Starmer's vision quest

[First Aspect]

A caller on radio this morning made interesting point.

As DPP ( not reviewing lawyer) the CPS decided not to prosecuted Jimmy Saville

As PM he initially refused to hold any inquiries into alleged grooming gangs

He appointed Lord Mandelson despite his known association with convicted paedophile Epstein.

He appointed paedophile supporter Tim Allan as a Lord
He failed to stop the appointment of Allan as a Lord when Sunday Times revealed his support for a paedophile before he took his Lordship up.


Caller asked hiw many "mistakes" can one person make references paedophiles

Pull your head out of the rabbit hole or before you know it you will be a climate change denying anti Vaxxer living off grid in a heavily fortified cave.

 

[Psamathe]

He got the mandate under the rules by which general elections operate. It may not be fair but Labour played the rules and got a landslide. That was down to McSweeney, he has his uses I suppose.

I think it was far more down to the Conservatives than McSweeney.

 

[spen666]

Pull your head out of the rabbit hole or before you know it you will be a climate change denying anti Vaxxer living off grid in a heavily fortified cave.

I merely related what someone had posted and you start abusing me. Its the oldest tactic in the book to divert attention from the shocking mistakes Starmer has made in relation to actions of people around paedophilia.

calling me names does not change the fact that these 4 mistakes all happened

 

[spen666]

I

Taking them together was more or less what the review after Savile's death said. But even then it might not have stood up as the complainants were equivocal about giving evidence and submitting to tough cross examination by the best lawyers Savile's money could buy.

I'm not saying Starmer has got everything right, he's clearly got a lot wrong. But blaming him for the fact Savile wasn't charged smacks of desperation. It was Boris Johnson's use of that against Starmer that led to one of his senior aides resigning in protest.

have not blamed anyone, and I made it clear Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer.

However these 4 incidents all happened on his watch.

Once is unfortunate, but 4?

 

[Psamathe]

Starmer and Reeves are delivering what they said they would - basically like the tories only more competent.

My impression is Labour were going to deliver Growth above every other priority. Not sure they're delivering that.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I


have not blamed anyone, and I made it clear Starmer was not the reviewing lawyer.

However these 4 incidents all happened on his watch.

Once is unfortunate, but 4?

If you need Savile to make four you've scraped through the bottom of the barrel.

There were plenty of commentators, including Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, who thought appointing Mandelson was an OK shout at the time.

Which leaves two.

The most recent looks egregious as there was, or at least appears to have been, an opportunity to call STOP before elevation to the Lords was complete.

 

[Dorset Boy]

My impression is Labour were going to deliver Growth above every other priority. Not sure they're delivering that.

I'm certain they're not delivering that.....
..... at present, and unless they change some policies, they will find it difficult to deliver it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think it's indicative of the fact that there are a lot more men interested in paedophila than you might think. It cuts across all social rankings. Technology gives them more access to abuse material and potential victims but conversely is bringing more of them to light. Which isn't to say there weren't all round failings in the Saville case.

 

[First Aspect]

I merely related what someone had posted and you start abusing me. Its the oldest tactic in the book to divert attention from the shocking mistakes Starmer has made in relation to actions of people around paedophilia.

calling me names does not change the fact that these 4 mistakes all happened

Starmer makes decisions as a lawyer, not a politician. So he's failed to act based on what he can't prove, rather than what smells bad.

I'm sorry if you are a climate change denying anti vaxxer with a lovely warm cave, and my post offended you.

 

[spen666]

If you need Savile to make four you've scraped through the bottom of the barrel.

There were plenty of commentators, including Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, who thought appointing Mandelson was an OK shout at the time.

Which leaves two.

The most recent looks egregious as there was, or at least appears to have been, an opportunity to call STOP before elevation to the Lords was complete.

Hilarious you seem to be in a minority of 1 if you think appointing Mandelson was not a mistake - even Starmer himself has admitted it was a mistake

Yet here you are arguing its not a mistake

 

[spen666]

Starmer makes decisions as a lawyer, not a politician. So he's failed to act based on what he can't prove, rather than what smells bad.

I'm sorry if you are a climate change denying anti vaxxer with a lovely warm cave, and my post offended you.

Erm Strangely enough, Starmer is a politician - in fact last time I checked he was the Prime minister - if he is not making decisions as a politician then he is in the wrong role

 

[First Aspect]

Erm Strangely enough, Starmer is a politician - in fact last time I checked he was the Prime minister - if he is not making decisions as a politician then he is in the wrong role

I think you may have identified the issue. It would be consistent with his over reliance on advisers and his hesitantly and susceptibility to u turns when the required political response is screamingly obvious.

 

[briantrumpet]

I think it was far more down to the Conservatives than McSweeney.

It was the myth that McSweeney used to just Sue Gray and keep his hold over Starmer. I don't think he'd have rebutted Ratcliffe's nonsense yesterday so quickly or unequivocally had McSweeney been in the picture, "cos we can't call out racist Reform voters".

 

[Bromptonaut]

Hilarious you seem to be in a minority of 1 if you think appointing Mandelson was not a mistake - even Starmer himself has admitted it was a mistake

Yet here you are arguing its not a mistake

Michael Gove was literally on the TV at the weekend saying that at the time of appointment Mandelson was a reasonable choice.

Farage, not being an honourable politician, now denies he said it was OK.

Whether better use of 'due diligence' and/or DV, or a different and better checking system, would have outed Mandy's connections I suspect is still not fully explored.

 

[spen666]

Michael Gove was literally on the TV at the weekend saying that at the time of appointment Mandelson was a reasonable choice.

Farage, not being an honourable politician, now denies he said it was OK.

Whether better use of 'due diligence' and/or DV, or a different and better checking system, would have outed Mandy's connections I suspect is still not fully explored.

So Starmer has made a mistake in saying he made a mistake?


It matters not whether Grove or anyone else thought it reasonable at the time, it has still turned out to be a mistake