Priti Patel

Actually the journalist is not a Labour supporter, and doesn't even like Starmer, as he makes clear towards the end of the article.

Momentum are a declining force within the Labour Party. They most certainly don't control it. Their candidate, RLB, polled only 28% of votes in the recent leadership election and was knocked into a cocked hat by Starmer. None of the Momentum candidates was elected in the NEC by-elections. Their founder and driving force, Jon Lansman, has retired. Most LP members are well aware of the need to rebuild the public appeal of the party following the Corbyn disaster, hence Starmer's overwhelming victory.

 

I have a good amount of admiration for Rishi Sunak at this point, he is a valuable member of the government.

To this point, however, Priti Patel has been more of a hindrance, alternating between bumbling, being blindingly insincere, and of course the allegations against her.

Patel needs a clean sleet for a year or so to cement her position, in my opinion, but I wouldn't be surprised if she's replaced by June 2021.

 

The civil service chiefs hate her for making them do there jobs properly and making the home office more accountable and efficient, They will do there best to unseat her from government and will probably succeed, The slightest mistake and they will be all over her to get rid, Good politicians rarely last in government where the dross ones are protected by an inept civil service that much prefers useless politicians who it will protect as it also protects them

 

That is the biggest load of rubbish ever.
Why would the director of the crown prosecution service, the position Starmer was in at that time, review a case and decide there was insufficient evidence?
4 cases were presented to the CPS at that time and none of the victims would support the case. A reviewing lawyer decided there was insufficient evidence to be confident of a conviction. If you have any involvement in the courts or cases you will realise it is very difficult without a victim and it has to be in the public interest. A trial of that magnitude would have cost thousands with a tough job to sway the jury.

Starmer actually chaired a review later down the line To change Policies and procedures in an attempt to stop another Saville.

Let’s be fair Saville was allowed to get away with it by leaders and governments and top police brass over decades because they were in his pockets. He was given the “keys to the sweet shop” by them all.

 

So it's money before truth ? the CPS was / is an independent body , they could have examined all the witnesses that came forward the evidence was there , the amount who came forward after the event proved beyond doubt there was a case to answer , are you saying the police , the government the BBC are corrupt , or the CPS were incompetent . They knew as early as 1976 Saville was a wrong un , the evidence was always there .

 

What evidence are you referring to? It’s common knowledge the victims would not support a case and attend court. Do you know how difficult it is to prove a case without a victim?

Where are all these witnesses that you say coming forward? They did after the event when saville had died, maybe safe in the knowledge they woukdnt have to face him in court.

It’s not profit before justice but there is a line on how you pursue something without a victim. As I said the cost would have been very high. Saville would have had QC barristers so CPS would have to match that. Would have been a lengthy trial with no victims and historic abuse. Can I ask in that trial what would you be relying on? They didn’t have a crystal ball to see he would get found out with hundreds of victims a few years later. They only had the facts at that time.

Trust me it happens a lot that the victim drops the case and the case falls apart and CPS are forced to offer no evidence.

Edit - of course there was some corruption across the board. Saville was given keys to the mental wards on his own. He had top officers at the police who were his friends. They were enablers. Without a doubt. I would say the police should have pursued the cases Originally in 2008 and not gone for a small case. If they had spent the time attempting to find more witnesses/victims they would have got him. CPS can only go on what evidence they are presented with. They can’t ask the police to find more victims. It’s not their job. And certainly won’t have been Starmers decision

 

I understand what you're getting at , but if this investigation was pressurised by outside interference maybe the CPS should have revealed this at the time . The Paedophile rings were rife in Parliament the BBC etc , although the full extent was not known , the term Paedophile wasn't really in excistence then . The CPS and others had the chance IMHO to nip it in the bud and expose the perpatrators no matter how high an office they held , if senior members had resigned to make a stand or to expose these rings maybe people would have a lot more respect .

 

I appreciate that and that would be an ideal world. A lot have got away with it and it’s disgusting. A lot of the victims have been made out to be mental, a common secret service tactic, to stop the cases getting far enough. The rack shop boys etc. I feel for everyone of them who have been let down by everyone. Their was stories of party whips warning off police investigations into Westminster paedophiles etc

I Understand all that but as I said Starmer cannot be blamed as the one responsible for Saville getting away with it. It’s totally wrong. As I say he would not have had a say in this original complaints not being pursued. He did put measures in place to prevent it happening again or reduce the risk.

