Starmer - idiot or just thick?

Bend it like Suddick said:
Nope. Starmer was the Head of DPP and CPS between 2008 until 2013. In his favour he didn't 'review' the case, but as I posted before it was under his watch (so every possibility he knew about it)
Click to expand...
Absolutely wrong I’m afraid.

You need to have an understanding of how the CPS operates.

It is not a "top down" body in which all decisions are made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Individual cases are considered by a reviewing lawyer. The lawyer will belong to one of 14 regional teams, each headed up by its own crown prosecutor with responsibility for prosecuting cases locally. The DPP cannot micro manage every case.

In any case Section 3 (The Decision Whether to Prosecute) of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Paragraph 3.7 makes it clear the involvement of the DPP is only required in "a limited number of cases", determined by Parliament, known as consent cases.

To quote CPS guidance, "consent cases are statutorily created, with the requirement for consent being imposed in order to prevent certain offences being prosecuted in inappropriate circumstances. The legal requirement is generally for consent to have been obtained or given before the prosecution is 'instituted'." The Savile accusations would not have been considered to constitute a consent case and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe Keir Starmer would have had any involvement in the case; indeed, there is every reason to believe he should not have had any. If Starmer had interfered in the Savile matter, he would have been acting contrary to the Code and other CPS guidance.

The CPS came under fire for their decision not to prosecute and as a result Starmer commissioned a review.

This was led by Alison Levitt QC and revealed failures at the heart of the CPS.

In 2013 Starmer issued an apology. - saying a "fundamental shift" was required as the nation "cannot afford another Savile moment in five or ten years".

He basically reformed the CPS hence his knighthood from Cameron.

Johnson used Parliamentary privilege to belittle Starmer over this subject, however if he was to repeat it outside the Commons I dare say he would have his ass whipped; metaphorically speaking of course.

Apologies for long post.

Quote Reply
Report •••
 
Spizz Tony said:
Absolutely wrong I’m afraid.

You need to have an understanding of how the CPS operates.
Click to expand...
If the post is in reply to mine (it doesn't say), I have a pretty 'hands on' appreciation and dealings of the CPS etc etc as a retired Police Officer.

I was also informed by high ranking personnel within the organisation supporting my beliefs in that particular matter, irrespective of the usual 'official line'
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
You won't do because you have a natural bias.

At this moment in time, Starmer cannot properly be compared to Sunak as he is only a Shadow leader with no governing power.

When/If he attains his goal, I will only be too pleased to assess his competence and make comparisons. Can't wait.

I on the other hand can see Sunaks deficiencies of which he has several, most of which you have highlighted.
Click to expand...
Whereas you're completely biased against Labour with a definite lean to the Tories 😉
 
Spizz Tony said:
Absolutely wrong I’m afraid.

You need to have an understanding of how the CPS operates.

It is not a "top down" body in which all decisions are made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Individual cases are considered by a reviewing lawyer. The lawyer will belong to one of 14 regional teams, each headed up by its own crown prosecutor with responsibility for prosecuting cases locally. The DPP cannot micro manage every case.

In any case Section 3 (The Decision Whether to Prosecute) of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Paragraph 3.7 makes it clear the involvement of the DPP is only required in "a limited number of cases", determined by Parliament, known as consent cases.

To quote CPS guidance, "consent cases are statutorily created, with the requirement for consent being imposed in order to prevent certain offences being prosecuted in inappropriate circumstances. The legal requirement is generally for consent to have been obtained or given before the prosecution is 'instituted'." The Savile accusations would not have been considered to constitute a consent case and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe Keir Starmer would have had any involvement in the case; indeed, there is every reason to believe he should not have had any. If Starmer had interfered in the Savile matter, he would have been acting contrary to the Code and other CPS guidance.

The CPS came under fire for their decision not to prosecute and as a result Starmer commissioned a review.

This was led by Alison Levitt QC and revealed failures at the heart of the CPS.

In 2013 Starmer issued an apology. - saying a "fundamental shift" was required as the nation "cannot afford another Savile moment in five or ten years".

He basically reformed the CPS hence his knighthood from Cameron.

Johnson used Parliamentary privilege to belittle Starmer over this subject, however if he was to repeat it outside the Commons I dare say he would have his ass whipped; metaphorically speaking of course.

Apologies for long post.

Quote Reply
Report •••
Click to expand...
Good post. It's always worthwhile challenging whataboutery nonsense with an intelligent summary of the facts.
 
I thought that Starmer's plans on immigration were well thought out and have a realistic chance of working.

From what I understood he wants going to change the law so that traffickers can be prosecuted and their assets confiscated. He is in a good position to do this as he has an understanding of the law and how to implement it, which for example, Sunak or Hunt do not. Starmer's suggestions seem like a grown up, joined up approach to tackle the problem.

