Labour - its started already

[Gordon R]

Quote

Did she really say those Rotherham girls need to shut up for the sake of diversity? 

Quote

Yes, she did and kept her job and got re-elected.

No she didn't. She re-tweeted the comments from another person. Still as thick as two short planks.

[Vince Green]

12 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

 

 

 

There is a big “leave dossier” today about how Corbyn was undermined by his own party ... apparently they lost the last election on purpose... just to get rid of him ... 

I could imagine that Corbyn in his heart didn't really want to win the election, he is very workshy and it would have meant having to get out of bed every morning and do something.

It is soooooo much easier to remain in opposition and blame his failure on a wicked plot 

[Danger-Mouse]

15 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

No she didn't. She re-tweeted the comments from another person. 

Correct. My original post was wrong on that detail.

[Lloyd90]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

No she didn't. She re-tweeted the comments from another person. Still as thick as two short planks.

That’s still almost as bad! God ... what goes through their minds 😮 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

4 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

That’s still almost as bad! God ... what goes through their minds 😮 

HATE!

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

HATE!

Sadly - I think that is a perfect one word sum up.  Jealousy and hatred are what fuels 'the left'.

[Newbie to this]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

No she didn't. She re-tweeted the comments from another person. Still as thick as two short planks.

Same difference. But I see your point, they wasn't actually her words. But by liking the tweet and re-tweeting it, she showed she agreed with every word.

Edited April 14, 2020 by Newbie to this

[Gordon R]

Quote

That’s still almost as bad! God ... what goes through their minds 😮 

Quote

Same difference. But I see your point, they wasn't actually her words. But by liking the tweet and re-tweeting it, she showed she agreed with every word.

I think it is just as bad. She makes a habit of re-tweeting and then deleting. That way, she can say it was a mistake, she didn't say it, she didn't read it and she is sorry. Three times. Serial idiot, unlike Diane Abbott who repeatedly misspoke.

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Sadly - I think that is a perfect one word sum up.  Jealousy and hatred are what fuels 'the left'.

It always has been

[JohnfromUK]

On a different tack, you may remember that a couple of years ago in order to support any Brexit 'deal', Starmer (then Labour's Brexit shadow) devised a "Six Tests".  This was carefully constructed with five fairly straightforward tests ....... but one (No 2) was a show stopper: It read

"Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union?"

There was no way that could EVER be met short of effectively staying in the EU under all of their rules.

I think he is carefully constructing a similarly innocuous sounding set of tests to be met before he will support the Government on COVID 19.  The show stopper being lined up looks like being something along the lines of  "that there must be a clear and timetabled "Exit Strategy" in place".

Government strategy is looking much more like ........ we will take each step at a time, progressively and very probably regionally based on;

• where the evidence shows us we are on the 'curve' to keep within NHS capacity to cope (and also availability of ICU beds, ventilators, oxygen, drugs etc.)
• how the 'timeline' differs between regions (at present London is thought to be roughly 2 weeks ahead)
• how successful lifting restrictions has worked elsewhere in the world
• how successful testing is able to be carried out (and how reliable it proves to be)
• whether current worries regarding whether there is reliable immunity after infection and recovery prove to be true

In other words, a flexible reactive strategy, based on progress achieved and the underlying 'science' as currently understood.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

As we regualrly state, it is very easy to sit in the sidelines and criticise, much more difficult to actually govern and have to deal with problems.

[Vince Green]

9 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

As we regualrly state, it is very easy to sit in the sidelines and criticise, much more difficult to actually govern and have to deal with problems.

All Starmer is having to do is make sure his face stays on the News every day knocking the government. He doesn't give a toss about the pandemic. The worse things get the better it is for him, he can say I told you so. Classic labour tactic.

Politically he is a bit of a donkey, he isn't very agile intellectually. Boris is going to chew him to bits when he gets back.

Edited April 15, 2020 by Vince Green

[Retsdon]

9 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

As we regualrly state, it is very easy to sit in the sidelines and criticise, much more difficult to actually govern and have to deal with problems.

Regardless of who is in power, criticizing the government in office is the Opposition's job! That's what they're there for, for crying loud. What do you want them to do? Say nothing? It's perfectly valid to argue that their criticism is misplaced and say why, but to moan at them for doing what they're supposed to do....

[Jega]

No words...............................

https://www.politicalite.com/lab/labour/new-leader-new-danger-keir-starmer-helped-paedophile-jimmy-saville-evade-justice/

[Retsdon]

1 minute ago, Jega said:

No words...............................

https://www.politicalite.com/lab/labour/new-leader-new-danger-keir-starmer-helped-paedophile-jimmy-saville-evade-justice/

Rubbish!

[Jega]

In 2009 paedophile Jimmy Savile was interviewed under caution by Surrey and Sussex police.Subsequently the Police referred 4 cases to the CPS alleging that Jimmy Savile had abused 3 girls under the age of 16.

The CPS after receiving the files from the Police ,refused to prosecute Savile and dropped the case claiming " insufficient evidence.

After Saviles death and despite many high level attempts to cover up the scale of his abuse we no know that there were over 500 alleged abuses by Savile

The man in charge of the CPS at the time and decided that their was insufficient evidence to proc eed against Savile was Sir Kier Starmer .

Not sure which part you mean is rubbish ,as this is all a matter of public record.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Regardless of who is in power, criticizing the government in office is the Opposition's job! That's what they're there for, for crying loud. 

