| Cummings 08:28 - May 23 with 96815 views | waynekerr55 |
Toast, surely? |  |
| |  |
| Cummings on 08:23 - May 25 with 1698 views | Pegojack |
| Cummings on 07:40 - May 25 by longlostjack |
Boris is finished. I hope he doesn’t resign. |
The fat, lazy, lying cúnt is far from finished. This is just one step along a four and a half year road.
I suspect we are following the same trajectory as in the final John Major years. One disaster after another, until the government become a laughing stock and a landslide victory for Labour becomes inevitable. There's a lot more pain to come yet. When the economy is on its knees in 12 months' time after a no deal Brexit, this latest debacle will seem like a distant memory. |  | | |
| Cummings on 08:26 - May 25 with 1691 views | karnataka |
| Cummings on 08:23 - May 25 by Pegojack |
The fat, lazy, lying cúnt is far from finished. This is just one step along a four and a half year road.
I suspect we are following the same trajectory as in the final John Major years. One disaster after another, until the government become a laughing stock and a landslide victory for Labour becomes inevitable. There's a lot more pain to come yet. When the economy is on its knees in 12 months' time after a no deal Brexit, this latest debacle will seem like a distant memory. |
Looks like you got out just in time! |  | | |
| Cummings on 08:28 - May 25 with 1674 views | DrGonzo |
| Cummings on 08:23 - May 25 by Pegojack |
The fat, lazy, lying cúnt is far from finished. This is just one step along a four and a half year road.
I suspect we are following the same trajectory as in the final John Major years. One disaster after another, until the government become a laughing stock and a landslide victory for Labour becomes inevitable. There's a lot more pain to come yet. When the economy is on its knees in 12 months' time after a no deal Brexit, this latest debacle will seem like a distant memory. |
If there was a GE tomorrow he would win and we all know it. This county is full of mentalists. |  | | |
| Cummings on 08:51 - May 25 with 1605 views | sainthelens |
| Cummings on 08:28 - May 25 by DrGonzo |
If there was a GE tomorrow he would win and we all know it. This county is full of mentalists. |
Impossible choice.
Boris.
Starmer....the guy who lead the Jimmy Saville enquiry but thought there wasn't enough evidence from the dozens of complaints on his desk. |  | | |
| Cummings on 09:11 - May 25 with 1579 views | waynekerr55 |
| Cummings on 08:51 - May 25 by sainthelens |
Impossible choice.
Boris.
Starmer....the guy who lead the Jimmy Saville enquiry but thought there wasn't enough evidence from the dozens of complaints on his desk. |
Oh for fùck sake - with respect that's utter, utter bollocks. That. Story (Lie). Isn't. True. | |
| |
| Cummings on 09:12 - May 25 with 1577 views | Whiterockin |
| Cummings on 08:51 - May 25 by sainthelens |
Impossible choice.
Boris.
Starmer....the guy who lead the Jimmy Saville enquiry but thought there wasn't enough evidence from the dozens of complaints on his desk. |
But thought there was against Paul Gambaccini and others. Guy really doesn't know right from wrong and wrecks lives. Don't think i'll be voting in the next election. |  | | |
| Cummings on 09:14 - May 25 with 1567 views | Best_loser |
| Cummings on 08:28 - May 25 by DrGonzo |
If there was a GE tomorrow he would win and we all know it. This county is full of mentalists. |
He wouldn't want to though
No sane person would want to be PM now |  | | |
| Cummings on 09:29 - May 25 with 1537 views | Gowerjack |
| Cummings on 08:51 - May 25 by sainthelens |
Impossible choice.
Boris.
Starmer....the guy who lead the Jimmy Saville enquiry but thought there wasn't enough evidence from the dozens of complaints on his desk. |
Aye
Proof were it needed that stupid people shouldn't be allowed to vote.. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Cummings on 09:49 - May 25 with 1499 views | sainthelens |
| Cummings on 09:11 - May 25 by waynekerr55 |
Oh for fùck sake - with respect that's utter, utter bollocks. That. Story (Lie). Isn't. True. |
Yeah, fair play to Starmer. Was DPP in 2012 and his reforms meant that they went after innocents like Gambacini/Tarbuck/Davidson.
And then subsequently knighted for his efforts.
