Keir Starmer

[bluenova]

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.

Do you think that's possible? That the media would just let it go, rather than ask about it every time someone was wearing a new suit, or dress?

I do wonder if it ultimately backfire on the Tories (and Reform). Labour already have plans to pretty much stop second jobs, and cut back on lobbying links. A little public distaste right now, might give make it harder for the Tories to come back and challenge any changes.

 

[Phil1]

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.

It’s not in the same ballpark compared to the corruption that went on before and whilst it’d be great for not one politician to accept gifts of any kind it’s a bit lame trying to equate the different situations.
The WFA is their biggest fuck up so far and the only thing really worthy of giving them grief for.

 

[hilts]

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.

In fairness the Tories did get the blame they got absolutely twatted and many lost their jobs at the last election. Shame it wasn't 5 years earlier mind..

Anyhow as I've said earlier we can and should debate what decisions they have made as we go. I would say a mixed bag so far. I would say the junior doctors pay rise was a good thing. I didn't know about the abortion thing but it seems like good idea.

Poor was the PM demeaning himself accepting gifts like he works for FIFA and the WFA policy is totally unacceptable.

 

[jimharri]

Do you think that's possible? That the media would just let it go, rather than ask about it every time someone was wearing a new suit, or dress?

I do wonder if it ultimately backfire on the Tories (and Reform). Labour already have plans to pretty much stop second jobs, and cut back on lobbying links. A little public distaste right now, might give make it harder for the Tories to come back and challenge any changes.

Do you honestly think that would happen? The media live for opportunities like this. Manna from heaven for them. It was utterly stupid to do what they did.

 

[bluenova]

Do you honestly think that would happen? The media live for opportunities like this. Manna from heaven for them. It was utterly stupid to do what they did.

Yes. Have you perhaps misread my post and the one I replied to? I suspect we agree.

 

[jimharri]

Yes. Have you perhaps misread my post and the one I replied to? I suspect we agree.

I was actually agreeing with you. To be fair, it doesn't read that way, though!

 

[bluethrunthru]

Pensioners still more likely to support Labour despite winter fuel row - poll

The first tracker poll by Techne UK after the election has revealed that Starmer has increased his lead over the Tories even though only a third believe he can deliver on the country’s priorities

www.independent.co.uk

 

[hampshireblue]

FFS

Which bit is not accurate?

 

[PPT]

Which bit is not accurate?

FFS!

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

In fairness the Tories did get the blame they got absolutely twatted and many lost their jobs at the last election. Shame it wasn't 5 years earlier mind..

Anyhow as I've said earlier we can and should debate what decisions they have made as we go. I would say a mixed bag so far. I would say the junior doctors pay rise was a good thing. I didn't know about the abortion thing but it seems like good idea.

Poor was the PM demeaning himself accepting gifts like he works for FIFA and the WFA policy is totally unacceptable.

Maybe it’s all a front as he’s managed to stop all chat about immigration for the first time in nigh on a decade.

It just goes to show how the media shape the rhetoric in this country.

All these people that don’t use Twitter or read papers all seem to be debating the rhetoric du jour from these people.

Makes you think how they are so in tune with these sources.

 

[west didsblue]

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?)

He only got the DPP job towards the end of 2008 and the Al Fayed decision was made in early 2009 by the CPS's director of complex casework.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/feb/17/fayed-mohamed-harrods
There’s a fair chance he was briefed about it but there’s no reason to suggest he would be likely to overrule one of his senior team who had decided there was a low prospect of a successful conviction.

 

[threespires]

Maybe it’s all a front as he’s managed to stop all chat about immigration for the first time in nigh on a decade.

It just goes to show how the media shape the rhetoric in this country.

All these people that don’t use Twitter or read papers all seem to be debating the rhetoric du jour from these people.

Makes you think how they are so in tune with these sources.

View attachment 132455

Earlier this morning I actually did a little tour of five of the main news websites trying to find some substantive political stories rather than agenda driven shite. I won't bore you with how hard it was, suffice to say that mostly our press is either pathetic, malevolent or both. If the quality of the fourth estate is a reflection of a democracy then we are very much on our arse.

 

[metalblue]

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?)

On the campaign trail he was saying how HE HAD prosecuted various folk (terrorists spring to mind) - like he’s the guy gathering evidence and making decisions. High profile cases you might say, but then so was Saville which he says he had no involvement in. As I see it his involvement in all cases would have been at the edges, not deep in the detail doing the heavy lifting - which wasn’t his job.

My CEO has an understanding of what I am working on for example but won’t have a clue about the intricacies of it. Nor should he as he has a different role in the organisation, but if he starts trying to take credit for the work of others when it went well but says he knew nowt about it when it went wrong you’re going to think he’s a bit of a slippery ****.

And that’s the risk Starmer ran by making the impression that these prosecutions were down to him alone. It’s hard to then distance yourself from all decisions.

Anyroad it’s just a small thing hardly worth taking any time up discussing it.

 

[remember arthur mann]

That is chilling, its decimation of the rights of the working class who have fought for centuries to be able to hold their heads up and be an honest player in the capitalist system.