No it isn't. They should have something constructive to suggest, rather than sniping from the other side of the House. Criticising will hardly make people want to vote for them, without an alternative, better suggestion. This is why Labour hasn't won an election in 20 years, nor will it do for the next 20, if they see this as their role.

[Retsdon]

16 hours ago, Jega said:

In 2009 paedophile Jimmy Savile was interviewed under caution by Surrey and Sussex police.Subsequently the Police referred 4 cases to the CPS alleging that Jimmy Savile had abused 3 girls under the age of 16.

The CPS after receiving the files from the Police ,refused to prosecute Savile and dropped the case claiming " insufficient evidence.

After Saviles death and despite many high level attempts to cover up the scale of his abuse we no know that there were over 500 alleged abuses by Savile

The man in charge of the CPS at the time and decided that their was insufficient evidence to proc eed against Savile was Sir Kier Starmer .

Not sure which part you mean is rubbish ,as this is all a matter of public record.

It's the Crown Prosecution Services job to prosecute. If there is insufficient evidence  (on the balance of probabilities) to secure a prosecution they're duty bound not to proceed.  In the Savile case the problem was that the victims 'wouldn't support' the case. And without testimony, any court case would have been bound to fail as a matter of law.

Certainly there are grounds for questioning the reason that victims weren't prepared to give evidence - and there were  in fact subsequent investigations into how that situation came about (instigated by Starmer actually). https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/7729339/report-to-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-by-alison-levitt-qc

 But at the time the legal decision not to prosecute because of lack of evidence was the correct one. To allege, as your link does' that Starmer 'helped Savile evade justice' is , as I said, utter rubbish. Utterly disgusting in fact. You have to wonder quite how low these sort of people will go.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Retsdon

[TRINITY]

7 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

It's the Crown Prosecution Services job to prosecute. If there is insufficient evidence  (on the balance of probabilities) to secure a prosecution they're duty bound not to proceed.  

 

 

Forget savile for now but your opening sentence sums up what's wrong. I know probably much more about this than yourself. I would say that every file that gets to the CPS has enough evidence to justify prosecution (there are exceptions but a totally different matter) . The problem is once it gets there it is down to the opinion of the person reviewing the file. There must be hundreds of files that are written off ,no further action, that if proceeded with would have got a conviction. In other words the guilty to go free

In my experience, most CPS solicitors are so negative that they dont take a case on its merit but try and find any reason they can to write them off. There is a massive amount of police time wasted in investigating crime and preparing evidence only to be written off for the slightest little reason. I put this down to the fact that these people have no faith in their own abilities to do their job, which is to prosecute people.

Finally I will put this in simplistic terms. If the CPS were football managers and their team was Manchester United.  If there opponents were a non league amateur side. They would refuse to play the game unless they were given two goals start and the amateurs were to play with only 9 men.

[udderlyoffroad]

16 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Regardless of who is in power, criticizing the government in office is the Opposition's job!

No, holding the government to account is the opposition's job.  Not automatically opposing everything on principle, or just lobbing soundbites from the sidelines.

You have to go quite a way back to find a labour leader who actually did that, effectively.  Blair, whatever you think of his record in office, could at least hold the Major government to account and suggest vaguely credible alternatives.

26 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

But at the time the legal decision not to prosecute because of lack of evidence was the correct one.

The only way you could credibly state that is if you, personally, had reviewed the evidence, the bulk of which is not in the public domain.

 

23 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

To allege, as your link does' that Starmer 'helped Savile evade justice' is , as I said, utter rubbish. Utterly disgusting in fact.

Saville had so many friends in high places, that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone 'had a word' with Starmer and he decided to not to proceed.

Now obviously that website has an agenda.  But so what?  The sites you link to invariably have an agenda to push too.

[Retsdon]

6 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

Forget savile for now

Well, that was the topic under discussion. And while it's under discussion, it might be worth while mentioning that it was following a police visit to the first victim that she decided not to give evidence. Make of that what you will.

1 minute ago, udderlyoffroad said:

The only way you could credibly state that is if you, personally, had reviewed the evidence, the bulk of which is not in the public domain.

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/7729339/report-to-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-by-alison-levitt-qc

You could start here.

[TRINITY]

9 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said:

 

 

Saville had so many friends in high places, that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone 'had a word' with Starmer and he decided to not to proceed.

 

If so I would not be surprised, however we shall never know

[Retsdon]

4 minutes ago, TRINITY said:

If so I would not be surprised, however we shall never know

You might care to read the Levitt report I linked to above. It makes interesting reading. From what I've gleaned so far, basically the failure to get Savile into court was an old-fashioned balls-up for which the police and the local CPS probably bear equal responsibility. But of course these things are always much easier in hindsight.

At least from what I've read so far, there's no evidence of anyone 'helping' him. 

[TRINITY]

4 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

You might care to read the Levitt report I linked to above. It makes interesting reading. From what I've gleaned so far, basically the failure to get Savile into court was an old-fashioned balls-up for which the police and the local CPS probably bear equal responsibility. But of course these things are always much easier in hindsight.

At least from what I've read so far, there's no evidence of anyone 'helping' him. 

If you were seriously looking for evidence, that report is the last place you would find it. 

[Retsdon]

Just now, TRINITY said:

If you were seriously looking for evidence, that report is the last place you would find it. 

Why?