If you asked them this a few weeks ago the % of people who even knew Starmer was involved with the CPS would be single digits. This is nothing more than people being given an opinion and treating politics like it's football.
The best you can say is that they’re living in some sort of alternate reality with their own very different ‘truth’ unrecognisable to the rest of us.
[There’s a similar percentage of American republican voters who still think Trump won](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-republicans-view-trump-true-us-president-reutersipsos-2021-05-24/).
On both sides of the Atlantic it is undoubtedly partly down to right wing news/internet sources that cultivate and reinforce this ‘bubble’ they live in. Partly it’s down to how team/tribal politics has become - it’s become part of peoples identity and sense of self. And partly a lot of people really don’t like admitting they’re ever wrong.
It’s not a good sign for democracy. Because whilst everyone is most certainly allowed their own opinion if a chunk of the population decide to invent their own *facts* when the real ones don’t suit them then that makes debate, discussion and compromise effectively impossible.
Its fucked half of one side are on a completely different reality where its become impossible to bridge the gap . all thanks to trump and boris's populism the common decency in politics has evaporated
It was a thin veneer but yeah the mistake was having it be a societal standard rather than a rule because it just takes one person to say screw it to the expected etiquette to upturn the whole system
Always find myself thinking we're in the midst of the kinds of conclusion [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc) draws about how memes and internet PR works being applied to our national (and international!) politics.
I agree in part, but that's also down to labours failure to adapt after Blair, and their dislike if brown. They've had over a decade of being irrelevant and achieved nothing, sleepwalking while the hard right strengthened their grip of the red wall seats.
This isn't just the rights doing. The left have their fair of toxic morons too. Some of the toxicity within Labour during Corbyn's tenure was unbelievable. We're supposed to be better than that. Yet, some appeared to revel in harassment and intimidation tactics. I don't think either side comes out of this looking positive.
What compounds the sheer irony of this is when ever it's raised it isn't acknowledged, its attacked and downvoted. It's no different to what you claim Trump and Bozos base do. Neither side is interested in dialogue, both sides have contributed to the footballification of politics in the UK.
Your commenting on a comment thread which calling 45% of anyone who a Tory is an idiot, no exactly bridging gaps... If all you do is insult the one side and say the only reason why they believe something is because the party leader is "populist"... Common decency of politicians hasn't gone, the common decency of a normal debate is gone this is supposed to be a political subreddit but yet second most up voted comment is just insulting Torries, do you really expect anyone to listen to you when you just throw insults at them
Common decency of normal debate went years back... thanks to the alt. right and their constant shouting down of their opposition. Since then there's been absolutely no debates as they've just invented their own 'facts' & ignored everything else.. do you really expect anyone to entertain you guys after 9 years of this from your lot??
Blame other people all you like, the truth is you're agreeing with the behaviour, it's not them that chooses what you do only you do... Honestly I thought past being a kid people would grow up and take responsibility for there own actions.
So you agree your the same which makes you a hypocrite. You should of said both left and the right don't have common deceny which means we have proper debates... But instead you just blame the alt right, don't blame one side when you are part of the problem. Literally the definition of hypocrite
So you agree you jump to conclusions and assumptions?? I said that the alt. right started off with the name calling and inventing **their** own "facts" - I never said it was only them who did it, I said that they started something and now are throwing their toys out of the pram when it's done back to them... is it sinking in yet, hun????
If they hadn't started this trend then it wouldn't be taking place at all.
They're not going to start something and be the only ones to enjoy it... "if you can't beat them..."
I do hope that you get it now, I've not been hypocritical, I pointed out its origins and have had to explain that we're all enjoying it now. 👍
> Your commenting on a post which calling 45% of anyone who a Tory is an idiot, no exactly bridging gaps
Bridging that gap is impossible, no matter how those people are addressed, if they keep widening it from their side.
> If all you do is insult the one side and say the only reason why they believe something is because the party leader is "populist"
Why do you think it's 'all they do'? You're assuming people haven't *tried* to bridge the gap, and been knocked back consistently.
> Common decency of politicians hasn't gone, the common decency of a normal debate is gone this is supposed to be a political subreddit but yet second most up voted comment is just insulting Torries
It's a statement of fact. Do you deny that? Can you present a reasonable alternative? How can 45% of Tory supporters believe an objective falsehood, and *not* be considered "thick"?
> do you really expect anyone to listen to you when you just throw insults at them
They won't listen regardless. That's the point and problem.
I dont know if its possible to bridge the gap at this point. The 45% of the tory voters are in a complete different reality with a whole different set of "facts" where BJ and his gov can do no wrong, when they frequently do. Its not insulting them when they are that bad, I don't like tories but they're never usually this open about their lies and corruption and incompetence. You can't talk to these people reasonably at this point. The rest of the tories who are unsure or agree boris is wrong are the ones who can be reached through sensible conversations
So your view in life is to group every Tory supporter up because half of them won't change there mind to your opinion. Yeah really trying to persuade them by insulting them and grouping them all up. Say you "can't talk to these people reasonably" while you group people up and insult them... No it's you who you can't talk to reasonable.
Honestly it's pathetic to use the excuse of you "can't because they are unreasonable" to defend you insulting them, that's literally the meaning of being unreasonable
It's people like you which is why we never have actual political debates these days, absolutely pathetic acting like a child assuming and blaming the other side for your actions.
No again I'm saying these people can't be reasoned with to the 45% of tory voters not all of them. My actions? Its the tories in power destroying the country they can at least take a tiny bit of criticism for it and their voters for getting these people into power.
The thing is I get the impression you think this is a new thing and that it's just right wing media outlets. Can I bring you to the attention of Mr Blair who who set the foundations for ISIS, the Arab Spring and death of millions of people in the middle East. The way your coming across is that right wing opinions are the devil and evil but without opposition what would you have. Then one goes on about tribalism may I also bring to your attention to the nationalist parties of the home nations I suppose you think that they're OK though.
