

Now I think that there is nothing more to say on the subject bar the result in July.

My attention is focused on the 3 existential threats to our country.

Covid19

The economy

The brexit deal.

Lemon Corbyn is a somebody and he is why thousands joined became members of the Labour Party including me. He is a rabble rouser he stood up for principles he believes in and voted accordingly in his party. He has always been on the right side of history. Spoke out against the introduction of PFI in the NHS which gave the hospitals big debts to pay back. Campaigned against the Iraq war there is still unrest in that area still because of that illegal invasion. You need someone to shake things up someone that would change things for the better. He campaigned against all forms of racism and won a peace prise he was not a friend of terrorists. There would be a fully funded NHS and a Green New deal There is a climate emergency what is this government doing about it, so not a lot.

I think Starmer should have suspended those in report that is what you do in any organisation where misdeeds have been reported.

GranddadBrian;' I have lived through nearly nine decades of different shades of political leaderships, strong & weak, but never before any like the incompetence of the last decade.'
...I totally agree. I really do hope that things will improve now; a strong opposition is vitally important. Fingers crossed!

Starmer wasn’t personally involved in the decision not to prosecute Saveille. He apologised for the failure to do so. Police in Surrey I’m I think 2009 decided not to charge saville on the basis the women complainants didn’t want to give evidence, on another occasion a lawyer,employed in the CPS reached a similar conclusion. Starmer said the women should have been supported and told their were other complainants.
Of course, Saville should have been prosecuted. So should Cyril Smith and other politicians, entertainers. Thank goodness Nazis Afsal re-examined earlier CPS decisions that it wasn’t possible to prosecute grooming gangs because the witnesses weren’t reliable - too similar to Saville .

Party led by someone who, when in a position to make decisions on cases, dismissed the case against Jimmy Saville? Or perhaps more accurately "decided not to persue it" or whatever terminology was used.

I am a political, but feel more than a bit about this.

I rarely comment on these pages, because I hate the rudeness and sheer prejudicial views that are frequently expressed, like most view expressed however on the performance of the new leader of the Labour Party at 89: years old I welcome at long last a new more competent opposition.
Today,brought back memories of a decent Britain when we had respect for morality,neighbours & our elderly citizens. I have lived through nearly nine decades of different shades of political leaderships, strong & weak, but never before any like the incompetence of the last decade.
Those last comments refer right across our political structure and not just one party. The UK needs to change, but it is unfortunately unlikely to happen until we have a decent fair electoral system.

Whether the data can be "recaptured" or not is insignificant. It is the fact that by not suspending those cited in the leaked report for misdeeds Starmer has stated plainly in the eyes of many that he wishes to protect those persons and through that his whole stance on the issue.

If you cannot understand that whitewave2 you understand little in regard to attitudes of the various factions within the Labour Party and especially in its wider national movement.

The data still is obtainable. I can categorically say that. You can have full confidence that if it was on a computer or phone it can be resuscitated.

You must never let anyone suggest otherwise as it isn’t true.

You can therefore have full confidence in the findings.

Now, whether you don’t like the eventual conclusion is another issue.

Devorgilla.I believe Keir Starmer is a decent man too and will be a good LOTO and in time perhaps a good PM.
It’s hard to make absolute judgements at this stage but he has a hard job to do and needs time to get on with it.

Well, had Starmer suspended those cited in the report immediately the content of the leaked report was known, then all could have sat back and awaited the inquiries conclusions in the confidence that all available data would be attainable to those carrying out the enquiries.

However, as those cited in the report are still at their posts with access to all data on the Central Office IT system, then no one can "sit back" in confident knowledge that the security of any data the inquiry may wish to access has not been breached.

In the above therefore, there can be no confidence in any conclusions the inquiry team may try to draw, and that situation may well see the end of the Labour Party in Britain in its present form.

trisher what are you saying for heavens sake, that even if people are found innocent that people will continue to believe in their guilt. You can’t behave like that???.

