Southport Stabbings

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, RecklessAbandon said:

Ground News - Boy, 12, becomes youngest to be charged over riots after Southport killings

Stamer wasn't kidding when he said rioters would be feeling the full force of the law.

good - maybe the rest of the feral kids will sit up and take note

[thommo2010]

2 hours ago, Passing Time said:

good - maybe the rest of the feral kids will sit up and take note

Of course they won't might have been charged but what will happen to them? probably put on probation at worst

[Barlow]

On 8/13/2024 at 10:39 AM, RecklessAbandon said:

Ground News - Boy, 12, becomes youngest to be charged over riots after Southport killings

Stamer wasn't kidding when he said rioters would be feeling the full force of the law.

But to be fair, he was the boss at Crown Prosecution Service when the decision was made to not charge Sir Jimmy Savile with paedo offences.

[RecklessAbandon]

14 minutes ago, Barlow said:

But to be fair, he was the boss at Crown Prosecution Service when the decision was made to not charge Sir Jimmy Savile with paedo offences.

Did Keir Starmer fail to prosecute Jimmy Savile? | The Spectator

Media reports that mention the Savile row appear to be based on two ‘fact checks’ carried out by Reuters and Full Fact, in 2021 and 2020.

Both note that, yes, Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions when several allegations about Savile were referred to the CPS by Surrey and Sussex police and, yes, the CPS declined to charge Savile at the time because they believed there was insufficient evidence.

But the fact checkers point out that Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer on the case and:

‘The CPS told Reuters in an email that there is no reference to any involvement from the DPP in the decision-making within a report (here) examining the case.’

Full Fact added that:

‘A later investigation criticised the actions of both the CPS and the police in their handling of the situation. It did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made.’

"At the time at least Starmer appeared to take responsibility for these failings. As well as criticising the police forces involved, he also apologised for the CPS’s ‘shortcomings’ and announced that child sex abuse cases would be handled better in future. In other words, he apologised for the CPS’s failure to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as Boris Johnson indicated yesterday"

If any lesson should be learned from the last few weeks is that posting right wing falsehoods and misinformation is not the hill to die on you think it is.

[Barlow]

1 hour ago, RecklessAbandon said:

 

But the fact checkers point out that Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer on the case and:

‘The CPS told Reuters in an email that there is no reference to any involvement from the DPP in the decision-making within a report (here) examining the case.’

 

Er...duhhhh!

Duh, duh, duh.....

Obviously Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer. Obviously, He was the fucking Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

1 hour ago, RecklessAbandon said:

‘A later investigation criticised the actions of both the CPS and the police in their handling of the situation. It did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made.’

"At the time at least Starmer appeared to take responsibility for these failings.

 

The point being...and this is the crux you and Strarmer fanboys fail to grasp, is that this happened under Starmer's responsibility. He either:

A. knew of the Savile case (he has never admitted to knowing the case was being looked at by the CPS) or

B. He knew nothing of the case

Either way, he is a weak man and a weak leader.

A. for obvious reasons and maybe some others too or

B. his underlings did not bother to tell "the boss" about a big name being implicated in sexual activity with young girls.

We still don't know if it is A. or B.

Pray tell me, did he know of teh Savile case whilst he was DPP?

You say: "If any lesson should be learned from the last few weeks is that posting right wing falsehoods and misinformation is not the hill to die on you think it is".

Show me the falsehoods right wing or otherwise, show me the misinformation, please. Nothing to do with poilitics. It's to do with a weak man who has been given an inordinate amount of power (let alone a knighthood and Prime Ministership of the UK).

 

[RecklessAbandon]

11 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Er...duhhhh!

Duh, duh, duh.....

Obviously Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer. Obviously, He was the fucking Director of Public Prosecutions.

 

The point being...and this is the crux you and Strarmer fanboys fail to grasp, is that this happened under Starmer's responsibility. He either:

A. knew of the Savile case (he has never admitted to knowing the case was being looked at by the CPS) or

B. He knew nothing of the case

Either way, he is a weak man and a weak leader.

A. for obvious reasons and maybe some others too or

B. his underlings did not bother to tell "the boss" about a big name being implicated in sexual activity with young girls.

We still don't know if it is A. or B.

Pray tell me, did he know of teh Savile case whilst he was DPP?

You say: "If any lesson should be learned from the last few weeks is that posting right wing falsehoods and misinformation is not the hill to die on you think it is".

Show me the falsehoods right wing or otherwise, show me the misinformation, please. Nothing to do with poilitics. It's to do with a weak man who has been given an inordinate amount of power (let alone a knighthood and Prime Ministership of the UK).

 

I'm sorry that fact checking you with multiple points of evidence upsets you.

[Barlow]

26 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said:

I'm sorry that fact checking you with multiple points of evidence upsets you.

There is not one of those 'facts' (you say "evidence") that I was not aware of, actually they support my point. The information provided by the CPS, facts, only serve as obfuscation.
CPS distribute these facts eg "Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer" as misinformation in themselves. Everyone but an imbecile knew that Kier Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer, yet CPS try and use the fact as if they are are answering a question (which no one asked).

Perhaps you might shed some light on the matter, did Kier Starmer know about the Jimmy Savile case when the CPS made a decision not to charge. the answer is yes or no. Very simple.

