please log in to view this image Andrew Norfolk Wednesday October 24 2012, 1.01am, The Times We failed grooming victims, law chief Keir Starmer admits A generation of girls was betrayed by the justice system’s flawed approach to sexual exploitation, England’s chief prosecutor has admitted. Keir Starmer, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that men who groomed teenagers for sex had escaped justice for decades because police, prosecutors and the courts failed to understand the nature of the abu Mr Starmer has ordered a comprehensive restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service’s response to sex grooming, designed to raise the number of convictions. The reforms come after an in-depth review of the CPS’s initial reluctance to charge men involved in a notorious sex-grooming network in Rochdale, Greater Manchester. They will apply to the handling of all current and historic cases of sexual exploitation involving girls and boys, including reviews of
"Keir Starmer, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that men who groomed teenagers for sex had escaped justice for decades because police, prosecutors and the courts failed to understand the nature of the abuse." I'd say he has a fair point tbh.
My poor understanding of what Starmer was responsible for as Head of the DPP. Is just as each county (as it were) has its own police force, it has its own prosecutors and courts. If you are doing 50 mph in a 30 mph zone, you will be successfully prosecuted if you are doing 51 you will probably not be charged, margin error etc. As I understand it the county police effectively brought evidence to say that Saville had been doing 40 in a 50 mph zone. The county prosecutor told the police I will lose the case if we go to court and we will be sued for defamation of character. Not good enough evidence. In due course Starmer ordered a review into the case, the result of which said the county police should have pursued evidence harder and the county prosecutor should have pushed them to do so. The case itself never, as it were was in his hands.
“On the face of it, the allegations made were both serious and credible; the prosecutor should have recognised this and sought to “build” a prosecution,” she said. Sir Keir accepted Alison Levitt’s conclusions and apologised for the CPS’ “shortcomings” in the Savile case. He left the CPS in November 2013, and was elected as a Labour MP at the 2015 general election. In 2009, when Keir Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions - the most senior figure in the Crown Prosecution Service - a decision was taken not to prosecute Jimmy Savile. Savile was the subject of four complaints in 2007-8 alleging child sexual abuse. He was interviewed under caution by police in October 2009.Whilst Kier Starmer headed the public prosecutions. Police began to investigate child grooming in Rochdale almost by accident. The probe began after a local teenager was arrested for smashing up a cabinet at the Balti House takeaway in the summer of 2008. But in the custody suite, the vulnerable girl revealed how she was being systematically abused and raped by a group of men. She provided police with a detailed account of the abuse as well as evidence including her underwear, which carried traces of one of her attackers' DNA. Two members of the gang – the gang’s ringleader Shabir Ahmed and Kabeer Hassan – were arrested and released on bail. But the investigation, according to one officer who was involved, was a ‘car crash’. please log in to view this image Officers on the Rochdale division were under pressure at the time to hit ‘volume crime’ targets like bringing down the number of burglaries and were overwhelmed by the sheer scale of the problem. More than that, the alleged abusers were Asian men picking on vulnerable white girls. There were fears that police bosses seemed reluctant to grasp the nettle for fear of being branded racist. It took police 11 months to compile a file of evidence for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) – after interviewing her on four separate occasions. On one of those interviews a police officer can be heard yawning while repeatedly asking why she had put herself in such a vulnerable position. And then, in July 2009, an ‘experienced’ CPS lawyer ruled the victim was ‘not credible’ and decided that the two men who raped her should be released without charge. both under his watch however you want to flavour it .is this the guy you want to rule the country 'asleep at the wheel again'
You can't come on here posting mere facts man, facts are for wimps. Facebook is the oracle of all knowledge and is the way, the truth and the life, everyone knows that
I think it's probably a decent point made in a not very clear and not very nice way. If Starmer's going to stand up every week and demand a resignation for everything using the reasoning that as the head of the organisation, Johnson is ultimately responsible for everything that goes on within it, then the same criteria should be applied to him. This idea that, for example, my boss is directly responsible or any ****ups I make at work and I'm not, is extremely outdated generally, I think. It's why the same ****ups keep happening across all industries, from football to politics, over and over again - the boss takes the fall and the incompetent people ultmately responsible end up keeping their jobs.
and yet the biggest rape case in British history of which he was responsible for was swept under the carpet. The abuse of the girls continued until May 2010 – 10 months after the case was dropped by Starmer – when police decided to revisit the investigation after a Rochdale youth project raised concerns about other complaints. A new investigation, dubbed Operation Span, was instated, including Detective Constable Maggie Oliver whose task was to convince the victims to speak to the police. Maggie Oliver has stated she pleaded with them to prosecute, you trying to tell me Starmer didn't know, i suggest you watch Maggie olivers you tube vid, People want to hang Boris for partying, but are quite prepared to overlook massive shortcomings of rape and pediophillia under Starmers watch, be careful what you wish for
I think the demand for resignation was for misleading Parliament tbf. No one can be asked to resign every time mistakes are made but lying to the House, and therefore the country, is a resignation offence for anyone. Having a party isn't really the issue as far as I can see, it's lying that there was one, then lying that you were there, then lying that you didn't know it broke the rules, then lying that it was a party, etc etc etc ... ... it's Tory MP's, as well as the opposition, who believe he should resign. The PM is a repetitive liar, to save his own skin, and that doesn't go down too well with anyone.
True, but we've had years of opposition, of whichever colour rosette (Cameron used to do it regularly), demanding resignations for everything that eventually it becomes meaningless. It used to be a big deal, now it's just PMQs. Or Thursday.
Starmer is a repetitive liar, to save his own skin, witness is Detective Constable Maggie Oliver yet still no one is prepared to reprimand Starmer on here for the biggest cockup of rape in British history as he was too gut less and scared to be called racist there have now been over 100 gangs up and down the country been arrested since he left. So if this is the guy the people on this thread want to run the country i pity you and it isn't going to happen
My concern is that the PM of the country is lying to us all and laughing behind our backs tbh mate. The rest is just waffle and doesn't excuse that in my eyes. Anyway, it's a football day so I'm off, take it easy.
I don't care who runs the country tbh ... ... but I no longer believe Johnson is capable or credible. Whatever the opposition, or his own colleagues believe, doesn't change that or excuse his lies. Anyway, time to get onto the match thread.
If he is the rest of the party will make him pay, however Starmer also had a party with booze should the same values you place not be reciprocated on him, as he also is trying to weasel out of it saying it was a working lunch break, the why oh why was there boozing while working out Britain's future anywhere else is a sacking offence.Do you not agree can you not see the hypocrisy of calling out one and not the other, As ive stated all guilty need sacking but both sides are just as culpable except on this thread
What I don't understand is it is probably the same group of people on here who were very critical of the Oxford Mafia for lying to us SAFC fans, seem to think it is perfectly acceptable for the Prime Minister of the UK to lie to the electorate. And not just once, or twice or three times but so many times that it is so difficult to keep up with all of the individual lies that you forget half of them (perhaps that is the plan)
Ministers used to have some self respect and dignity and would resign over matters that warrant it. Such as breaking the ministerial code. Now we just have a bunch of charlatans and crooks in government who ride roughshod over the rules and ride out any storms onto the next matter that would again previously have warranted their resignation.
It’s noticeable how some right wingers on here are choosing to be blind to the corruption of Johnson’s government when even many in his own party aren’t. It’s embarrassing tbh.
