Keir Starmer

[Luddite_Blue]

Still seems apt

 

[mexico1970]

Has it got STONES embroidered on the back?

It hasn't got a back, or a front for that matter :)

 

[ganganvince]

I believe he identified there was a problem at the CPS where cases like this DIDN'T get referred to him, or other senior figures.

It's pretty well established that he introduced a new senior role at the CPS to look into this, and that when the Saville was being looked at again, this did result in him seeing the case and taking action.

So, yes it is correct that despite being head of the CPS, he didn't initially see the Saville case, and that he also put in place systems which should have picked it up if they'd been in place at the time.

Sure they just said on news he was referred to CPS on multiple occasions happy to be corrected.

 

[KS55]

He says he wants to end the north south divide. So FIX THE EFFING RAILWAYS.

 

[Phil1]

This is where the Labour Party is at. Only weeks after being elected the Prime Minister and the deputy Prime Minister has to publicly come out and state they won’t take anymore free clothes. Imagine the outrage on here if that was Boris and his missus. You really do have to chuckle.


View attachment 132385View attachment 132386

I could be wrong but I don’t remember Boris ever apologising for his many many freebies and I don’t remember him accepting it was wrong and won’t happen again.

Happy to be proved otherwise of course.

 

[metalblue]

I believe he identified there was a problem at the CPS where cases like this DIDN'T get referred to him, or other senior figures.

It's pretty well established that he introduced a new senior role at the CPS to look into this, and that when the Saville was being looked at again, this did result in him seeing the case and taking action.

So, yes it is correct that despite being head of the CPS, he didn't initially see the Saville case, and that he also put in place systems which should have picked it up if they'd been in place at the time.

That’s not correct.

Following additional allegations in 2012 Starmer asked his Principal Legal Advisor to review the decision to not prosecute in 2009. He didn’t introduce a new role.

He did indeed then propose new processes to avoid a further repeat.

There is no evidence to suggest he was involved in the decision to not prosecute in 2009. His problem here is that he goes around telling people how he was involved in prosecuting x, y and z but then denies having a clue about this. He’s likely guilty of inflating his involvement in x, y, and z.

 

[metalblue]

I could be wrong but I don’t remember Boris ever apologising for his many many freebies and I don’t remember him accepting it was wrong and won’t happen again.

Happy to be proved otherwise of course.

In situations like this you’re better off fronting it out and repenting in private.

Here is what is going to happen next. He is going to face questions on why does he not think it is appropriate to accept these in future? Does you think you shouldn’t have accepted them? Do you have poor judgment or are you dishonest? Are you going to continue to accept other gifts? What’s the difference between one gift and another?

This is going to get much more coverage now than if they’d just ignored it and quietly said “no more gifts” in private.

 

[Bluesince1979]

I could be wrong but I don’t remember Boris ever apologising for his many many freebies and I don’t remember him accepting it was wrong and won’t happen again.

Happy to be proved otherwise of course.

But boris isnt pm, keir is

 

[BlueHammer85]

I warned the right wing would be unbearable once Labour come into power - they’re always the loudest and constantly moaning and whinging over something, the real snowflakes always offended.
Hardly been a couple months and they’re making out Labour have ruined this country, also milking the PM getting a suit and watching the footie in a posh seat to the absolute max - they’ll totally ignore any good or positive stuff the Labour Party does (ending doctors disputes, ending train strikes and lot of other good things so far) and just rant and rave at any crumb of negativity they can find. Most can see through the faux outrage luckily.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

In situations like this you’re better off fronting it out and repenting in private.

Here is what is going to happen next. He is going to face questions on why does he not think it is appropriate to accept these in future? Does you think you shouldn’t have accepted them? Do you have poor judgment or are you dishonest? Are you going to continue to accept other gifts? What’s the difference between one gift and another?

This is going to get much more coverage now than if they’d just ignored it and quietly said “no more gifts” in private.

Saville and Starmer both innocent victims of speculation

 

[frothy]

I warned the right wing would be unbearable once Labour come into power - they’re always the loudest and constantly moaning and whinging over something, the real snowflakes always offended.
Hardly been a couple months and they’re making out Labour have ruined this country, also milking the PM getting a suit and watching the footie in a posh seat to the absolute max - they’ll totally ignore any good or positive stuff the Labour Party does (ending doctors disputes, ending train strikes and lot of other good things so far) and just rant and rave at any crumb of negativity they can find. Most can see through the faux outrage luckily.

