Keir Starmer rescued by police

Maudi

Actually that is not true on another thread I said Boris should go and take his green agenda wife with him. I'm not sticking up for Boris just stating the facts as I and the silent majority of voters might see them.

just stating the facts as I and the silent majority of voters might see them.

So am I, maudi. And the polls are bearing me out at the moment. I suppose it depends on what sticks in their memory the longest.

Actually that is not true on another thread I said Boris should go and take his green agenda wife with him. I'm not sticking up for Boris just stating the facts as I and the silent majority of voters might see them.

MaizieD Wed 09-Feb-22 12:41:20

Johnson ... lies continually and shamelessly.

My point was whether Starmer was at fault or not he was in charge of the CPS at the time of the Jimmy Saville inquiries. That's what voters will remember whether you like it or not.

Don't worry, maudie. Something else that will cut through to voters is that Johnson has presided over the pandemic chaos, siphoned off £billions to friends and donors for unusable PPE, partied when people were not allowed to be with confused elderly relatives or dying loved ones, has raised taxes when he categorically promise not to and has been a key instigator of the current Brexit shambles. And that he lies continually and shamelessly. And the rest...

Despite your sterling support both he and the tory party are doing very poorly in the polls.

Let the best man win...

10:00growstuff

Maudi

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

At what stage did the failure to prosecute take place?

This post proves that Johnson's message has cut through to the less well-informed.

I can Google like the best of them, so no need for the sarcastic reply. Seems I've really hit a sore point with the Starmer fan club ?. My point was whether Starmer was at fault or not he was in charge of the CPS at the time of the Jimmy Saville inquiries. That's what voters will remember whether you like it or not.

MaizieD

growstuff

That's my understanding too Petera. If anybody's at fault, it's probably the police ... and a general attitude that he was a "good guy" most of the time. Nothing to do with Starmer!

Not only that, but a generally misogynist police culture.

Much the same thing also happened to girls caught up in the grooming gangs until Starmer stepped in to change the guidelines on how the police were to deal with them.

... isn't this just becoming farcical now?

We are focused on a man who has acquitted himself as honourably as he could under the circumstances, who has apologised publicly for the failings of the institution of which he was head at the time, and taken concrete steps to change the modus operandi, who - as you said - changed the guidelines on how the police deal with grooming gangs abusing very young women, whilst our PM is under criminal investigation regarding lockdown parties. If this isn't just about the biggest deflection in Parliamentary politicking, I'd like to know what is.

Tory-supporting grans appear to think this 'partygate' is all about the Left "playing politics" (as if the Right would never indulge in such a tactic, eh?). Well, it isn't.

I very recently mailed my constituency Conservative MP, a man dedicated to the party for decades. I asked him if he thought Johnson should retract his comment and if he thought the lockdown parties were sufficiently important to be raised as a matter of concern.

I will not name him for the protection of his privacy. During lockdown he was unable to be with a very close relative who died in hospital, because of the restrictions imposed at the time which he, like millions of others, obeyed. He also thought the comment by Johnson was "regretful and "unnecessary" because it was "not in the spirit of good debate". Reading between the lines of his necessarily polite and diplomatic response, it is obvious that he is troubled by Johnson's leadership and the reputation of his party because of it.

Johnson is under investigation so I will make no further comment because he has not yet been found guilty of any breach of Law. But I can comment on his attitude, which has been one of dismissive "let's-move-on" arrogance. And this deflection onto the Starmer / Savile issue is such an obvious diversionary tactic that I seriously don't understand why anyone can believe it is anything other than that. Especially when Johnson is on record claiming that police money is wasted on investigations into historic child sexual abuse allegations, describing it as being “spaffed up a wall.”

But, my point is - this is not about the Left / Corbynites / Remainers trying to get rid of Johnson - though undoubtedly for some it might well be. But for many it is about the integrity of Boris Johnson - and that integrity, or lack of it, is being questioned by all parties, including his own - not to mention the victims of Savile who, according to reports, do not condone his comments.

