Liz Truss

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yes.

Sexual abuse cases, especially historical ones, involve one person's word against another's. If the complainant isn't willing to give evidence, there isn't a lot more that can sustain a conviction.

The guy who I just replied to simply doesn't like Starmer and is using this as a stick to beat him with. He's entitled to his view, of course, but trying to justify it on this particular basis is bollocks and I'm just having a bit of fun with him.

Thank you for your response. Hopefully the average Joe on the street should be able to understand where you are coming from.

Whether bigger Joes can is still to be established.

 

[BigJoe#1]

So Starmer should have prosecuted offences that the complainants did not want to give evidence in relation to? And how would that have worked out?

He should have had his hands all over it end of!!!

How do you you know the complainants didn't want to give evidence? Scared off? Bought off?

He was in charge and Saville was of high enough interest and significance (possibly the highest there has ever been) for him to take more than a passing interest in the case. This just displays his level of poor judgement and competency. Certainly not that of a leader of this country.

 

[BigJoe#1]

Yes.

Sexual abuse cases, especially historical ones, involve one person's word against another's. If the complainant isn't willing to give evidence, there isn't a lot more that can sustain a conviction.

The guy who I just replied to simply doesn't like Starmer and is using this as a stick to beat him with. He's entitled to his view, of course, but trying to justify it on this particular basis is bollocks and I'm just having a bit of fun with him.

I have seen or heard no evidence that the case was properly reviewed right at the top, which it absolutely should have been.... don't you agree?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

He should have had his hands all over it end of!!!

How do you you know the complainants didn't want to give evidence? Scared off? Bought off?

He was in charge and Saville was of high enough interest and significance (possibly the highest there has ever been) for him to take more than a passing interest in the case. This just displays his level of poor judgement and competency. Certainly not that of a leader of this country.

There were no witnesses willing to come forward. There was literally no evidence to prosecute Savile with.

No head of the CPS would deal with any individual case. They weigh up the evidence brought to them and then advise whether there is enough evidence or not.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I have seen or heard no evidence that the case was properly reviewed right at the top, which it absolutely should have been.... don't you agree?

Review of what? There was no evidence to review.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Liz Truss thread...

 

[denislawsbackheel]

He should have had his hands all over it end of!!!

How do you you know the complainants didn't want to give evidence? Scared off? Bought off?

He was in charge and Saville was of high enough interest and significance (possibly the highest there has ever been) for him to take more than a passing interest in the case. This just displays his level of poor judgement and competency. Certainly not that of a leader of this country.

What a tit you are

 

[Saddleworth2]

Starmer is ahead of Johnson, but not by much. The problem Labour supporters have is naming who will back him up?

Emily Thornbury?
Yvette Cooper?
David Lammy?
Angela Rayner?
Johnathan Ashworth?
Lisa Nandy?

Heaven help us.... I am not for one minute condoning the current bunch of incumbents/clowns there now but..... this lot ain't any better by a long stretch.

It's like asking how do you want to die? Burnt alive or by a thousand cuts?

We really are in a terrible state right now and there is no getting away from that.

I know that it's unpopular by I DO hold Starmer accountable for the non prosecution of Saville. He was the head of the CPS. When a case of the magnitude of Saville arrives he should have been all over it. Absolutely NO decision should have been taken without him being involved. He should have chaired top level meetings that discussed the case and been right across everything!

It's all too easy to say, "the investigation and decisions were taken by someone lower down the food chain and it had nothing to do with me" - Ridiculous in the extreme. At that alone discredits him to me to the point of no return!

Do you listen to them both in HoC?
I genuinely am at a loss if you cant see a massive gap between them.

 

[Chris in London]

I have seen or heard no evidence that the case was properly reviewed right at the top, which it absolutely should have been.... don't you agree?

No I don't agree. What was there to review? In a case where the only evidence will be the complainant's the complainant decided not to give evidence. (It is by the way in the public domain that the complainants refused to give evidence.)

There was no credible prospect of a conviction, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that there wasn't a prosecution.

Courts only convict where there is evidence that is capable of leaving a jury sure of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What do you say was the evidence that could have made a jury sure to that standard once the complainants had indicated they were not willing to give evidence against Saville?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

What a tit you are

A decent rule of thumb in life is that anyone who uses the term "end of" at the end of a sentence is too thick to bother with.