All that the government offer us is dog whistle, ill thought out ideas that have failed and waste public money (Rwanda, prison ships etc).

This thread stinks of desparation, 'Starmer is thick, stupid, uncharismatic etc.'. After the shambolic administrations of Johnson and Truss I think the British people would be happy with a dull technocrat who is driven by pragmatism and not ideology.
 
I must admit It is hard to find anyone who will actually admit to liking Keir Starmer.
I am not a massive fan myself, and would have much preferred Lisa Nandy as leader.
He had a difficult job to do, however, and while he has been massively helped by others, most notably obviously Liz Truss, he has generally done OK.
He lacks Charisma, but seems a decent enough individual.
If Labour win he will have a very difficult job to do again, and I imagine he would be a Steady Eddie type of PM.
That could be just what we could do with. Hopefully freed from the need to get elected at least for a while and maybe with a working majority I hope he might be bolder than we are expecting.
 
The assumption is this post is so far from the truth. Personal experience of is that he is extremely intelligent, tactical and ruthless.
 
Chunkylad said:
Interesting thread.

To summarise Starmer and Labour will be worse than the Tory’s for the country yet when asked repeatedly, nobody can come up with anything that the Tory’s will do better than Labour?

So you’re just entrenched in your corners of dogmatism again?
Click to expand...
Working off tablet so brief (any spelling/grammer explained thus).

  1. Sunak will get Rwanda plan through, Starmer will take "share" of EU migrants;
  2. can stand up to unions on pay, Starmer relies upon unions for his;
  3. Is changing net zero, Starmer remains committed
  4. Not eager to bend over for EU, Starmer seemingly is.
More fundamentally, who knows what Starmer will do since he has broken every promise he has made so far (AKA Lied)

Admins have chased off most of those who could answer so lack of response not surprising.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Working off tablet so brief (any spelling/grammer explained thus).

  1. Sunak will get Rwanda plan through, Starmer will take "share" of EU migrants;
  2. can stand up to unions on pay, Starmer relies upon unions for his;
  3. Is changing net zero, Starmer remains committed
  4. Not eager to bend over for EU, Starmer seemingly is.
More fundamentally, who knows what Starmer will do since he has broken every promise he has made so far (AKA Lied)

Admins have chased off most of those who could answer so lack of response not surprising.
Click to expand...
I hear it's also the avftt admin fault that 75% of the country want to kick the Tories out.
 
Lost Seasider said:
  1. Sunak will get Rwanda plan through, Starmer will take "share" of EU migrants;
  2. can stand up to unions on pay, Starmer relies upon unions for his;
  3. Is changing net zero, Starmer remains committed
  4. Not eager to bend over for EU, Starmer seemingly is.
More fundamentally, who knows what Starmer will do since he has broken every promise he has made so far (AKA Lied)

Admins have chased off most of those who could answer so lack of response not surprising.
Click to expand...

Reluctant to engage with someone as myopic as your good self, but somebody has to I suppose.

1. The government`s immigration policy is beyond a shambles; Rwanda particularly so. If the price of `stopping the boats` is to negotiate with the EU to take an agreed quota I think we all can get behind that in order to to `stop the smuggling gangs`, which is what Suella wants, isn`t it?

2. Do you really think the government has handled the pay requests well? Let`s see what Starmer comes up with before we condemn him for not `standing up to them`.

3. What is your point exactly? Are you saying that Starmer is being consistent over net zero? So you criticise him for changing policy and for not changing policy? I`m confused.

4. Why do you frame it as "bending over" when nothing has been negotiated with the EU? Do you really think the Brexit negotiated is as good as it gets, and cannot be improved on?

More fundamentally, you may have noticed that Sunak is on the verge of announcing a screeching U turn and breaking a promise on Net Zero commitments, just when you are accusing Starmer of ,errr, "breaking promises"!

Is Sunak by your definition therefore "AKA a liar" too?
 
bollieboy said:
Scrapping the Human Rights Act ? So you don't want the right to education, the right to participate in free elections, right to a fair trial, etc, etc.

Alright I get it.

I am not aware of EU rules on width of doorways and why it is bonkers. Can you enlighten me ?
Click to expand...
Sure. You didn’t read my post properly. I mentioned an update to this one. To close the often exploited loopholes. Long overdue imo
 
spudgun said:
Reluctant to engage with someone as myopic as your good self, but somebody has to I suppose.

1. The government`s immigration policy is beyond a shambles; Rwanda particularly so. If the price of `stopping the boats` is to negotiate with the EU to take an agreed quota I think we all can get behind that in order to to `stop the smuggling gangs`, which is what Suella wants, isn`t it?