And yes, the so-called fact checking with mulitiple points of evidence' does upset me. Because it is clearly obfuscation and avoiding the elephant in the room. 

[RecklessAbandon]

2 minutes ago, Barlow said:

There is not one of those 'facts' (you say "evidence") that I was not aware of, actually they support my point. The information provided by the CPS, facts, only serve as obfuscation.
CPS distribute these facts eg "Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer" as misinformation in themselves. Everyone but an imbecile knew that Kier Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer, yet CPS try and use the fact as if they are are answering a question (which no one asked).

Perhaps you might shed some light on the matter, did Kier Starmer know about the Jimmy Savile case when the CPS made a decision not to charge. the answer is yes or no. Very simple.

And yes, the so-called fact checking with mulitiple points of evidence' does upset me. Because it is clearly obfuscation and avoiding the elephant in the room. 

Clearly you have more evidence that the multiple fact checking groups had access to.

I await to read about your ground breaking case against Stamer and the CPS in the news.

[Barlow]

Fact 1. Kier Starmer was Director of Prosecutions at the time when Crown Prosecution service made the decision not to charge Sir Jimmy Savile with paedophilia.

A fact that everyone agrees on.

Fact 2. Kier Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer on the case. lawyer

A fact that everyone agrees on.

 

What we do need to know, and good old Kier Starmer can easily clear this one up, is was he aware of the Jimmy Savile case when he was DPP? There can be no question so simple. It is Yes, or it is No.

Yes, or No?

We'll probably never find out, but try it yourself, pretend it is one, and think of the implications of that. Then look at the other and again, think of the implications of that. It's perfectly simple.

Try it.

 

 

 

[Mr. Sausages]

What does it matter? If there wasn’t enough evidence at the time then there wasn’t enough evidence.

[RecklessAbandon]

13 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Fact 1. Kier Starmer was Director of Prosecutions at the time when Crown Prosecution service made the decision not to charge Sir Jimmy Savile with paedophilia.

A fact that everyone agrees on.

Fact 2. Kier Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer on the case. lawyer

A fact that everyone agrees on.

What we do need to know, and good old Kier Starmer can easily clear this one up, is was he aware of the Jimmy Savile case when he was DPP? There can be no question so simple. It is Yes, or it is No.

Yes, or No?

We'll probably never find out, but try it yourself, pretend it is one, and think of the implications of that. Then look at the other and again, think of the implications of that. It's perfectly simple.

Try it.

You have arrived at the conclusion and trying to get reality to shift to meet that expectation.

There is no grand conspiracy here, despite how badly you wish there was.

[Barlow]

52 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

What does it matter? If there wasn’t enough evidence at the time then there wasn’t enough evidence.

"What does it matter?" What sort of question is that?

There was enough evidence at the time. Plenty. But of course it would be a very high profile case. The case, for whatver reason - and that is another matter - was said to be mishandled. For example not letting a victim of sexual abuse by Sir Jimmy Savile be aware that they were not alone.

But whatever the details of how the evidence was handled, and btw I very much realise that it would be a particvularly difficult case for the glorious CPS to handle, there is one question that remains and should be very simple to answer - was Kier Starmer made aware of the case? That is a question that such as @RecklessAbandon doesn't want to ask themself. Perhaps they should.

[Barlow]

55 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said:

You have arrived at the conclusion and trying to get reality to shift to meet that expectation.

There is no grand conspiracy here, despite how badly you wish there was.

Well perhaps there is a conspiracy here. They do exist you know, cover-ups and all that.

I have arrived at no conclusion whatsoever, other than I suppose that Kier Starmer is weak. The case of Sir Jimmy Savile and Kier Starmer should show that.

Have you found the answer to the simple question yet? Did Kier Starmer when he was DPP know about the CPS and Sir Jimmy Savile at the time of the decision to not charge,

Go on, answer the question to yourself. I dare you. I double dare you.

[RecklessAbandon]

3 minutes ago, Barlow said:

"What does it matter?" What sort of question is that?

There was enough evidence at the time. Plenty. But of course it would be a very high profile case. The case, for whatver reason - and that is another matter - was said to be mishandled. For example not letting a victim of sexual abuse by Sir Jimmy Savile be aware that they were not alone.

But whatever the details of how the evidence was handled, and btw I very much realise that it would be a particvularly difficult case for the glorious CPS to handle, there is one question that remains and should be very simple to answer - was Kier Starmer made aware of the case? That is a question that such as @RecklessAbandon doesn't want to ask themself. Perhaps they should.

If you have a case to bring, I'm sure the national news is itching to hear from you.

If you don't and you're just throwing sh*t at the wall and hoping something will stick, you're no better than those throwing dangerous misinformation around "just asking questions".

I don't have to "ask myself" anything, I am not placed to make a qualified decision on whether there was enough evidence or if the evidence was of sufficient merit - not being a solicitor or employed by the CPS.

[Barlow]

Whilst DPP was Starmer made aware of the decision to drop the case against Sir Jimmy Savile?

There, nice and simple. Yes or no. No conspiracy. No misinformation. No news. No nuthin' being thrown at the wall.

Just a simple question.

Edited August 21 by Barlow