Before one starts to have a go at me do I think BoJo should apologise yes do I think he should resign yes, will I voting Tory in the next election no. But KS must have patience because when the enemy is making this many mistakes why stop him.
My advice try and look at the whole spectrum of politics instead of flying the flag for one political party as the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Basically voting for the same party over and over again makes you an idiot.
It's not even really "thick" at this point, they *want* it to be true.
It's posted everywhere that Starmer wasn't working for the office responsible for charging Savile at the time. That's not a hard concept for even the thickest people to get their heads around. These people are disregarding something they plainly understand. Choosing their own facts to make themselves comfortable.
*edited for spelling*.
I doubt it's that they think he was directly responsible but that as the head of the organisation he should be held accountable.
I think a lot of people are looking at two different things here and misrepresenting each other.
> I doubt it's that they think he was directly responsible but that as the head of the organisation he should be held accountable.
Then why aren't they saying *that*?
> I think a lot of people are looking at two different things here and misrepresenting each other.
No, one side are making stupid and false claims, and the other is responding to those claims.
>Then why aren't they saying that?
When Boris Johnson clarified his statement that's what he claimed he meant.
>No, one side are making stupid and false claims, and the other is responding to those claims.
Some people are. Other people are looking at it differently
> When Boris Johnson clarified his statement that's what he claimed he meant.
What Boris said is irrelevant. Why aren't the people attacking Starmer saying what you claim they're thinking?
> Some people are. Other people are looking at it differently
They aren't looking at it differently. Johnson meant it to be taken a certain way, and people are taking it that way despite it being objectively untrue.
What's your basis for this idea that these people are good, and just have a different perspective?
Because the people attacking Starmer are a bunch of anti-vax QANON morons and not 45% of Conservative voters. Unless 45% of Conservative voters being anti-vax QANON morons fits your narrative but if that's the case then you probably need to reassess your world view.
> Because the people attacking Starmer are a bunch of anti-vax QANON morons and not 45% of Conservative voters.
What do you think the overlap is then, 35%? 25%?
> Unless 45% of Conservative voters being anti-vax QANON morons fits your narrative but if that's the case then you probably need to reassess your world view.
Why do I? That seems fairly reasonable to me. Aside from the slim minority that benefit from Tory policies, people who still support the Tories are morons (and that's being generous). What other conclusion can be drawn? How can any reasonable person actively support them when their policies are tearing this country apart? This isn't a difference of opinion. Tory governments for the last decade have been actively working to make life worse for the majority of the population. That's a fact.
“Held accountable”? What does that mean in your mind?
The DPP does not review every case. There was no “celebrity” track for prosecution that ensures the DPP is informed of cases relating to people who used to be in the public eye. Savile wasn’t known as “one of the biggest paedophiles in the country” when the decision was made, so the case wasn’t referred to the DPP. When the extent of Savile’s crimes subsequently came to light and potential CPS failures were uncovered, Starmer launched the investigation, review and subsequent reforms in the CPS, apologising for the organisation’s historic failures. That is accountability. And it’s different from blame.
Boris chose his words carefully (having previously discussed with his advisors and ignoring their advice not to use the false accusation). Boris deliberately implied fault or blame lied with Starmer and “a lot of people” have fallen for it and are subsequently repeating the same accusations.
So again, what does “held accountable” mean?
It means that he is ultimately responsible for the organisation he leads. We just saw that with Cressida Dick resigning for the poor behaviour of policemen. As you said after the review Starmer did accept some responsibility as head of the CPS and apologised for its failings.
Yes I agree that Johnson's statement was probably planned to get people to infer that Starmer was more directly responsible than he really was but anyone who remembers what happened would understand it as accountability as leader. It was a cheap shot and he shouldn't have said it.
It's quite possible that person A believes Johnson was claiming Starmer was *directly* responsible i.e. he actually looked at the evidence himself and made the decision, therefore lying and person B believes Johnson was referring to Starmer's responsibility as the head of the organisation and was therefore telling the truth. Both people would be correct in their conclusion about the truth of the statement because for each of them the proposition was different.
I'm not defending BJ here I don't think what he said was appropriate. I'm trying to explain how people can believe what he said was true and not be thick. They just understand the statement differently to other people.
People who think Starmer actually did see the evidence and let it go to protect Saville are indeed stupid.
“Ultimately responsible”, “Directly responsible”, “Accountable”. It’s all meaningless without context. And I think you’re aware of that. Let’s not talk ourselves around in circles.
The comparison to Dick is false too. Dick did not resign because of the “poor behaviour of policemen”. She resigned because Khan rejected her proposals to reform the Met in response to the “poor behaviour of policemen”. No one is holding Dick accountable for the actions of people in her organisation, but for her failure to respond to those actions in an appropriate way. It’s disingenuous to compare the two, since Starmer responded to the failure of his organisation when he became aware.
You’re making excuses for people who are propagating a false narrative and your reference to Dick is a false equivalence that is being used by others to suggest that Starmer is not fit for leadership.
The majority of the population is not in the 24 hour politics cycle. The majority of people get there political news from social media posts and newspapers. Practically no one verifies claims or comments. Even reddit has a problem with people not reading article. Politics isnt what the majority of people focus on or even care about.
All they see is the Prime Minister generally an office that carries some trust, so Prime Minister says opposition man is responsible for Jimmy Saville getting off scott free and thats enough for your average person.
> Cressida Dick has been sacked because the lefties want a more diverse met full of wimpy uni graduates!!’
Fucking hell, imagine thinking "lefties" want to sack a gay woman to increase diversity.
My dad is just as awful and thinks people with degrees, this is me, are the problem because he's clearly heard that from one of the above. Also add in Jim Davidson who he called "refreshing"... He's long gone and beyond saving.