You might find this interesting, Petera

On the request of Starmer, Alison Levitt, his then Principal Legal Adviser, released a report in 2013 on the 2009 decision not to prosecute Savile. It found that if prosecutors had taken a different approach then prosecution may indeed have been possible. Levitt found that Surrey Police did not tell the victims that other complaints had been made against Savile also, and that had they known this, victims would have been more likely to press charges.

The report also discovered a ‘lack of understanding’ by officers concerning the law and practice, concerning sexual offences. It was found that outdated regulations and training were partially to blame in the failure to prosecute Savile, indicating structural issues in the way officers were trained, rather than being a matter of personal responsibility.

Further to the internal CPS report, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) similarly conducted a 2013 review into the failure to prosecute Savile. In it, they largely substantiated and reinforced many of the conclusions concerning the structural and systemic barriers in police by the Levitt Report.

www.just-debate.co.uk/post/inside-keir-starmer-s-time-at-the-cps

It's also worth googling the actual Levitt report.

growstuff

That's my understanding too Petera. If anybody's at fault, it's probably the police ... and a general attitude that he was a "good guy" most of the time. Nothing to do with Starmer!

I think - but I would need to check - that the police did not tell any of the complainants about each other, leading each to believe that they were the only person coming forward. Now there may be a legal reason for this, but...

growstuff

That's my understanding too Petera. If anybody's at fault, it's probably the police ... and a general attitude that he was a "good guy" most of the time. Nothing to do with Starmer!

Not only that, but a generally misogynist police culture.

Much the same thing also happened to girls caught up in the grooming gangs until Starmer stepped in to change the guidelines on how the police were to deal with them.

That's my understanding too Petera. If anybody's at fault, it's probably the police ... and a general attitude that he was a "good guy" most of the time. Nothing to do with Starmer!

growstuff

Petera

growstuff

Maudi

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

At what stage did the failure to prosecute take place?

This post proves that Johnson's message has cut through to the less well-informed.

2007 and 2008

So was there some kind of application by the police to prosecute during those years? Whose desk did it land on?

Complaints made to Surrey and Sussex police, interviewed under caution but not charged because none of the complainants was prepared to support any police action

And if we are to sling more mud around, here is a quote from Norman Tebbitt in 2013 after it was out in the open

I've got no doubt Jimmy Savile was a very odd fellow, and I'm pretty sure he was in breach of the law on a number of matters. ...Jimmy did a great deal of good, as well as wrong. And in anybody's life, you have to look at both sides of the ledger.

Maudi

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

... and Margaret Thatcher was in charge when he was knighted.

He also spent many Christmases at Chequers.

But she didn't know then what we know now.

The CPS will not prosecute if it appears there is insufficient evidence for a conviction.

In three cases investigated by Surrey Police, no prosecutions were brought on the basis that none of the victims was prepared to give evidence in court.

Had the victims known there were other people making similar complaints they might have been prepared to do so. Prosecutions could have been possible, had the Police taken a different approach.

In 2012, Starmer launched a review into the CPS's failings, after which the organisation changed policy so that any high-profile case would be referred upwards.

... after he apologised... "I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases. If this report and my apology are to serve their full purpose, then this must be seen as a watershed moment."

Margaret Thatcher of course cannot apologise, nor remove the knighthood she bestowed on him.

But carry on with perpetuating the slur.

And just for the record, I'm neither a Corbynite nor Starmer fan. In fact I'm not a Labour supporter. This is not about party-politics - it's about the erosion of democracy and the behaviour of politicians under Parliamentary privilege and the comments they make - including the comments from Angela Rayner...

The fact that we're discussing something which didn't happen 15 years ago, despite numerous fact checks (not just on GN) shows that Johnson's ploy worked.

