Welcome to the real world Keir

[Bend it like Suddick]

Linking Starmer to the Jimmy Savile case as you have done several times on this thread. The decisions made not to prosecute were nothing to do with him despite what you have posted more than once. Read the link that I have posted above.

You then say that Starmer must have known about the allegations against Savile. This is completely irrelevant because prosecution couldn't take place in the cases at the time of Starmer as the complainants didn't want to give evidence in court.

You are simply repeating a lazy smear that is known to be false. If you care about the truth you should withdraw it.

Deary me. Let's get one thing straight again, I said that Starmer as the Head of CPS should have known about allegations of one of the biggest Celebrities in the Country.

To not be aware of that in his position shows a level of incompetence. As I stated before, Senior Police Officers,Politicians and certain Civil Servants have 'fallen on their sword' for substantially less.


No smearing, just a common sense assumption.

Nothing lazy, just a common sense assumption.

You withdraw lies, not common sense assumptions, I wasn't aware I said he 'definitely knew'.

The decisions not to prosecute were under his tenure were they not? I concede that he probably was not to blame individually, but ignorance of the facts is suspicious.

As for a prosecution couldn't take place as the complainants didn't want to give evidence at Court, that's irrelevant as the Police can prosecute without, although it is better to have them. Having said that, there were several who were willing to attend, but the associated Force didn't want to proceed which is inexcusable.

 

[ElBurroSinNombre]

Deary me. Let's get one thing straight again, I said that Starmer as the Head of CPS should have known about allegations of one of the biggest Celebrities in the Country.

To not be aware of that in his position shows a level of incompetence. As I stated before, Senior Police Officers,Politicians and certain Civil Servants have 'fallen on their sword' for substantially less.


No smearing, just a common sense assumption.

Nothing lazy, just a common sense assumption.

You withdraw lies, not common sense assumptions, I wasn't aware I said he 'definitely knew'.

The decisions not to prosecute were under his tenure were they not? I concede that he probably was not to blame individually, but ignorance of the facts is suspicious.

As for a prosecution couldn't take place as the complainants didn't want to give evidence at Court, that's irrelevant as the Police can prosecute without, although it is better to have them. Having said that, there were several who were willing to attend, but the associated Force didn't want to proceed which is inexcusable.

Just read the Reuters report. It shows that your assumptions are wrong.

It's just a lazy smear that has gained traction on the internet that you are happy to repeat because you don't like Starmer. I am surprised that an ex policeman would care so little about evidence and is seemingly happy to condemn somebody on an assumption.

Your last sentence, which ironically looks like a U-turn on your part is perhaps the most revealing. Many institutions protected Savile, the CPS is way down the list of those implicated.

 

[Bend it like Suddick]

Just read the Reuters report. It shows that your assumptions are wrong.

It's just a lazy smear that has gained traction on the internet that you are happy to repeat because you don't like Starmer. I am surprised that an ex policeman would care so little about evidence and is seemingly happy to condemn somebody on an assumption.

Your last sentence, which ironically looks like a U-turn on your part is perhaps the most revealing. Many institutions protected Savile, the CPS is way down the list of those implicated.

Whatever.

No I don't like Starmer at all. Correct.

CPS might be way down the list, but it was still implicated (your words), and by implication Starmer was the Head of it. You really are trying to deflect that, but unsuccessfully.

Evidence in the right hands is factual. At no point have I stated a fact about Starmers involvement, just that golden nugget 'assumption'

You do seem to have a little agenda going on about my ex profession, its getting a little bit obvious, but interesting.

U-Turn....behave, now you are being rather silly.


Oh and just for some sort of parity, Reuters aint always the standard bearer for accuracy.