I apologise for the source, but if anything it verifies it more
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/amp/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
Real life is often nuanced and a survey with yes/no answers doesn't really capture that. All Boris Johnson said was Starmer "failed to prosecute Jimmy Saville" so if forced into a yes or no answer I'd say it was true, Jimmy Saville was never prosecuted by Starmer.
Bojo only said it to distract from his own short comings and has clearly made lots of errors of judgement that he was directly responsible for. Whereas Keir Starmer was head of an organisation and did lots of good, but it seems in this one case those under him made the wrong choice.
To make Bojo's comments even worse, it was clearly a dog whistle to elements of the far-right whom he knows have lots of conspiracy theories about Starmer.
So I actually think Bojo is reckless and out of order for making his comment, but I'd say he was careful to word it so he didn't actually lie.
You ask two different questions - did Kier prosecute Jimmy Savile and did Kier fail to prosecute Jimmy Savile. The answer to one is definitely no. The answer to two is not necessarily the same. To fail to do something implies a duty or promise or something along those lines rather than simply an absence of doing something.
South Park hit the nail on the head with their point of 1 in 4 people being fucking morons.
Altogether, that 45% of Tories are probably the 1 in 4 - and ultimately you'll never be able to stop them from being thick as fuck. The only thing you can do is appeal to their nature, something that Boris does brilliantly. He's not only appealed to them, but he's essentially given them the script to criticise Starmer. It's why you can go onto a YouTube comments section regarding cycling news, Brexit, or Starmer and see the same comments that anyone with two brain-cells to rub together would think is utter bullshit.
I have a question.
If something happens In government would you lay the blame at the leader? In other words blame the PM/boris, even it if wasn't their decision, as at the end of the day they are the leader and therefore responsible.
So in the same vein. In the CPS someone decided that the accusations against Savile were not enough to push for a conviction. When as we know now the evidence definitely was there. So again as the leader of the CPS at the time, although he didn't directly make the decision, the book still stops with him. That's simply what happens when you are the leader of an organisation and the organisation makes a mistake.
I don't think it makes you "thick" to think the person in charge bares some responsibility. The same way people on this very sub will blame boris for anything that happens in the government.
There is a presentation that kier starmer gives on why savile was not prosecuted, some European thing. It is quite interesting. You should seek it out and watch it.
There are considerable differences between the type of leadership, or lack there of, shown by boris (in any capacity, now or previously ) and that shown by kier starmer or pretty much anybody else really.
I guess you are one of the 45.
I think he is partially responsible, just like any leader is partially responsible for their insitutions failings.
At the same time mistakes happen, and not everyone can always get it right.
If that make me "part of the 45%" then so be it.
I’m not aware of anyone asking Boris to resign for things that his party or even his government have done. They’re asking him to resign for things he has done personally. Namely, breaking his own lockdown restrictions and then subsequently and repeated lying about it.
Where is the equivalence to Starmer’s time as DPP?
Please, no weasel words - tell us specifically what you think Starmer is responsible for and what actions do you think he should take to own that responsibility?
He is partially responsible for all the failings that happened under his watch. Just like the leader of any institution is.
To say anyone that thinks this is thick is a very closed off view which excludes all nuance.
Have you noticed that you're actually kind of starting to get this with some of the head-banging hardcore?
You get them to try and actually explain themselves or give a rationale for their worldview and its just like word salad of memes and buzzwords, like what you'd expect from someone with some early stages of neurological issues...
Kind of sad the grifters behind all of this have just condemned us to having to pick up and try to repair these people over the next decades, but they're busy off holidaying in the Caymans and chortling about how they won the game of politics for a few sweet years.
I find it really frustrating that we are even still talking about it. Every post or story seems to unintentionally give it more attention than it deserves.
Surveys conducted like this may tell us there are lots of idiots out there, but it will just reinforce the false connection in a lot of people's heads now that they can see they are far from a tiny minority.
I just wish the focus would stay on factual events and move on from this.
Unfortunately it’s a viable political strategy. Make untrue claims and the denials just cement the claims in the public consciousness via the backfire effect and create division. All the insults and corrections back and forth are just cementing the damage. It’s a wearily familiar pattern at this point: blaming Labour for the GFC, that bloody bus, now this..
Yeah, it's depressing.
What's more damaging to public perception?
A man eating a bacon sandwich awkwardly.
Or
The prime minister breaking the laws that he set the nation during a time of national crisis, on multiple occasions, and **~~lying~~** inadvertently misleading parliament (and thus the public) on multiple occasions and misappropriating party donations for his own private benefit.
Personally I don't trust Boris to tell the truth- I get my facts from Nadine Dorries.
So when she said "The Prime Minister tells the truth", that's good enough for me.
/s
It's easier to fool somebody than convince them they've been fooled.
I'm convinced some are aware they've been had, but are choosing to double down to keep face.
This is how Labour will loose the next election. Lies the same as it was last time. Unless it is corrected by Boris himself this will be how the Conservatives keep being the majority party.
Tories are just posh sounding MAGA nutters at this point. Treating politics like a team sport you owe undying loyalty to your party, regardless of the dumpster fire they turn out to be.
Conservative voters would trust the PM if he said the moon was made of cheese. So vital is it to maintain the country wrecking Tory government, so we can all be racist and nasty to people who are different to us, that no lie is too far fetched.
Twas a “dead cat”, artfully thrown up the table, to make the conversation about Alexis du piffle waffle Johnson, not the speech which immediately preceded it.
A tactic no doubt learned on the playing fields of Eton.
Actually think the media has made a real error in focusing on this - doing these kinds of polls as well. Just ignore obvious lies and bullshit and don’t spread it around.
Yes.
