Let’s hear it for Sir Keir Starmer

More on the investigation into why Saville not being prosecuted

Summary of investigation report, 2013 -
Mr Starmer was head of the CPS when the decision was made not to prosecute Savile but he was not the reviewing lawyer for the case.

In January 2013, after Savile’s death and when his abuse had been revealed, an investigation into whether the CPS had been right not to charge Savile in 2009 was published by Alison Levitt QC. She was asked to investigate this by Mr Starmer.

Ms Levitt is critical of the approach taken by both the CPS’ reviewing lawyer and the police in failing to build a prosecution against Savile in 2009, but said there was no evidence of any “improper motive on the part of either police or prosecutors”.
fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Quote from that full-fact item -
Following the review
When the investigation report was published in January 2013, Mr Starmer said in a statement that he accepted the conclusions and hoped it would be a “watershed moment” for the CPS.
6He said: “I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases.^
“These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt’s report more profound and calls for a more robust response.”
Later in 2013, the CPS updated its guidance on prosecuting child sexual abuse in England and Wales.
fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/

Quote from a reply on Quora 3 years ago by Dave Hopkin
(Former Troop Commander at Brtish Army (1977–1984)Author has 23.2K answers and 39.7M answer views)
"Because the CPS operate according to legally binding rules of evidence and procedure and cannot bring prosecutions unless the chain of evidence produced by the investigion branch (The Police) meets the rules of evidence acceptable in court.
In the Saville case the witnesses were victims who when questioned by the Surrey Police refused to give evidence, therefore there was no actual legally acceptable evidence to present to a court.
In those circumstances the CPS who interact with the Police and judge if the evidence obtained by the Police is sufficient to be likely to gain a prosecution, if it is the Police are told to charge the offender formally and the legal process starts, if there is insufficient evidence then the Police are told to obtain more/better evidence.
So the CPS could not authorise a prosecution as the case would collapse in very short order and without evidence would have been labelled a “vexatious” prosecution and may have had consequences for any later trail under the rules regarding Double Jeopardy.
Johnson does not operate under the rules of evidence of formal regulated processes
307 views 1 of 17 answers
[His reference to Boris Johnson is because Johnson had used the Saville accusation as a slur against Starmer]
www.quora.com/To-what-extent-if-at-all-was-Sir-Kier-Starmer-involved-in-the-Jimmy-Saville-non-prosecution

So, in my opinion, are GN moderators still say ing the slander is personal opinion.

J52

So, in my opinion, are GN moderators still say ing the slander is personal opinion.

Yes that is what they said in reply to my report. I disagree. Opinion is one thing and is welcome, incorrect statements, after repeatedly being told they are wrong is quite another. Sadly, some posters care not for truth or fact, and are just blinded by their own prejudice.

Well maybe people can say what they like as long as they preface it with “in my opinion”

That’s my opinion.

Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to research and post comments on the slurs against Starmer. I agree it seems like slander rather than ‘an opinion’
Perhaps the mods need to review their decision

Iam64

Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to research and post comments on the slurs against Starmer. I agree it seems like slander rather than ‘an opinion’
Perhaps the mods need to review their decision

If a fact can stand up in a court of law - proven - and someone insists on repeating a lie to the contrary, what would we say then?

It's OK to repeat and spread the lie because it's an opinion?

Why then bother ourselves with the truth - about anything?

This is dangerous.

I'm out of here.

Please stay Dickens. Don't let the ill informed and ignorant drive you away.

HousePlantQueen

Please stay Dickens. Don't let the ill informed and ignorant drive you away.

Thank you. But no. I'm trying to find out how to close down my account, but can't see how to do it.

I once made a post on Facebook about Boris Johnson. I repeated a comment that allegedly came from his mother - it was a lie, and Facebook 'corrected' me by informing me that it wasn't a fact. As much as I don't like Johnson, I was ashamed that I allowed my bigotry to get the better of me - no one deserves to have lies told and promoted about them. Facebook no longer fact-checks - I'm now out of there, too.

I don't want this to be an 'announcement' of my departure though, I'm not a drama-queen! But, it feels quite cathartic TBH - and I really have spent too much time and energy on here when I have many other interests - and obligations.

I'm not being driven away by the ill-informed - I just don't have the energy anymore to wade around in a toxic environment.

But thanks again

I understand your point of view, Dickens. This place has bee poisonous for some time. But please don't leave? We need voices from all perspectives, and you are always reasonable and well-informed.

If you really feel you must go, PM me an email address, at least?

Please don't leave!

Doodledog

I understand your point of view, Dickens. This place has bee poisonous for some time. But please don't leave? We need voices from all perspectives, and you are always reasonable and well-informed.