Err you forgot about the little matter of taking the heating allowance off pensioners a few Quid over the cut off point

 

[Phil1]

But boris isnt pm, keir is

Is he? That’s good to know. Misses the point that the one poster who hasn’t shut up about it for about 10 posts has never once from memory spoke about the same issue when he was PM.
It’s a nothing issue in the grand scheme of things yet some seem to want to make a massive deal out of it to somehow make out as though Starmer has been rinsing the freebies to the tune of millions.
I think they call it the dead cat or something..
I’ll happily give him stick for issues that are worthy, this really isn’t.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

I warned the right wing would be unbearable once Labour come into power - they’re always the loudest and constantly moaning and whinging over something, the real snowflakes always offended.
Hardly been a couple months and they’re making out Labour have ruined this country, also milking the PM getting a suit and watching the footie in a posh seat to the absolute max - they’ll totally ignore any good or positive stuff the Labour Party does (ending doctors disputes, ending train strikes and lot of other good things so far) and just rant and rave at any crumb of negativity they can find. Most can see through the faux outrage luckily.

It started within days of the election. Apparently Starmer and labour instantly ruined the utopian country we'd enjoyed since the Tories came to power.....

 

[meltonblue]

Is he? That’s good to know. Misses the point that the one poster who hasn’t shut up about it for about 10 posts has never once from memory spoke about the same issue when he was PM.
It’s a nothing issue in the grand scheme of things yet some seem to want to make a massive deal out of it to somehow make out as though Starmer has been rinsing the freebies to the tune of millions.
I think they call it the dead cat or something..
I’ll happily give him stick for issues that are worthy, this really isn’t.

It’s been interesting to see given there’s plenty that think print media is dead, how easily they can impact the narrative.

Starmer knew that going in and he’s made some mistakes too. Nows the time to do it though.

 

[frothy]

Labour are owning it. They are the ones who are, at present introducing it. It wasn't in the manifesto because they didn't know the extent of the finances-or maybe you believe they had full access to everything?

But to put it into context, not a single person has, as yet, lost any money. Not a single person is any worse off today. It is highly likely that people will suffer more from the forthcoming increase in fuel prices than they will the withdrawal of WFA. Yet I haven't read anything for you moaning about the energy market and how it works-apologies if you have and I'm happy to be corrected. I think it scandalous that the first £380 that we all pay in energy bills buys not one Kwh of energy. What are your views on this?

FFS

 

[BlueHammer85]

Err you forgot about the little matter of taking the heating allowance off pensioners a few Quid over the cut off point

Well they didn’t do it for a laugh did they? We got a 22 billion black hole with health service on its knees, doctors on strike and trains not running - both services the lifeblood of our society.
It’s a tough decisions but there will be help for those pensioners hardest hit and measures will be put in place - vast majority simply don’t need it.
Blame the Tories for leaving the country in debt and in a mess.
Labour need at least a couple years before turning things around. But we know Chippy and co won’t allow a couple of weeks.

 

[jimharri]

Looking from afar, it seems very naive, what he, Rayner and Reeves did. In their position, you've got to give the impression of being whiter than white. Did they really need donations for working clothes? And did they honestly think that the matter wouldn't become public knowledge? Once the media smell blood, they're like a dog with a bone.

 

[Postman Pep]

I’ll never agree with Corybn’s politics but he is a principled man

Unlike Aaronovitch .....

 

[blueinsa]

Looking from afar, it seems very naive, what he, Rayner and Reeves did. In their position, you've got to give the impression of being whiter than white. Did they really need donations for working clothes? And did they honestly think that the matter wouldn't become public knowledge? Once the media smell blood, they're like a dog with a bone.

He was on record telling the electorate how he would put a stop to exactly the behaviours him and his team have been exposed for.

Stupid doesn’t do it justice and off the back of the WFA debacle it’s staggering.

 

[bluenova]

That’s not correct.

Following additional allegations in 2012 Starmer asked his Principal Legal Advisor to review the decision to not prosecute in 2009. He didn’t introduce a new role.

He did indeed then propose new processes to avoid a further repeat.

There is no evidence to suggest he was involved in the decision to not prosecute in 2009. His problem here is that he goes around telling people how he was involved in prosecuting x, y and z but then denies having a clue about this. He’s likely guilty of inflating his involvement in x, y, and z.

From what I've read Alison Levitt was already being tasked with looking out for systematic issues, and this came to him, and then he asked her to review the decision.

As you say there was no evidence that anything came to him in 2009. He must have been doing something, as the OP suggested, so is it not likely that he was heavily involved in some cases that were flagged up as priorities? (I'm guessing your first x, y, and z and different cases to your second x, y and z?)