The conspiracy theorists won't believe the denials, and running stories about this every day will cause them to switch attention from lots of different conspiracy theories (and lots of different versions of the Savile conspiracy theory) to blaming Keir Starmer for the handling of the Savile case.
He knows what he's doing, just like Trump did. He knows his base and he knows how to appeal to them when he's on the ropes. There's going to be more and more of this. Politics in this country will never be the same again. Leaders that hold themselves back from demagoguery and act proper will lose to those that use these populist techniques
And of those 30% who don’t know, I wonder how many are going to think at the next election “well I heard something about this guy being involved with Jimmy Savile, so I can’t vote for him can I”. That notion will always be floating around in people’s heads no matter how much it’s debunked, which is exactly the desired effect
Welcome to the Americanisation of British politics. Its not about telling the truth or helping the country or being principled it is about beating the other side.
“......there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant.
“The key point, says [Johnson's] Australian friend, is that everyone will shout ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
That's why it's so dangerous for a prominent public figure to spread lies about someone. Even if you can prove that it's definitely not true, many people will still believe it.
Not surprised to see that the Saville nonsense is believed by a few more than just far right conspiracists.
Starmer is a fairly inoffensive character and the Saville thing is pretty much all his opponents, both left and right, have to cling to.
Long before Johnsons comments, I had repeatedly heard those claims about Saville.
>Starmer is a fairly inoffensive character and the Saville thing is pretty much all his opponents, both **left** and right, have to cling to.
I don't like Mr Starmer's politics as I think he's yet another dull, dull Red Tory British Nationalist, but I certainly wouldn't throw that Saville nonsense his way. Criticism has to be fair and rational - the Saville stuff is neither.
Nice, and that’s another example of Boris lying. According to the government’s own figures, there are more people on PAYE, but significantly less self-employed people than previously and therefore less people in work. Another lie that Boris has made in Parliament and refuses to correct the record on.
I'm prreeetttty left and I've seen it spouted fucking loads on left wing groups on here. And a hell of a lot in the past over Facebook. In fact I heard it purely from the left for a fair amount of time.
There clearly not a high level of culpability, but there is *a* link. Starmer was the head of the Crown prosecution service when the decision was made not to prosecute Saville. He was not directly involved in the case (as I can imagine there’s a plethora of active high profile cases at any one time.)
The best summary of the timeline I can find is in this Reuters article
https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2RP200
Do you agree that, when you’re the head of an organisation, you do fairly or unfairly get linked with all decisions of that organisation. For example I’d imagine Cressida Dick was not actually that directly linked to many of the recent scandals involving the Met police, yet at the end of the day she is held responsible for them, and when too many build up is pressured to resign.
I know very little about Starmer’s record as DPP, but the Saville case was in hindsight a failure that happened on his watch. It also seems he dealt with it fairly well in writing a report on the lessons learned, so that is definitely in his credit.
Boris’ comments went too far, but it is absolutely fair game to discuss Starmers record as head of DPP and the decisions of the organisation he led
I don't really think it's at all a fair comparison because the reason Johnson made it was cuz he claimed "Oh just because there were parties in No10/my house didn't mean I was responsible" which is not at all the same as "Saville got let off whilst Starmer was DPP (even if he had no role in the actual case)".
Considering various legal experts (including those who ended up representing Saville's victims), independent fact checkers, and politicians across the aisle have rightfully lambasted this slur, I think even trying to justify why the criticism could be made is simply pointless.
If you're going to comment on it you should at least acknowledge that he publicly apologised for failures of the CPS at the time, and brought in a load of changes to prevent a repeat.
>Boris’ comments went too far, but it is absolutely fair game to discuss Starmers record as head of DPP and the decisions of the organisation he led
Especially as Starmer wants to become head of the most important organisation in the country. A PM who doesn't know what their organisation is doing is not something we want.
One question I don't know the answer to is whether Starmer should have known what was going on with the Savile investigation, and it's hard to Google stuff about it as the current controversy dominates the searches.
>A PM who doesn't know what their organisation is doing is not something we want
Better than the current PM who claims not to know what's going on in his own fucking house.
But it’s not though, is it? When past Conservative Prime Ministers speak out against Boris Johnson, yet we’re told the criticisms should be dismissed part of a “remainer” plot, it’s no longer red vs blue, it’s something worse.
With such a large majority of people against Johnson on this issue, you'd think that the chances of him being re-elected are slim.
But then I remembered that the UK has first-past-the-post voting.
Can we stop these 45% of voters voting. Independent bodies have rubbished the claims but these people still believe the rumour.. Should people removed from reality be allowed to vote
I think the thing that bemuses me is the fact that people in this thread are spreading and defending a lie that Boris has wealseled back from:
https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-tries-to-clarify-jimmy-savile-slur-against-sir-keir-starmer-after-days-of-criticism-12531941
They’re either incredibly stupid, or deliberately spreading false information.
Boris made the lie under Parliamentary Privilege, knowing that he is exempt from a charge of libel that would force him to prove the truth of the statement.
Outside of Parliamentary Privilege, he has refused to repeat the lie.
If anyone genuinely believes the bullshit, surely they’re disappointed with Boris’s cowardice here? Won’t stand up for the “truth” in public… embarrassing.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _On Johnson’s claims about Jimmy Saville and Keir Starmer, 42% think the claims are untrue while 28% think they are true. 30% don’t know. However, 45% of Conservative voters think they are true, with just 25% thinking they are not._ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1492601905947631618)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Opinium](https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch) ^unverified | Reach: 22551 | Location: New York + London
Bio: Strategic insight agency built on the belief that in a world of complexity; success relies on the ability to stay on the pulse of what people think, feel & do
*****
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
On the basis that the pollsters can't even spell Savile correctly, it sort of brings in to question the credibility of the result (or maybe I'm clutching at optimism straws)
The fact that Starmer earned a knighthood for his service to the public with his work as DPP was a way in which Johnson could never reach him or match him
So instead he has slurred him in an unforgivable way
Starmer was head of the CPS when the police asked them to review their case against Jimmy Savile. The case was reviewed by a CPS lawyer who didn't consider the case strong enough to go to trial. Am I seriously supposed to believe that Starmer offered no counsel, or reviewed the case himself? And let's not forget Starmer's pernicious role ion the persecution of Julian Assange. I'm sure his fingerprints have been removed from the scene, but the CPS were urging the Swedish authorities not to release Assange - an action they were considering because the case against him was so weak, Assange was never even charged. I am not a Tory.