If you really feel you must go, PM me an email address, at least?

Ditto.

Trump is definitely not my man I vote absentee and always have and I vote for sensibility there is nothing perfect about politics everybody should be laughing at that one! I do however believe and always have believed that politicians should keep a sense of decorum and this has been lost and that loss began in the 90s. Even when giving bad news or difficult to hear News it can be done with the sense of decorum and not to make it personal -what an example that sets for our young folks. Unfortunately it’s quite possible that those of the extraordinary wealthy perhaps feel they can say and do anything and I do not agree with that and never will. I’m probably a lone voice but it comes from experience having worked for the 24th district in California for 10 years the congressman I worked for left office because he saw what was beginning to happen on the hill. And it’s only gotten worse!!

Aveline

Please don't leave!

Your posts have had so much thoughtful and always respectful value to me and all, don't let the * get you down x

Allira

LizzieDrip

Farmers should be ashamed of themselves IMO.

The country is virtually on a war footing yet they still maintain their selfish right to exceptionalism with regard to IHT.

Stop being so greedy and do your bit for your country, farmers … as we all have to!

Gosh, I don't know where to start with your post LizzieDrip! Hope you never find empty shelves in your farm shops and supermarkets. What an attitude towards those who are more essential to our survival than anyone.
They're right - no farmers, no pancakes today.

However, I will agree that perhaps today was not the best time for a protest as it would get lost but perhaps it was arranged in advance and could not be changed.

Agree with you 100% Allira
I’m a townie but understand how very important our farms are to feed the nation.They’re not simply ‘ businesses’ as some seem to think but family concerns with a passion for farming.

Sorry I just can't forgive him for going back on all his campaign promises. Also I think he cowtows to all other countries leaders and sometimes he might put us in a worse situation by being two faced. If US do get mining rights in Ukraine it will not be in our favour the 🍊🤡 wants it all for himself.

It's always been clear that Trump wants mining rights for himself - nothing to do with us, never was. What Starmer did was to act quietly and effectively to stop negotiations breaking down, since Trump is obsessed with connections between mining rights and a peace plan. Common sense diplomacy, which is what Starmer has been using, is not 2 faced.

He has remained with the view that US back up would be necessary for a viable peace - and the US do not appear to agree with it - but one takes these matters stage by stage with what is in front of us at any given time.

Please don’t go Dickens, I always find your posts very interesting.
I agree that the mods are not very consistent in what they deem ok! I now don’t post where certain people have started the thread. I mostly read threads and it’s an interesting insight personalities.

Well if you go Dickens, then so shall I. This site had become toxic, poisonous and frankly, I don't wish to spend my spare time debating with idiots who can't see Trump for the dangerous mentally ill man that he is. I reported the Starmer and Savile comment and received a mealy mouthed reply from admin. As someone who has had to read silly posts about people being locked up for posting "hurty words", this is not acceptable.

Wyllow3

It's always been clear that Trump wants mining rights for himself - nothing to do with us, never was. What Starmer did was to act quietly and effectively to stop negotiations breaking down, since Trump is obsessed with connections between mining rights and a peace plan. Common sense diplomacy, which is what Starmer has been using, is not 2 faced.

He has remained with the view that US back up would be necessary for a viable peace - and the US do not appear to agree with it - but one takes these matters stage by stage with what is in front of us at any given time.

I’m not clear just how the security arrangements would work so I’m reserving judgment on that.
US backup implies some kind of military force involved in Ukraine, Trump has already ruled that out, we don’t know what kind of observation or monitoring activity is going to be needed.

Starmer is being diplomatic and clever, joining with Macron is good maybe he will make a difference, maybe not but he is going to try, that will play well for European cooperation.

I shall be really sad and sorry if you guys leave.

You contribute well and provide evidence and facts and fair and balanced views.

Please reconsider

That’s for Dickens and HPQ

Dickens and HPQ - your Gransnet needs you!👈

Chocolatelovinggran

Dickens and HPQ - your Gransnet needs you!👈

Seconded...

Just been on a Conference this afternoon, on the Press, Freedom of speech and responsabilities.

And one of the main points was the massive difference between an 'opinion or pov' and lies, which a^have clearly been proven to be lies and slander.

It is hugely important that GN moderators and moderators all over social media, understand the difference and correct mistakes.

Please GN moderators, who do a great job most of the time- a lie, a falsehood, proven to be such- should not be allowed to stand on the 'excuse' of freedom of speech.

I've been out - what is going on?

Dickens? Please don't leave!
HPQ we might not always agree but your posts are always interesting, don't go either.

When erroneous and damaging posts have been pointed out as slanderous they always used to be deleted. What is happening?
Could GNHQ be sued?