 

The first allegations were made against him in 1963 and continued regularly throughout the rest of his life. He had many friends in high places and it's clear that he must have been protected by some of them.
Allegations were made against him in a wide range of settings - hospitals, various charities etc, yet you only focus on the BBC cover up.
Successive governments of both political persuasions, failed to act against him for half a century, yet you only focus on Starmer. Thatcher was big mates with him when she was PM, long before Starmer entered politics, and she must have known about the allegations going back years. Her correspondence with him has been heavily redacted on official secrets grounds. Pretty suspicious.
The fact that many witnesses came forward after his death has no bearing on whether a case could be proven during his lifetime. Even today only a tiny percentage of sexual abuse/rape allegations ever get to court because of victim reluctance to go to court or evidential shortcomings. There were numerous allegations against him that weren't believed or were delieberately suppressed. Saville was a notorious bully who frequently threatened those that tried to expose him, including some police officers. There's no doubt that there was an establishment cover up for decades, but you only focus on Starmer who, as How says, wouldn't have been directly involved in the decision to prosecute or not.

 

I focus on Starmer because of the sheer hypocrisy , he appoints a despicable racist to his front bench , yet you defend him over Saville , the despicable anti- semetic and racist MP was still promoted .

 

How are these two things connected?
There is a discussion to be had about Naz Shah. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the decision not to prosecute Saville, which wasn't even Starmer's decision.

 

But you held him up as a bastion of "the victims and oppressed " , the fact she was suspended from the Labour party in 2016 for anti- semitism and in 2017a 40k petition demanded her de-selection as a labour MP makes him a hypocrite to his " core " values , or doesen't that fit the " victims " criteria ? .

 

The CPS do not need a witness or accuser in court to proceed they can do that anyway if they choose, One recent case where the police were asked to drop the case and the accuser refused to give evidence and refused to cooperate with the CPS but they continued saying they had the right to bring any case it thought in the public interest, It did not get to court the defendant committed suicide

It could have done the same with Saville but chose not to

 

Evidence that she's done a great job?

 

I suppose it depends which papers you read or media you listen too,

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20992789

Opportunities to prosecute Jimmy Savile for sex offences were missed because police and prosecutors did not take allegations seriously, a report says.

A review of the decision not to prosecute the TV presenter in 2009 was published by the legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions (DPP).

Alison Levitt QC found that had police and prosecutors "taken a different approach" prosecutions could have been possible in relation to three victims.

DPP Keir Starmer has apologised.

 

You didn't read or understand @Offcomedun 's post earlier- Starmer did graciously apologize on behalf of the DPP but it was not his case.
Try googling keir starmer and jimmy savile and you will find other papers/media but maybe not right-wing enough.
In which case, carry on with the smear.

 

Blaming Starmer for Saville is like blaming Corbyn for IRA terrorism

Unfortunately with the rabid nature of right wing political hatred, it could stick when thousands of inaccurate memes are shared all over social media by people who are unable to fact check their hard boiled bias.

 

Right wing love it, as I posted different interpretations depending on what you read, I did Google Keir Starmer/Jimmy Saville and that's where I found the clips.

"Three victims made allegations between 2007 and 2009. Although officers from Sussex and Surrey police knew about the other claims, they did not pass this on to the victims, who were reluctant to press a prosecution as a result" and who was DPP.
Director of Public Prosecutions
In office
1 November 2008 – 1 November 2013
Appointed by The Baroness Scotland of Asthal

Not on Keir's watch ?.

 

What about the other 45 years of abuse then Dave? Why didn't any other DPP during that time pursue him to conviction? It's not as though there weren't plenty of allegations during that period. As How has said, it wouldn't have been his decision anyway, but why focus on him rather than all the other people who could possibly have acted? The CPS never takes prosecutions to court unless they are confident they can get a conviction. They clearly weren't confident that they could get sufficient evidence/witnesses to convince a jury, and weren't about to embark on a vastly expensive, high publicity failure at public expense.