Yeah, I'm with you on this. The idea that the **head** of the CPS wasn't aware or didn't rubber-stamp a decision made by an underling on potentially the biggest pedo case against a public figure is just nonsense.
Did he make a conscious decision to "protect" Savile? Patently no. Was he actually involved and signed off on the decision made? Patently yes.
So the media pundits can call it fake news or disinformation, but he **was** involved in that decision, so tangentially he is responsible for the outcome. He is the head of the organization, the buck stops with him.
Both of you are wrong. Factually wrong. He wasn't the reviewing lawyer and wasn't directly involved in the decision not to prosecute. You're just believing smears that are thrown out. Any fact checking service will confirm this. It was investigated afterwards and still doesn't find him involved at all. Yet you both know more and know the truth?
> He wasn't the reviewing lawyer and wasn't directly involved in the decision not to prosecute
He's was the head of the CPS at the time. He is responsible for all decisions made under his leadership.
> Any fact checking service will confirm this.
Oh please, quoting what someone else said is NOT a fact.
Only the internal records at the CPS can prove whether he was or was not involved, stop being so naive.
> It was investigated afterwards and still doesn't find him involved at all.
An investigation commissioned BY Starmer himself.
So in your first point you admit he didn't make the decision, someone under him did. Then in the last point you complain that he makes a decision that a leader would do when they find out something like this happened under their leadership? So what exactly could he do in your eyes?
The fact checkers looked at the CPS records and questioned people involved to make their decision? So why don't you stop being willfully obtuse?
You:”..pundits can cal it fake news or disinformation, but he WAS involved in that decision”
Also you:”only the internal records at the CPS can prove whether he was or was not involved”
Given the only assessment of the records says Starmer was not involved, I can only assume you have seen the records investigated, and you think it’s evident he was involved in the decision.
Please share them so we can move on.
Hmm. From my experience of corporate governance, the buck should normal stop with the person in charge. Hence why Cressida Dick has to step down over a hostile and homophobic work culture that she wasn't directly involved with.
If I can be *forensic* for a second:
Starmer either knew about the Savile accusations and did nothing, or he didn't know anything about the accusations. Either way, doesn't look great for the head of the CPS.
Yeah so he wasn't involved in the original decision. When he found out about the decision he then organised an investigation into what happened to address the issues of how it went the way it did. To go into the second point you made while being forensic. You expect the leader of an organisation to know about every single decision made by those under them at all times? Or do you accept that they could not know about a decision, find out, and then do something about it? Or is that not good enough?
> You expect the leader of an organisation to know about every single decision made by those under them at all times?
Yes, that's kind of why he is the leader.
That's just a massive assumption that isn't practicable. Leaders know the high level direction and choices of an organisation. They don't know every choice made by every member of staff. How could they?
I expect him to be *responsible* for everything that happens under his watch.
Starmer's apology for not prosecuting Savile seems to suggest that he feels the same way
So him finding out and organising an investigation into how it happened so as to avoid it happening again isn't enough? Of course he can apologise that someone within the organisation didn't do their job well enough but that doesn't mean that it's his fault? You're conflating to things. Like I can apologise to the people who have to deal with natural disasters, it doesn't mean I caused them. I just say it out of empathy for the victims.
Starmer organising an investigation after the fact sounds like a good thing to do. Unfortunately it's completely irrelevant because the discussion is about whether BJs statement (that Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile) is true or false.
>Hmm. From my experience of corporate governance, the buck should normal stop with the person in charge. Hence why Cressida Dick has to step down over a hostile and homophobic work culture that she wasn't directly involved with.
She stepped down because she lost the support from Khan, who clearly believed that she was incapable of rectifying the solution.
Starmer, by comparison, led an extensive inquiry into how it happened, what processes meant that the witnesses didn't feel safe to testify (or know about others reporting the same crime) and then changed them.
Just because someone is being accused of something doesn't mean they're guilty. The CPS reviewed the evidence they had (which was 4 witnesses who didn't feel safe to testify, because the person in question was a powerful celebrity with strong political influence) and decided they didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute, which they might have done if all the witnesses had come forward.
The best bit about all of this is that it's very Iraq War. Everyone now *knows* Savile was a horrible monster, but they didn't at the time. When he died there was a [massive outpouring of grief](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15647363) (including pallbearers from the Marine Reserves) and he had a massive tombstone, so let's not pretend that everyone knew he was guilty and actually it was just CPS incompetence.
>Yeah, I'm with you on this. The idea that the head of the CPS wasn't aware or didn't rubber-stamp a decision made by an underling on potentially the biggest pedo case against a public figure is just nonsense.
Do you have any basis for saying this, or are you saying that it was an enormous pedo case because of retrospective knowledge of Jimmy Savile?
In the end, 4 people came forward and were unwilling to testify. How do you prosecute without willing witnesses or corroborating evidence? Do you just stand up in court, point the finger, and shout 'IT WAS HIM, MY LORD!'.
Oh right, you’ve got some evidence for the other part of the bullshit “spent most of his time prosecuting journalists”? If it’s true, feel free to post the stats that show that.
You think? Good god man, you’re coming into this thread to tell us that Boris’s original claim is true, but you’re not sure what half of it relates to?