Fckn joke. | | | |
| Cummings on 10:05 - May 25 with 1469 views | LeonWasGod |
| Cummings on 09:11 - May 25 by waynekerr55 |
Oh for fùck sake - with respect that's utter, utter bollocks. That. Story (Lie). Isn't. True. |
They believe any old sh*t posted on social media. |  | | |
| Cummings on 10:17 - May 25 with 1438 views | sainthelens |
| Cummings on 10:05 - May 25 by LeonWasGod |
They believe any old sh*t posted on social media. |
I suggest you look deeper into the story and not hide behind a daft comment like that. | | | |
| Cummings on 10:26 - May 25 with 1408 views | Gowerjack |
| Cummings on 10:05 - May 25 by LeonWasGod |
They believe any old sh*t posted on social media. |
Which is a major reason we're in the mess we're in.. | |
| |
| Cummings on 10:26 - May 25 with 1405 views | ItchySphincter |
| Cummings on 16:35 - May 24 by sainthelens |
Unless he announces Cummings is going, his own credibility will be shot to sht. Not read through the many dozens of previous posts on this thread, but will be amazed if anyone can defend this fckn clown. |
Johnson is the man who fooled a nation in to self-harm to further his own political ambitions. Do you really think he gives a flying f*ck what anyone thinks about this whole debacle? People have short memories - remember the bus? Dissolving Parliament to avoid democracy? There is a long list of crimes and misdemeanours and this is just a tiny scab on the puss-filled boil of Boris’s tories. He’ll wait it out like he always does, probably to cries of ‘poor Boris’ from the best of society. Sometimes it makes me quite sad. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 10:32 - May 25 with 1380 views | WarwickHunt |
| Cummings on 10:17 - May 25 by sainthelens |
I suggest you look deeper into the story and not hide behind a daft comment like that. |
You’re wrong, sunshine. Stop digging, you sound like Pikey. |  | | |
| Cummings on 10:36 - May 25 with 1371 views | sainthelens |
| Cummings on 10:32 - May 25 by WarwickHunt |
You’re wrong, sunshine. Stop digging, you sound like Pikey. |
Not digging at all, just stating well documented facts. And to suggest I sound like Pikey has me running for a shower. All about opinions. | | | |
| Cummings on 10:42 - May 25 with 1353 views | theloneranger |
| Cummings on 10:36 - May 25 by sainthelens |
Not digging at all, just stating well documented facts. And to suggest I sound like Pikey has me running for a shower. All about opinions. |
The major problem with Savile lies at the feet of the Sussex and Surrey police force, not Starmer. |  |
| Everyday above ground ... Is a good day! 😎 |
| |
| Cummings on 10:46 - May 25 with 1335 views | Joe_bradshaw |
Interesting that this Saville stuff comes to the fore this morning. I doubt that Cummings and Boris would have wanted to play this card this far before the next general election. I wonder on how many forums it has appeared in threads about Cummings? |  |
| |
| Cummings on 10:49 - May 25 with 1326 views | waynekerr55 |
| Cummings on 10:36 - May 25 by sainthelens |
Not digging at all, just stating well documented facts. And to suggest I sound like Pikey has me running for a shower. All about opinions. |
What, like the fact that in 2012 as DPP Starmer set up the inquiry into the Saville situation? | |
| |
| Cummings on 10:51 - May 25 with 1320 views | WarwickHunt |
| Cummings on 10:42 - May 25 by theloneranger |
The major problem with Savile lies at the feet of the Sussex and Surrey police force, not Starmer. |
Exactly.
I’ll just paste this quickly - have to dash as Cressida Dick is doing the rounds asking if anyone has seen anyone stealing a bicycle...
“In 2008 (a few months before Starmer became director of public prosecutions at the CPS) Sussex Police launched an investigation into a possible sexual assault, but took no further action as the complainant did not wish to give evidence. In 2009 the CPS reviewed four sexual assault claims against Savile and felt there was insufficient evidence with which to proceed - again, because none of Savile's accusers were prepared to support police action. Frankly, the CPS makes a lot of decisions like this and it would be strange for the director himself to make the decision personally - that's the responsibility of the reviewing lawyer. We may well question that decision, but asking whether there was in fact sufficient evidence is one thing; to assume that such evidence would have resulted in a conviction is quite another. Have any of us seen the evidence the CPS was presented with? Have those spinning these accusations - or spreading them - actually spoken with any of those who brought the initial complaints against Savile?
Starmer took over a CPS under fire on various fronts and, after 2011, especially on the Savile issue. While he had no personal involvement in the decision not to proceed, Starmer did commission a review, headed by Alison Levitt QC, in which he revealed failures at the heart of the CPS and in 2013 issued an apology. He acknowledged those failures, pledging to change the culture of the CPS and its internal mechanisms. A "fundamental shift" was required, he argued, as "we cannot afford another Savile moment in five or ten years".
While "no improper motives" were found, the Evening Standard reported that one of the review's major criticisms was that "the CPS lawyer (my italics) should have challenged the police conclusions and sought to build a prosecution against Savile". It also suggested the complainants should have been informed that there had been other complaints about Savile, as this would potentially have encouraged them to give evidence. This is a rather stinging evaluation, but not one that pointed to failings on the part of the director himself; indeed, if any of the criticisms are directed at a particular person it is the CPS's reviewing lawyer.