I never imagined I would see the day when the working class turned on itself and did so much self harm. I am ok, millions are not and those millions need the Unions to have power to look after their members and be honest brokers for the working class.

Not forgetting the Labour Party were founded by trade unions.

 

[metalblue]

Do you think that's possible? That the media would just let it go, rather than ask about it every time someone was wearing a new suit, or dress?

I do wonder if it ultimately backfire on the Tories (and Reform). Labour already have plans to pretty much stop second jobs, and cut back on lobbying links. A little public distaste right now, might give make it harder for the Tories to come back and challenge any changes.

How many days can they print “Starmer got free suits” if they do nothing? It felt like the story had about run its course and with the Labour conference about to start they’d be focusing on the messaging coming from there - different headlines. Now they have new headlines to print and new questions to ask.

Just my opinion, I’m not in PR or media, but I think we’re seeing a team naive in government - it’s not fatal or anything daft like that it’s just a bit embarrassing. I don’t think this is anything to do with reform or tories either - unless Lord Ali is a 5th columnist - why should they interrupt their opponent when they are making mistakes, just keep shinning a light on it.

 

[bluenova]

On the campaign trail he was saying how HE HAD prosecuted various folk (terrorists spring to mind) - like he’s the guy gathering evidence and making decisions. High profile cases you might say, but then so was Saville which he says he had no involvement in. As I see it his involvement in all cases would have been at the edges, not deep in the detail doing the heavy lifting - which wasn’t his job.

My CEO has an understanding of what I am working on for example but won’t have a clue about the intricacies of it. Nor should he as he has a different role in the organisation, but if he starts trying to take credit for the work of others when it went well but says he knew nowt about it when it went wrong you’re going to think he’s a bit of a slippery ****.

And that’s the risk Starmer ran by making the impression that these prosecutions were down to him alone. It’s hard to then distance yourself from all decisions.

Anyroad it’s just a small thing hardly worth taking any time up discussing it.

Saville was only high profile when they realised the extent of it. I thought the main problem was that lots of celebs will get accusations, and he also had friends in the police who if not covering up, were helping push the 'man with money being faces false claims" narrative. The cases weren't being properly linked, and in an "isolated" case, where the accuser doesn't necessarily want to be the only one accusing a celebrity publicly in an area of the law where women rarely win, then the decisions get dealt with at a lowish level.

Clearly there are other cases, and he talks about the terrorism issues, where they automatically get pushed up the ladder. But also, is it not likely they were also part of a more pro-active approach, where the CPS are more involved in how cases proceed, or are tackled in the first place? As you mentioned, after Saville, the CPS introduced new procedures which aimed to prevent a similar issue in the future, and with an ongoing problem like terrorism, they may be doing similar proactive work.

 

[bluenova]

That is chilling, its decimation of the rights of the working class who have fought for centuries to be able to hold their heads up and be an honest player in the capitalist system.

I never imagined I would see the day when the working class turned on itself and did so much self harm. I am ok, millions are not and those millions need the Unions to have power to look after their members and be honest brokers for the working class.

It's probably one of the right's 'greatest' achievements, to convince the average worker that joining a union is bad for them.

The left are often accused of "the politics of envy", but encouraging someone to want to bring a fellow worker down to their level, rather than organise and rise, is surely a much more depressing use of political envy.

 

[kaz7]

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.

Source for the first bit please

 

[metalblue]

Saville was only high profile when they realised the extent of it. I thought the main problem was that lots of celebs will get accusations, and he also had friends in the police who if not covering up, were helping push the 'man with money being faces false claims" narrative. The cases weren't being properly linked, and in an "isolated" case, where the accuser doesn't necessarily want to be the only one accusing a celebrity publicly in an area of the law where women rarely win, then the decisions get dealt with at a lowish level.

Clearly there are other cases, and he talks about the terrorism issues, where they automatically get pushed up the ladder. But also, is it not likely they were also part of a more pro-active approach, where the CPS are more involved in how cases proceed, or are tackled in the first place? As you mentioned, after Saville, the CPS introduced new procedures which aimed to prevent a similar issue in the future, and with an ongoing problem like terrorism, they may be doing similar proactive work.

You’re looking at it from the process of it all, I’m looking at the optics. You and I will agree on the details because they are factual. Optics are subjective.

Most people don’t have any determination to explore the real detail. They’ll make their mind up on the most slenderest of perception. Often it will be biased by their own beliefs. Social media will fill their feeds with it as they’re read it before further making them validate they are right. You could create a story that Starmer eats babies (or pets as they are in vogue these days) and there will be a section of our society who will soon be adamant that is true. It’s bonkers and ultimately dangerous.

On a side note I believe there is a strong case to say these social media algorithms should show you more of the opposite side of the story so we get a better view of the other side of a debate.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Boris Johnson spent more on renovating his flat than Starmer has received in gifts since 2019

Boris Johnson spent more renovating his flat than Sir Keir Starmer has received in gifts since 2019 - so, perspective.

www.google.com