2. Do you really think the government has handled the pay requests well? Let`s see what Starmer comes up with before we condemn him for not `standing up to them`.

3. What is your point exactly? Are you saying that Starmer is being consistent over net zero? So you criticise him for changing policy and for not changing policy? I`m confused.

4. Why do you frame it as "bending over" when nothing has been negotiated with the EU? Do you really think the Brexit negotiated is as good as it gets, and cannot be improved on?

More fundamentally, you may have noticed that Sunak is on the verge of announcing a screeching U turn and breaking a promise on Net Zero commitments, just when you are accusing Starmer of ,errr, "breaking promises"!

Is Sunak by your definition therefore "AKA a liar" too?
Click to expand...
TLDR, maybe the mods can give you an answer instead.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Which is all well and good, but what is your argument to the swathes of migrants only here for economic or criminal purposes. Just wait until the next terrorist attack, and there will be one, and it identifies a perpetrator as being a 'boat person', watch the balloon go up then.
Click to expand...
Coming here for an economic purpose - i.e. to hold down a job and earn money (possibly to send home) is not, and should not be a crime.

As for the rest of it, you are taking whataboutery to a new level if you are praying it in aid for crimes that haven't happened yet and may never come to fruition.

The moral question here is - how would you feel if the boot were ever on the other foot? If it were you or a loved one who was forced to flee from war, persecution or poverty? You'd expect compassion and fair treatment. These people are entitled to expect the same.

The developed world can hardly complain. We built the structural inequalities into the system. We have dismally failed to address global warming, which means that your "swathe" of migrants is going to grow exponentially as the Southern hemisphere becomes progressively more and more uninhabitable. All a result of incompetent and myopic governance that merely panders to the worst of human prejudice.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
The moral question here is - how would you feel if the boot were ever on the other foot? If it were you or a loved one who was forced to flee from war, persecution or poverty? You'd expect compassion and fair treatment. These people are entitled to expect the same.
Click to expand...
Ive no problem with legitimate migrants...next
 
basilrobbie3 said:
The developed world can hardly complain. We built the structural inequalities into the system. We have dismally failed to address global warming, which means that your "swathe" of migrants is going to grow exponentially as the Southern hemisphere becomes progressively more and more uninhabitable. All a result of incompetent and myopic governance that merely panders to the worst of human prejudice.
Click to expand...
That may be the case, but its morally wrong that any British resident can individually get a maximum of £23K in benefits a year, but a migrant gets the equivalent of £50K.

Not only discriminatory, but unfair to many people who have contributed into the 'system' for many years.

Smell the coffee.
 
kerrytangerine said:
No he can't, because there isn't one. He has just shown his true colours with the above post with its Daily Mail dog whistles - expensive Nikes, pestering our women etc .
Click to expand...
I think he’s further on than the Daily Mail. If you look back at post #13 on this thread he said Richard Tice speaks a lot of sense and he’d like to see the Reform party in power so we can guess what he’s been reading over the last 24 hours when he’s been extremely vocal on politics, and immigration in particular.
 
spudgun said:
Reluctant to engage with someone as myopic as your good self, but somebody has to I suppose.

1. The government`s immigration policy is beyond a shambles; Rwanda particularly so. If the price of `stopping the boats` is to negotiate with the EU to take an agreed quota I think we all can get behind that in order to to `stop the smuggling gangs`, which is what Suella wants, isn`t it?

2. Do you really think the government has handled the pay requests well? Let`s see what Starmer comes up with before we condemn him for not `standing up to them`.

3. What is your point exactly? Are you saying that Starmer is being consistent over net zero? So you criticise him for changing policy and for not changing policy? I`m confused.

4. Why do you frame it as "bending over" when nothing has been negotiated with the EU? Do you really think the Brexit negotiated is as good as it gets, and cannot be improved on?

More fundamentally, you may have noticed that Sunak is on the verge of announcing a screeching U turn and breaking a promise on Net Zero commitments, just when you are accusing Starmer of ,errr, "breaking promises"!

Is Sunak by your definition therefore "AKA a liar" too?
Click to expand...
An ITV journalist is saying that several sources in the auto industry are furious. They had been given reassurances just last week that there would be no U-turn. Ford have released a statement absolutely eviscerating Sunak's decision. Businesses need certainty and long term stability and Sunak has sacrificed that in the pigheaded belief that he can fight one last culture war to save his skin. But apparently that's a 'good' u turn according to our friend here. That's one of those good broken promises that Daily Telegraph will like.
 