People are claiming that "they're all as bad as each other", so Johnson's behaviour is subsumed into that.

Petera

growstuff

Maudi

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

At what stage did the failure to prosecute take place?

This post proves that Johnson's message has cut through to the less well-informed.

2007 and 2008

So was there some kind of application by the police to prosecute during those years? Whose desk did it land on?

Really, we could all say 'The fact is that Johnson is responsible for the government of the UK at the moment' but it's a pretty meaningless statement without any context.

This post proves that Johnson's message has cut through to the less well-informed.

maudi can't possibly be considered to be the 'less well informed' because she keeps repeating this little mantra, clearly thinking that it is deeply significant in some way, despite the fact that there have been a number of explanations posted on this thread which show that Starmer did nothing for which he could be blamed.

growstuff

Maudi

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

At what stage did the failure to prosecute take place?

This post proves that Johnson's message has cut through to the less well-informed.

2007 and 2008

Maudi

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

At what stage did the failure to prosecute take place?

This post proves that Johnson's message has cut through to the less well-informed.

I haven't seen them, but apparently videos of Starmer being harassed have been posted online and there are thousands of comments celebrating what happened. One of the things being shouted at him was "paedo protector".

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2RP200

The fact is though he was in charge of the CPS when they failed to procecute Jimmy Saville.

Calling a group of people ’scum’ was not Ms Rayner’s finest hour; but it’s not remotely similar to making a targeted and untrue allegation against a specific person. As has been said, the mud from Johnson’s lie will stick, and we can see on here that there are people who insist on believing it even when they are presented with evidence to the contrary. When the person being lied about is the leader of the opposition, then clearly it is an attack on democracy. It’s really not in the same ballpark as a general comment (however ill-advised) made to a disparate group.

If people choose not to vote for Starmer, that’s up to them; but it should be on the basis of his policies and performance, not because of a trumped up allegation with no basis in fact.

I also wonder if multiple TV channels and media sources have fragmented shared understanding and debate. When a large proportion of the population watched the same programmes - Panorama, World in Action etc, there tended to be discussion about the issues of the day. Not sure that is so true anymore.

MaizieD in my opinion with the 24 hour rolling news, along with MP’s having a high presence on social media platforms have a lot to do with the publics perseption of politicians.

As for my comments regarding confrontational body language in the house I am perfectly aware that this happens more so at PMQ’s , budget and other high profile debates as opposed to the half a dozen MPs who show up on a wet Tuesday for a debate that will only be seen on the Parliament Channel as opposed to be shown on News Broadcasts.

GrannyGravy13

If you google politicians (both local and national) to see how many have been charged with criminal offences over the years it makes an interesting read.

I remember a couple of years ago Mr. Rees Mogg having to be surrounded by police for his protection when walking from the House of Commons with his young son. There have been Labour politicians needing a police escort at their own party conference (under Mr. Corbyn if my memory serves me right) Angela Rayner referring to Conservative MPs a Tory scum

Sadiq Khan has said on GMB this morning that the streets of London are not safe for any politicians and that he himself goes everywhere with five armed protection officers.

The words that are used in The House, and the confrontational body language which since cameras were installed is there for all to see, is on many occasions questionable.

I personally do not know what the answer is however, simply replacing the PM would be a start along the road.

All this has nothing to do with the question I asked at 23.58 yesterday evening. Generalities are not evidence and I would have thought it was pretty obvious that I was excluding Johnson's and Rayner's comments, so no good giving her as an example.

I would absolutely agree that the last few years have seen a big change in the public at large, with so much anger and outright hatred being expressed on social media and on the streets at some demos.

But I can't see that MPs are getting any better or worse than they have always been. Which is what has been claimed.

I thought the remark about confrontational body language was amusing. That's performance art for PMQs. If you watch an ordinary debate with half a dozen MPs on either side of the House you get an entirely different impression...

And don't forget that our political system is deliberately adversarial in its tone, not consensual.