Data and information can be obtained even where it has been deleted. So if the guilty have tried to get rid of the evidence they can’t believe me.

Corbyn was a nobody...it was the top people in the government of the time who secured the peace deal.All he was known for in the PLP was for rabble rousing, voting against his own party and taking the side of any terrorist in the world.The PLP were hoist by their own petard for including him in the voting rounds for the Labour Leadership.They were of course, dumbfounded when they saw him winning it because they knew what it meant for their Party.
Anyhoo.....enough of Corbyn now, he is toast thankfully.

WW2, thank you for your input. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial. Time now I feel to let the investigators get on with it and pick the bones out of it afterwards. I believe KS to be a decent man who will insist on a thorough investigation.

But Whitewavemark2 can you not see that if those people are completely cleared in the enquiry there will be people who will continue to believe in their guilt? They will believe evidence was destroyed. If they had been suspended on full pay and were found not guilty it would be an unquestionable result.

Oh dear round and around in circles.

Yes I know the point of the enquiry, yes it is to establish whether a link exists, which at present the report fails to do. It seems to me that it is full of allegations but no real evidence.

grandad it really is a pointless exercise isn’t it? You are asking me things that neither you nor I can possibly know. In my opinion, allegations, innuendo and second hand evidence proves nothing. The investigation will look at the evidence and hopefully draw a conclusion, but at the way many people are behaving I wouldn’t hold my breath at the moment.

As I have said countless times wait until July. It can’t come quick enough!!

Whitewavemark2, your above posts are quite frankly rediculas in there content.

The purpose of any inquiry is to establish whether any allegations made against and employee are correct or without substance. You are arguing that "it would be incorrect for Starmer to suspend the individuals unless it was absolutely clear that a link existed".

However, you seem to fail to appreciate that establishing whether a clear link exists between the allegations and what may have actually happened is what the investigation has been set up to find out.

It is widely accepted that any employee in that situation is suspended from their employment while such an investigation is carried out for the protection of all persons involved and any data that may exist in regard to the matter.

The legislation that surrounds the above was implemented by a Labour Government in 1998. Therefore whitewave2 can you inform me why Starmer has placed the Central Office employees above all practice and legislation that all others who are employed in Britain are subject to?

No grandad I wouldn’t. I have never argued that there may not be a case to answer. All I have argued is that rather than behaving as a kangaroo court we should wait for the outcome of the enquiry and all this speculation and tittle tattle is not the way I operate.

What I meant to add was this.

That given that the report does not conclusively prove the argument that various individuals in HQ actively worked against a Corbyn and the election, it would be incorrect for Starmer to suspend the individuals unless it was absolutely clear that a link existed.

This is not a kangaroo court and neither would I expect Starmer to behave in such a way.

His decision is correct given the above evidence.

Well, at least now you have conceded that there is and for some substantial period of time has been very serious problems at the Labour parliamentary Party Cental Office Whitewavemark2.

Will you also now also concede that Starmer should have, and still should, suspend from their employment and other roles at Central Office all who are cited for misdeeds in the leaked report?

OK I’ve missed looked at all the various evidence that I can find regarding to the issue being constantly repeated by grandad and have come to the following conclusion. I have taken the following from the New Statesman with which I agree. Talking about wrecking tactics on the part of HQ and the leaked report.

What the article argues is that the behaviour of some at HQ has not been conclusively linked to the alleged sabotage of Corbyn’s election defeat.
I absolutely agree with the reports conclusion that the organisation urgently needs a change of culture and approach and I am confident that Starmer is someone who can achieve this.