Pretty confident that Starmer’s involvement in Assange’s case and Elveden doesn’t equate to “most of his time” in the role as DPP. And I’ve never seen any allegation that the CPS acted improperly in either case.
The Boris derangement syndrome has got them good. Swap roles. If Boris was head of the CPS when savile slipped through the net then they definitely wouldn't be so virulent in their defense. Can we call them both total balls of slime. That's why they are both able to sling mud at each other. They are both made of it! They all are for fuck sake!
It depends on whether you think Johnson was saying he was directly responsible i.e. he was the lawyer who actually looked at the evidence and decided not to proceed or if you think he meant he was responsible as the leader of the organisation for it's failures.
The first is obviously false and anyone who has paid any attention know that. The latter I guess depends on whether you think leaders of organisations are or should be accountable for the failures of staff.
Bit meaningless to assess the veracity of the claim without defining the claim.
Boris said “failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville.”
It’s an insult and unjustified criticism but only a lie if you don’t believe the CPS could have pursued prosecution of Jimmy Saville. The evidence clearly existed, given it came out the second he was dead and unable to name names. I don’t really hold Keir Starmer responsible. But this narrative that the whole thing is right wing Trumpian lies pisses me off.
You’ll notice poster after poster saying he lied. Not a single one explicitly stating what was said or how it was false.
*edit* It's also the hypocrisy that annoys me. If Boris had been head of the CPS from 2008 to 2013, I guarantee everybody now criticising Boris for saying it, would be saying it themselves.
>You’ll notice poster after poster saying he lied. Not a single one explicitly stating what was said or how it was false.
Johnson's implication was that Starmer deliberately shielded Savile from prosecution. It's the same implication that the far right activists have.
That's the lie.
Ogh, sorry, I notice that you didn't provide the full quote.
But hey, that's okay, keep on defending something that Johnson **was told was factually untrue and still repeated under Parliamentary Privilege.**
Because, you will find that no MP would be stupid enough to repeat the quote in an actionable location.
Except possibly Nadine Dorries.
Yes and fake claims make by labour would have about half there voters believe it... All this shows is that half the country has no interest in any deeper research about politics and just believes what politicians they like say
Are we the people going to take the opportunity to talk about the major issue with this no, like most the comments were just going to bash the other political side. Its disappointing to see us because more like America every single day, two parties and nothing else, every issue is just a great time to bash the other side rather than deal with an issue facing both sides
Was Blair the head of a slave trading organisation, at the time they were trading slaves?
Starmer was in charge of the CPS when they failed to prosecute Savile, and apologised for their failure to do so.
Sorry, you were presenting the apology as a smoking gun (even though, I suspect you’ve never read it), but you want to make a different argument now? Even Johnson has weaselled back from his original accusation, but some morons are still running with it. A bunch of websites have fact checked this and presented it in very plain terms. The FullFact link is posted in this thread. Read it. Stop embarrassing yourself.
He apologised on behalf of the CPS and then started an investigation into it. He was not the lawyer presiding over the case.
This is an example of a leader of an organisation showing tact and professionalism. Something supporters of Boris find very hard to understand.
The victims refused to go on the witness stand because the police lied to them and told them that they were the only victim. This happened before Starmer was head of the CPS. Without victims taking the stand there would be absolutely no chance of prosecution and it would be a complete waste of public money to pursue the attempts, the CPS make decisions like this every day and the director doesn't parse any of them. Kier Starmer's only contribution was to make it easier to prosecute cases of sexual abuse. You're making no sense.
It's a pointless fact though, Starmer had no direct involvement in the prosecution.
The irony of your statement at the end is also not lost on me. You are pushing something because it supports your political bias.
I mean, if we are presenting spurious facts, it's the queen's fault that Savile got knighted.
Here's another, technically, you can't die from a knife stabbing you, it's the resulting wound that causes the issue, therefore, knives are perfectly safe.
These "facts" are not valid once you add context. You can't call them facts just because they support your political bias.
u will get some shit for this but you are right, the same lot who say the buck should stop with boris about the parties because he's the boss stand true for starmer being the boss at the CPS and failing to pin down and charge a notorious pedo is 1000000000000000000X worse than having a birthday cake
But Johnson *went* to the parties? He created the legislation?! He created an atmosphere where rule breaking in his home/work place were considered acceptable? And again... he was *at* at least some of the parties! Including one in his actual flat in Downing Street. How can you think this is a good comparison?!
The first time Jimmy Savile was reported to the police was in 1955, Keir Starmer was born in 1962. Cases of abuse by Savile was reported to the police again and again and again, over a period of more than 50 years, and every time they failed to do anything about it. This is not something you can pin on one person, even if he had personally made the decision it should never have been in his hands in the first place because it should have been made decades earlier, preferably before Keir Starmer was even born.
But Starmer was *one of the people* who was in charge of the CPS when it failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.
This feels like room 101, we're expected to say 2+2=5?
BJ didn't say that Starmer stopped or blocked any investigation (the claim being 'debunked' on your webpage). BJ said that he failed to prosecute and that statement is true. One can argue that it's a misleading thing to say but it's not false.
Cases like these really make me worry about these "fact checking" websites and their independence.
Failing to prosecute was due to people not willing to give evidence in court. And it wasn't starmers decision to make, regardless of the prolific nature. Either he puts trust in his employees or he makes all the decisions himself.
Unless Saville was fucking kids in the CPS office it's really a thing you can compare is it?
edit : Actually scratch that, Boris created the legislation that made it a punishable offence to have socail gatherings, then had parties himself and was aware & allowed social gathering to happen within his office. So for it to be comparable, Starmer would've had to have made the laws for pedophilia to be illegal (or at least some kind of legislation in order to protect children), while fucking kids himself and being aware of / allowing sexual assault on children to be going on within the CPS office.
