you only have his word he didn't represent him a proven liar, you are assuming he was Rwandan when he was part of the invading Army. So who in Blair's government represented him then, either way it was labour who let him say
the difference between us Roger is that i can not only read but understand . You have not shown one piece of actual evidence to support your Starmer claim .
Justice Goose is in Starmers pocket murdering young girls making poison terrorist literature, and being referred to a special group to de platform him from terrorist ways 3 separate times. What would it take that he hasn't already done to convict him of terrorism
and you have not shown any evidence for Starmer except his word it wasn't him who represented Axels dad but fails to explain who it was under Blairs government, The same person who wouldn't prosecute the Rotherham rapists or J Saville while boss of the the CPS
lol wow this argument. I heard trump represented axels dad. I'm still awaiting evidence it wasn't trump
But you don't have a picture showing me axels dads lawyer. Until you show me who represented him its trump bro. My sources tell me
****ing Starmer, why didn't he stop William the conqueror? I have it good authority he's been to France.
As usual in these cases, the devil is in the detail. I see loads of Starmer bashing over this, but the facts show a different picture. When Starmer was DPP and the grooming gangs were being investigated, the CPS guidelines at the time were counterproductive in terms of getting a conviction 'According to evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee, the decision was based on CPS guidelines of the time which suggested a jury might see victims as unreliable if they had come forward some time after the offence, if they had deviated or changed their accounts, made use of drink or drugs or had subsequently gone back to the perpetrator. As a result, such cases were thought not to have a realistic prospect of achieving a conviction.' Subsequently, Starmer admitted that the CPS had got it wrong, as it had let down the victims and changed the CPS guidelines 'An independent report into child sexual abuse in Rotherham, published in 2014, noted that prior to leaving the CPS, Mr Starmer had established a new set of guidelines around the prosecution of child sexual exploitation to prevent earlier mistakes from being repeated.' He also appointed Nazir Afzal to a specialist prosecutor for child abuse and sexual exploitation, which went on to secure several convictions against members of grooming gangs. Although, as in these cases where it's alleged that Starmer 'blocked' the prosecution of grooming gangs and Jimmy Saville, both are incorrect. There is no evidence that he blocked either nor had any personal involvement in either case. In the case of Saville, the allegations against Savile were dealt with by local police and a reviewing lawyer for the CPS. Starmer actually commissioned a report to look into the failures of the Saville case which highlighted how local police and prosecutors had failed. It's just a lazy half reading of the facts to accuse Starmer of being directly responsible for 'blocking' these convictions. Although I know a lot of people get hoodwinked by the 30 second Insta and Facebook videos with talking heads who have an agenda. But people really need to take the time to delve a bit deeper
Don't go blinding Wodge with factual accuracy - he would much rather point the finger at Starmer for Saville's seeming invulnerability rather than look to the then Prime Minister, a certain Margaret Thatcher, who personally lobbied for Saville's knighthood whilst rumours were flying and accusations had been made - yet everything happening now sits squarely at the incumbent Prime Minister's door ... funny that
I had a friend send me a video yesterday of the same thing. An internet nobody ranting about how Starmer had blocked the prosecutions because he was DPP at the time. It's classic social media headline grabbing spin. But the actual facts show a different story. The worrying thing is a lot of people aren't interested/can't be bothered to look beyond the noise and investigate the facts for themselves.