“ This report does not conclusively prove that argument. It collects what are alleged to be multiple and repeated examples of communication between senior staff at Labour HQ showing bitter and in some cases deeply personal opposition to Corbyn, his staff and his close parliamentary allies. But it doesn’t successfully draw a conclusive line between that behaviour and a deliberate attempt to sabotage Labour either in 2017 or in the battle against anti-Semitism.
Whether such a link existed will form one of the three pillars of the independent inquiry that Starmer and Rayner have set up. Another pillar will concern the report’s leaking, while the third will look at the circumstances in which the report was commissioned.
That last pillar is more important than it sounds. The report also fails to prove its case on the 2018-20 period – the point at which Corbyn had control over the machinery, and his preferred general secretary in place. It was during this period that Peter Willsman was allowed to remain on the Labour National Executive Committee for more than six months after the release of a recording of an NEC meeting in which he said that claims of Labour anti-Semitism were the creation of “Trump fanatics” in the British Jewish community.
The very existence of yet another Labour-run report into this issue is a pretty damning piece of evidence that the party’s hierarchy had not got to grips with the issue. The central political demand of the Jewish Labour Movement and most of the Jewish community’s communal organisations has been for an independent process. Labour’s institutional problems did not begin with Jeremy Corbyn and they will not end simply because he is no longer the party's leader. But a vital prerequisite of tackling the problem is that Labour stops trying to mark its own homework. This topic ought to have been handled in the same way as the party's sexual harassment claims, which Karon Monaghan, the widely respected equalities lawyer, was brought in to investigate, rather than the matter being dealt with internally. That this now widely leaked report includes the unredacted personal details of people who complained about anti-Semitism makes its existence worse still.
This attests to the scale of the task before Starmer and Rayner – who, whether the report is true or false, have inherited an organisation badly in need of a change of culture and approach that goes well beyond the failure to tackle anti-Semitism in its ranks.”

Thank you GD43 and Trisher for your prompt responses. I was unaware there had been an NEC meeting regarding this matter. I think you will find I said that comment Trisher. I take your point that Senior Staff could perhaps access the office and remove evidence but that would be equally true of anyone able to access the Office, friend or foe. I have worked in organisations where records went missing making it difficult for people to prove their innocence or have their guilt proven. I still think it is best not to prejudge, but to await the result of what will be, I believe, a thoroughly run investigation.

trisher, in regard to your above post, I believe that Labour Cental office is open and operating with a skeleton staff.

Other employees are working from home with access to the Central Office IT system. Within that situation lays the credibility of Starmer's decision not to suspend all cited for misdeeds in the leaked report as those persons having access to the IT system can delete any documents they may wish.

I can't remember who but somebody posted that it didn't matter that the accused were not suspended because as we were in lockdown they wouldn't be in the office anyway. It has just occurred to me that being in lockdown just means that most staff will not be in the office, but presumably senior staff, if they wished, could access the offices and remove evidence and no-one would know. It casts doubt on the results of any enquiry I just hope Starmer doesn't try to go for a whitewash.

Devorgilla, in regard to your post @17:35 today, Kier Starmer refused to suspend Labour Party Central Office staff at the NEC meeting that agreed to the launching of an investigation into the leaked antisemitism report. Since that very fractious meeting, there have been no reports of Starmer changing his decision.

In regard to the financial support given to Labour candidates in the 2017 & 2019, general elections, funding was forthcoming from the trade unions to be distributed to candidates within the legislation that governs such funding.

However, according to allegations in the leaked report employees and "others" within Central Office channelled that funding in amounts that we're illegal to right right-wing candidates of their choosing with one former deputy leader especially receiving very special treatment.

I would agree with what you state Devorgilla in regard to everyone waiting for the outcome of the investigation. However, as the allegations made against the employees and their superiors are so serious, surly those persons should be suspended from their employment while the investigation takes place for that would be the practice by any other employer in Britain.

Someone being suspended from their employment always receives a letter informing them they must not attend their place of employment or make contact with any other employee within the organisation.

I hope therefore Devorgilla you can now see the credibility gap that has opened up between many in the Labour movement and Kier Starmer, and also the question mark that has come about in regard to the viability of the investigation now being able to seek out all that really happened at Labour Central Office.