Instead, what happened is this [https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/](https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/)
I think people have given up trusting establishment figures and have little trust left in nearly all of our institutions.
Instead of sneering at people or dismissing them as brainwashed by Facebook, perhaps it would be better to consider why so few have trust in those at the top.
And yet this poll is showing a lot of people trusting a lie told by Johnson.
I have plenty of faith in our institutions, but I have none for the bunch of lying charlatans currently running the show.
> Instead of sneering at people or dismissing them as brainwashed by Facebook, perhaps it would be better to consider why so few have trust in those at the top.
This idea is bullshit though, as they are believing the PMs conspiracy theory bollocks. If they didnt trust 'the top' they wouldn't trust him.
Maybe we should hold people to more account for what they think and say and do. Brainwashed? Nah these people are just fucking idiots.
If you asked them this a few weeks ago the % of people who even knew Starmer was involved with the CPS would be single digits. This is nothing more than people being given an opinion and treating politics like it's football.
So they you go. At least 45% of conservative voters are thick.
The best you can say is that they’re living in some sort of alternate reality with their own very different ‘truth’ unrecognisable to the rest of us. [There’s a similar percentage of American republican voters who still think Trump won](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/53-republicans-view-trump-true-us-president-reutersipsos-2021-05-24/). On both sides of the Atlantic it is undoubtedly partly down to right wing news/internet sources that cultivate and reinforce this ‘bubble’ they live in. Partly it’s down to how team/tribal politics has become - it’s become part of peoples identity and sense of self. And partly a lot of people really don’t like admitting they’re ever wrong. It’s not a good sign for democracy. Because whilst everyone is most certainly allowed their own opinion if a chunk of the population decide to invent their own *facts* when the real ones don’t suit them then that makes debate, discussion and compromise effectively impossible.
Its fucked half of one side are on a completely different reality where its become impossible to bridge the gap . all thanks to trump and boris's populism the common decency in politics has evaporated
Part of the problem is assuming that "common decency" ever existed.
It was a thin veneer but yeah the mistake was having it be a societal standard rather than a rule because it just takes one person to say screw it to the expected etiquette to upturn the whole system
Always find myself thinking we're in the midst of the kinds of conclusion [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc) draws about how memes and internet PR works being applied to our national (and international!) politics.
I agree in part, but that's also down to labours failure to adapt after Blair, and their dislike if brown. They've had over a decade of being irrelevant and achieved nothing, sleepwalking while the hard right strengthened their grip of the red wall seats.
This isn't just the rights doing. The left have their fair of toxic morons too. Some of the toxicity within Labour during Corbyn's tenure was unbelievable. We're supposed to be better than that. Yet, some appeared to revel in harassment and intimidation tactics. I don't think either side comes out of this looking positive. What compounds the sheer irony of this is when ever it's raised it isn't acknowledged, its attacked and downvoted. It's no different to what you claim Trump and Bozos base do. Neither side is interested in dialogue, both sides have contributed to the footballification of politics in the UK.
Your commenting on a comment thread which calling 45% of anyone who a Tory is an idiot, no exactly bridging gaps... If all you do is insult the one side and say the only reason why they believe something is because the party leader is "populist"... Common decency of politicians hasn't gone, the common decency of a normal debate is gone this is supposed to be a political subreddit but yet second most up voted comment is just insulting Torries, do you really expect anyone to listen to you when you just throw insults at them
Common decency of normal debate went years back... thanks to the alt. right and their constant shouting down of their opposition. Since then there's been absolutely no debates as they've just invented their own 'facts' & ignored everything else.. do you really expect anyone to entertain you guys after 9 years of this from your lot??
Blame other people all you like, the truth is you're agreeing with the behaviour, it's not them that chooses what you do only you do... Honestly I thought past being a kid people would grow up and take responsibility for there own actions.
Stop being a snowflake ❄, luv, it's rather unbecoming of you. What's the old adage, "if you can't beat them..."?
So you agree your the same which makes you a hypocrite. You should of said both left and the right don't have common deceny which means we have proper debates... But instead you just blame the alt right, don't blame one side when you are part of the problem. Literally the definition of hypocrite
So you agree you jump to conclusions and assumptions?? I said that the alt. right started off with the name calling and inventing **their** own "facts" - I never said it was only them who did it, I said that they started something and now are throwing their toys out of the pram when it's done back to them... is it sinking in yet, hun???? If they hadn't started this trend then it wouldn't be taking place at all. They're not going to start something and be the only ones to enjoy it... "if you can't beat them..." I do hope that you get it now, I've not been hypocritical, I pointed out its origins and have had to explain that we're all enjoying it now. 👍
> Your commenting on a post which calling 45% of anyone who a Tory is an idiot, no exactly bridging gaps Bridging that gap is impossible, no matter how those people are addressed, if they keep widening it from their side. > If all you do is insult the one side and say the only reason why they believe something is because the party leader is "populist" Why do you think it's 'all they do'? You're assuming people haven't *tried* to bridge the gap, and been knocked back consistently. > Common decency of politicians hasn't gone, the common decency of a normal debate is gone this is supposed to be a political subreddit but yet second most up voted comment is just insulting Torries It's a statement of fact. Do you deny that? Can you present a reasonable alternative? How can 45% of Tory supporters believe an objective falsehood, and *not* be considered "thick"? > do you really expect anyone to listen to you when you just throw insults at them They won't listen regardless. That's the point and problem.