Starmer went further than to apologise on behalf of the CPS. He also argued that legislation should be introduced to require professionals to report suspected child abuse. "Without a change in the law, there'll be another Savile", he warned.
Among the proposed changes Starmer supported were (and I quote directly from Counsel magazine) "greater support for complainants [with] more thought given to the use of pre-recorded cross-examination of child witnesses; the extent to which vulnerable complainants can be subjected to repeated cross-examination; joint police/CPS panels set up to enable those who have made allegations of sexual assault in the past to have their cases looked at again and greater information sharing duties across the Criminal Justice System."
While few would argue there were not serious institutional failures in regards the Savile allegations (indeed, I believe the CPS handled the complaints extremely badly as indeed did Sussex Police), those failures were organisational rather than personal. The allegation that Keir Starmer was individually responsible is as dangerous as it is false.
It's important to understand how the CPS works. 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 responsiblity for prosecuting cases locally. It would be very unusual indeed for the DPP to take an active role in decisions of when or when not to prosecute; the DPP's role is one of providing broader leadership rather than one of micromanagement.
Indeed, his leadership was characterised by a determination to radically change the CPS's culture - especially in regards sex offenders. I'm not going to express an opinion on the success of those efforts, but the notion that Starmer was "soft" when it came to sex offences doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny of the facts.
I can understand Momentum types seeking to dishonestly associate Starmer with paedophilia, but it is counter-productive and does them no credit whatsoever. However, I am frankly appalled that others are either too willing to buy into the narrative, too susceptible to the outrage culture, incapable of doing a little research or simply gullible.
I am also amazed that people who have made it a personal article of faith not to buy The Sun are quite happy to share articles from far-right hate sites on their personal social media pages.
When the government is mishandling a major crisis the opposition response should probably not be to go to war with itself over a vile right-wing lie that is so preposterous even the Daily Mail won't touch it. Given I'm not a Labour supporter and don't particularly like Keir Starmer it might be assumed that I shouldn't care...but I do, because the response to this says a great deal about the current state of UK politics.
It should be obvious to any sensible, rational person that Keir Starmer had no personal involvement with decisions taken in relation to Jimmy Savile. It should also be obvious that we take right-wing "news" websites with a pinch of salt. And it should be obvious that sharing this kind of rubbish only serves to weaken the opposition at a time when we need it to be strong.
So, a little request. Please stop sharing this s**t.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________
Additional note: 13.4.20
I see some people are being led to this page from Google searches asking "Did Keir Starmer defend Jimmy Savile?"
The answer is no. There's no evidence the two even met, or even that Starmer handled Savile's case directly. In any case, it would have been absurd for the director of public prosecutions to defend someone his own organisation had determined to prosecute. Not to mention that, as no charges were ever brought against him, Savile was never defended by anyone. “ | | | |
| Cummings on 10:52 - May 25 with 1313 views | NotLoyal |
| Cummings on 10:42 - May 25 by theloneranger |
The major problem with Savile lies at the feet of the Sussex and Surrey police force, not Starmer. |
This is true, Starmer whilst the dpp was dealing with information and evidence based on what was provided by the police. He wasn’t involved in the gathering of information but was involved in guidance and pathways for the police to review whilst the inquiry was ongoing. I can’t see what political value any Tory attack on him would gain. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 10:53 - May 25 with 1307 views | SgorioFruit |
An Independent Wales, coming soon to us all. |  |
| |
| Cummings on 10:55 - May 25 with 1304 views | sainthelens |
| Cummings on 10:49 - May 25 by waynekerr55 |
What, like the fact that in 2012 as DPP Starmer set up the inquiry into the Saville situation? |
Upon a review of the Savile enquiry, Starmer issued an apology into how it was handled, then issued reforms which turned out disastrous as it led to several "celebrities " named in false accusations.
Look, in no way should any of this be deflecting from the real issue of today...which is Cummings HAS to go.
I merely mentioned it as someone asked what was the alternative? | | | |
| Cummings on 10:57 - May 25 with 1295 views | Best_loser |
| Cummings on 10:52 - May 25 by NotLoyal |
This is true, Starmer whilst the dpp was dealing with information and evidence based on what was provided by the police. He wasn’t involved in the gathering of information but was involved in guidance and pathways for the police to review whilst the inquiry was ongoing. I can’t see what political value any Tory attack on him would gain. |
Plus it might remind people of savilles biggest supporter
Maggie | | | |
| Cummings on 10:57 - May 25 with 1290 views | Fireboy2 |
| Cummings on 10:51 - May 25 by WarwickHunt |
Exactly.