Captain Sensible said:
I think he’s further on than the Daily Mail. If you look back at post #13 on this thread he said Richard Tice speaks a lot of sense and he’d like to see the Reform party in power so we can guess what he’s been reading over the last 24 hours when he’s been extremely vocal on politics, and immigration in particular.
Click to expand...
All I can add is that thank heavens he is no longer in the police force with those views.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Coming here for an economic purpose - i.e. to hold down a job and earn money (possibly to send home) is not, and should not be a crime.

As for the rest of it, you are taking whataboutery to a new level if you are praying it in aid for crimes that haven't happened yet and may never come to fruition.

The moral question here is - how would you feel if the boot were ever on the other foot? If it were you or a loved one who was forced to flee from war, persecution or poverty? You'd expect compassion and fair treatment. These people are entitled to expect the same.

The developed world can hardly complain. We built the structural inequalities into the system. We have dismally failed to address global warming, which means that your "swathe" of migrants is going to grow exponentially as the Southern hemisphere becomes progressively more and more uninhabitable. All a result of incompetent and myopic governance that merely panders to the worst of human prejudice.
Click to expand...
What sort of job?



P.S, potatoes don't grow on trees.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Was on a tv news source this morning. I suggest you disprove it
Click to expand...
Well for one thing there are exemptions to the benefit cap, so your statement fell apart as soon as you said a resident cannot recieve more than £23k. I also suspect you have seen a figure that says the UK government spends £50k on average per migrant and have confused this in your head to say that the migrant recieves the £50k, or equivalent benefit.
 
foggy said:
Well for one thing there are exemptions to the benefit cap, so your statement fell apart as soon as you said a resident cannot recieve more than £23k. I also suspect you have seen a figure that says the UK government spends £50k on average per migrant and have confused this in your head to say that the migrant recieves the £50k, or equivalent benefit.
Click to expand...
Nope foggy, the expert on migrants quoted those figures and the interviewer acknowledged the amounts. You are quite correct in pointing out that the migrant doesn’t physically receive that money, but that is the equivalent in comparable benefits they do during a calendar year.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
Nope foggy, the expert on migrants quoted those figures and the interviewer acknowledged the amounts. You are quite correct in pointing out that the migrant doesn’t physically receive that money, but that is the equivalent in comparable benefits they do during a calendar year.
Click to expand...
Let's say this is true. I mean, I am highly sceptical because you can't even say who the 'expert' was. But let's say you are quoting correctly. Do you have any intellectual curiousity in you to think about that more? Do a bit of fact checking perhaps? Wonder if you are comparing apples to oranges? For example counting the cost of housing a migrant but not counting the cost of housing a homeless British resident on top of the benefits they get in cash? Will you amend your opinion now that it has been pointed out there are many exemptions to the cap you mentioned?
 
foggy said:
Let's say this is true. I mean, I am highly sceptical because you can't even say who the 'expert' was. But let's say you are quoting correctly. Do you have any intellectual curiousity in you to think about that more? Do a bit of fact checking perhaps? Wonder if you are comparing apples to oranges? For example counting the cost of housing a migrant but not counting the cost of housing a homeless British resident on top of the benefits they get in cash? Will you amend your opinion now that it has been pointed out there are many exemptions to the cap you mentioned?
Click to expand...
Ah, those experts getting quoted.

Have we descended into quoting some Austrian professor who can then be discredited for having links with The Black Legion, a neo-nazi group in Bavaria yet, to be countered by a Spanish intellectual who we can quote because it's what we like, only he has been found to have links to ETA.

An expert is only an expert if they say what you want to hear.;)

Not a dig at you in the slightest, just the way these debates go.
 
spudgun said:
Reluctant to engage with someone as myopic as your good self, but somebody has to I suppose.

1. The government`s immigration policy is beyond a shambles; Rwanda particularly so. If the price of `stopping the boats` is to negotiate with the EU to take an agreed quota I think we all can get behind that in order to to `stop the smuggling gangs`, which is what Suella wants, isn`t it?

2. Do you really think the government has handled the pay requests well? Let`s see what Starmer comes up with before we condemn him for not `standing up to them`.

3. What is your point exactly? Are you saying that Starmer is being consistent over net zero? So you criticise him for changing policy and for not changing policy? I`m confused.

4. Why do you frame it as "bending over" when nothing has been negotiated with the EU? Do you really think the Brexit negotiated is as good as it gets, and cannot be improved on?

More fundamentally, you may have noticed that Sunak is on the verge of announcing a screeching U turn and breaking a promise on Net Zero commitments, just when you are accusing Starmer of ,errr, "breaking promises"!

Is Sunak by your definition therefore "AKA a liar" too?
Click to expand...
I see you're prepared to put in the hard yards Spudgun. I wouldn't have bothered. Lost has something of a closed mind when it comes to politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top