You mean he changed his policies once the Tories spaffed all the money away? What a ****ing surprise. If he kept them and didn't fulfill them you mongs would be gloating about it, it's a lose-lose situation and the Tories are to blame. Brexit ****ed this country. We're 100bn (at least) worse off per year. The ****ty trade deals signed with some islands of Australia or *****lia aren't going to make up for lost trade with the EU. You clueless ****ing gammon ****s.
Most UK MPs are taking money from the pro Israeli terrorist lobby **** there's about 70 US Congress members who have sworn allegiance to terrorist Israel But Rochdale is a concern Nigel "up the Ra" Farange and Galloway are both grifters but Galloway has his red lines
How did the tories spaffing money away effect his 10 pledges he broke within a year? How does a lost trade deal 8 years ago effect pledges he made and broke over the last 4? The only promise Starmer kept was to Jimmy Savile
Irrelevant. It's been debunked numerous times. Only desperate gullible ****wits cling onto it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/60213975.amp
Head of CPS Had nothing to do with Savile Had everything to do with all other convictions How lucky was that
I don't care one way or the other, but the laws of the jungle tell us that the buck eventually stops with the head of companies etc. People are always going to mention that he was head of the CPS at the time.
From that link. BBC Sir Keir was head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 when Surrey Police interviewed Savile and consulted a CPS lawyer who decided there was insufficient evidence for a prosecution to take place. As Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer was the most senior public prosecutor in England and Wales and responsible for leading the CPS. In 2012, Sir Keir commissioned a report, external from Alison Levitt QC into why Savile was not prosecuted. In three cases investigated by Surrey Police, no prosecutions were brought on the basis that none of the victims was prepared to give evidence in court. The report suggested that had the victims known there were other people making similar complaints they might have been prepared to do so. Prosecutions could have been possible "had the police and prosecutors taken a different approach".
He was not the reviewing lawyer, but as head of CPS he has to take some responsibility. There have been numerous examples in all walks of life of the head guy having to resign or take the blame for the failings of somebody below them.
"A spokesperson for the CPS said that, “in line with the established data retention policy”, none of the records for the decision not to charge Savile in 2009 were kept." He was the head of service that failed to act on an issue, and looks to have thrown his staff under the bus. That's not a particularly good trait for someone hoping to lead the country. Then again, at least he'll have some common ground with **** Joe. A good decade before that, staff at Stoke Mendeville were refusing to be in the building when Saville was on site because of his inappropriate sexual behaviour towards staff, patients and the deceased. That was told to me in the early 80's by one of those that refused. It has since been shown that similar allegations were not uncommon in various other areas he wormed his way into. A DPP should be better informed than some no mark miles away.
The ones I mentioned above were more than prepared to, but the hierarchy decided the solution was to allow them to change shifts so they didn't have to be near Saville. There is now evidence others that tried to come forward were put of from doing so.
Well, the investigation commissioned by Starmer was critical of the prosecutors and police. The prosecutors in this instance were the CPS and Starmer was head of it, so he has to take some responsibility and it is nonsense to say otherwise.