I’ll just paste this quickly - have to dash as Cressida Dick is doing the rounds asking if anyone has seen anyone stealing a bicycle...
“In 2008 (a few months before Starmer became director of public prosecutions at the CPS) Sussex Police launched an investigation into a possible sexual assault, but took no further action as the complainant did not wish to give evidence. In 2009 the CPS reviewed four sexual assault claims against Savile and felt there was insufficient evidence with which to proceed - again, because none of Savile's accusers were prepared to support police action. Frankly, the CPS makes a lot of decisions like this and it would be strange for the director himself to make the decision personally - that's the responsibility of the reviewing lawyer. We may well question that decision, but asking whether there was in fact sufficient evidence is one thing; to assume that such evidence would have resulted in a conviction is quite another. Have any of us seen the evidence the CPS was presented with? Have those spinning these accusations - or spreading them - actually spoken with any of those who brought the initial complaints against Savile?
Starmer took over a CPS under fire on various fronts and, after 2011, especially on the Savile issue. While he had no personal involvement in the decision not to proceed, Starmer did commission a review, headed by Alison Levitt QC, in which he revealed failures at the heart of the CPS and in 2013 issued an apology. He acknowledged those failures, pledging to change the culture of the CPS and its internal mechanisms. A "fundamental shift" was required, he argued, as "we cannot afford another Savile moment in five or ten years".
While "no improper motives" were found, the Evening Standard reported that one of the review's major criticisms was that "the CPS lawyer (my italics) should have challenged the police conclusions and sought to build a prosecution against Savile". It also suggested the complainants should have been informed that there had been other complaints about Savile, as this would potentially have encouraged them to give evidence. This is a rather stinging evaluation, but not one that pointed to failings on the part of the director himself; indeed, if any of the criticisms are directed at a particular person it is the CPS's reviewing lawyer.
Starmer went further than to apologise on behalf of the CPS. He also argued that legislation should be introduced to require professionals to report suspected child abuse. "Without a change in the law, there'll be another Savile", he warned.
Among the proposed changes Starmer supported were (and I quote directly from Counsel magazine) "greater support for complainants [with] more thought given to the use of pre-recorded cross-examination of child witnesses; the extent to which vulnerable complainants can be subjected to repeated cross-examination; joint police/CPS panels set up to enable those who have made allegations of sexual assault in the past to have their cases looked at again and greater information sharing duties across the Criminal Justice System."
While few would argue there were not serious institutional failures in regards the Savile allegations (indeed, I believe the CPS handled the complaints extremely badly as indeed did Sussex Police), those failures were organisational rather than personal. The allegation that Keir Starmer was individually responsible is as dangerous as it is false.
It's important to understand how the CPS works. 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 responsiblity for prosecuting cases locally. It would be very unusual indeed for the DPP to take an active role in decisions of when or when not to prosecute; the DPP's role is one of providing broader leadership rather than one of micromanagement.
Indeed, his leadership was characterised by a determination to radically change the CPS's culture - especially in regards sex offenders. I'm not going to express an opinion on the success of those efforts, but the notion that Starmer was "soft" when it came to sex offences doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny of the facts.
I can understand Momentum types seeking to dishonestly associate Starmer with paedophilia, but it is counter-productive and does them no credit whatsoever. However, I am frankly appalled that others are either too willing to buy into the narrative, too susceptible to the outrage culture, incapable of doing a little research or simply gullible.
I am also amazed that people who have made it a personal article of faith not to buy The Sun are quite happy to share articles from far-right hate sites on their personal social media pages.
When the government is mishandling a major crisis the opposition response should probably not be to go to war with itself over a vile right-wing lie that is so preposterous even the Daily Mail won't touch it. Given I'm not a Labour supporter and don't particularly like Keir Starmer it might be assumed that I shouldn't care...but I do, because the response to this says a great deal about the current state of UK politics.
It should be obvious to any sensible, rational person that Keir Starmer had no personal involvement with decisions taken in relation to Jimmy Savile. It should also be obvious that we take right-wing "news" websites with a pinch of salt. And it should be obvious that sharing this kind of rubbish only serves to weaken the opposition at a time when we need it to be strong.
So, a little request. Please stop sharing this s**t.
Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________
Additional note: 13.4.20
I see some people are being led to this page from Google searches asking "Did Keir Starmer defend Jimmy Savile?"
The answer is no. There's no evidence the two even met, or even that Starmer handled Savile's case directly. In any case, it would have been absurd for the director of public prosecutions to defend someone his own organisation had determined to prosecute. Not to mention that, as no charges were ever brought against him, Savile was never defended by anyone. “ |
Well that puts that to bed then.
Well done warwick👠|  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