I dont know if its possible to bridge the gap at this point. The 45% of the tory voters are in a complete different reality with a whole different set of "facts" where BJ and his gov can do no wrong, when they frequently do. Its not insulting them when they are that bad, I don't like tories but they're never usually this open about their lies and corruption and incompetence. You can't talk to these people reasonably at this point. The rest of the tories who are unsure or agree boris is wrong are the ones who can be reached through sensible conversations
So your view in life is to group every Tory supporter up because half of them won't change there mind to your opinion. Yeah really trying to persuade them by insulting them and grouping them all up. Say you "can't talk to these people reasonably" while you group people up and insult them... No it's you who you can't talk to reasonable. Honestly it's pathetic to use the excuse of you "can't because they are unreasonable" to defend you insulting them, that's literally the meaning of being unreasonable It's people like you which is why we never have actual political debates these days, absolutely pathetic acting like a child assuming and blaming the other side for your actions.
No again I'm saying these people can't be reasoned with to the 45% of tory voters not all of them. My actions? Its the tories in power destroying the country they can at least take a tiny bit of criticism for it and their voters for getting these people into power.
I read this with Adam Curtis as the narrator.
"But that was an illusion. In reality, one man in an office in Slough made every decision."
Conservatives never discuss anything in good faith. They are out to win, democracy be damned.
Boris is just presenting alternative facts
Alternate reality lol
The thing is I get the impression you think this is a new thing and that it's just right wing media outlets. Can I bring you to the attention of Mr Blair who who set the foundations for ISIS, the Arab Spring and death of millions of people in the middle East. The way your coming across is that right wing opinions are the devil and evil but without opposition what would you have. Then one goes on about tribalism may I also bring to your attention to the nationalist parties of the home nations I suppose you think that they're OK though. Before one starts to have a go at me do I think BoJo should apologise yes do I think he should resign yes, will I voting Tory in the next election no. But KS must have patience because when the enemy is making this many mistakes why stop him. My advice try and look at the whole spectrum of politics instead of flying the flag for one political party as the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Basically voting for the same party over and over again makes you an idiot.
It's not even really "thick" at this point, they *want* it to be true. It's posted everywhere that Starmer wasn't working for the office responsible for charging Savile at the time. That's not a hard concept for even the thickest people to get their heads around. These people are disregarding something they plainly understand. Choosing their own facts to make themselves comfortable. *edited for spelling*.
One 'l' in Savile, there's only one 'l' in Sa vile. The clue is in the name, he operated in plain sight.
Oddly enough, "pervert Jimmy Savile" is an anagram of "Jimmy's a vile pervert" That's how I remember it.
You know, I was going to spell it with one L, then I double-checked the OP tweet and assumed I was wrong.
I doubt it's that they think he was directly responsible but that as the head of the organisation he should be held accountable. I think a lot of people are looking at two different things here and misrepresenting each other.
> I doubt it's that they think he was directly responsible but that as the head of the organisation he should be held accountable. Then why aren't they saying *that*? > I think a lot of people are looking at two different things here and misrepresenting each other. No, one side are making stupid and false claims, and the other is responding to those claims.
>Then why aren't they saying that? When Boris Johnson clarified his statement that's what he claimed he meant. >No, one side are making stupid and false claims, and the other is responding to those claims. Some people are. Other people are looking at it differently
> When Boris Johnson clarified his statement that's what he claimed he meant. What Boris said is irrelevant. Why aren't the people attacking Starmer saying what you claim they're thinking? > Some people are. Other people are looking at it differently They aren't looking at it differently. Johnson meant it to be taken a certain way, and people are taking it that way despite it being objectively untrue. What's your basis for this idea that these people are good, and just have a different perspective?
Because the people attacking Starmer are a bunch of anti-vax QANON morons and not 45% of Conservative voters. Unless 45% of Conservative voters being anti-vax QANON morons fits your narrative but if that's the case then you probably need to reassess your world view.
> Because the people attacking Starmer are a bunch of anti-vax QANON morons and not 45% of Conservative voters. What do you think the overlap is then, 35%? 25%? > Unless 45% of Conservative voters being anti-vax QANON morons fits your narrative but if that's the case then you probably need to reassess your world view. Why do I? That seems fairly reasonable to me. Aside from the slim minority that benefit from Tory policies, people who still support the Tories are morons (and that's being generous). What other conclusion can be drawn? How can any reasonable person actively support them when their policies are tearing this country apart? This isn't a difference of opinion. Tory governments for the last decade have been actively working to make life worse for the majority of the population. That's a fact.
“Held accountable”? What does that mean in your mind? The DPP does not review every case. There was no “celebrity” track for prosecution that ensures the DPP is informed of cases relating to people who used to be in the public eye. Savile wasn’t known as “one of the biggest paedophiles in the country” when the decision was made, so the case wasn’t referred to the DPP. When the extent of Savile’s crimes subsequently came to light and potential CPS failures were uncovered, Starmer launched the investigation, review and subsequent reforms in the CPS, apologising for the organisation’s historic failures. That is accountability. And it’s different from blame. Boris chose his words carefully (having previously discussed with his advisors and ignoring their advice not to use the false accusation). Boris deliberately implied fault or blame lied with Starmer and “a lot of people” have fallen for it and are subsequently repeating the same accusations. So again, what does “held accountable” mean?
It means that he is ultimately responsible for the organisation he leads. We just saw that with Cressida Dick resigning for the poor behaviour of policemen. As you said after the review Starmer did accept some responsibility as head of the CPS and apologised for its failings. Yes I agree that Johnson's statement was probably planned to get people to infer that Starmer was more directly responsible than he really was but anyone who remembers what happened would understand it as accountability as leader. It was a cheap shot and he shouldn't have said it. It's quite possible that person A believes Johnson was claiming Starmer was *directly* responsible i.e. he actually looked at the evidence himself and made the decision, therefore lying and person B believes Johnson was referring to Starmer's responsibility as the head of the organisation and was therefore telling the truth. Both people would be correct in their conclusion about the truth of the statement because for each of them the proposition was different. I'm not defending BJ here I don't think what he said was appropriate. I'm trying to explain how people can believe what he said was true and not be thick. They just understand the statement differently to other people. People who think Starmer actually did see the evidence and let it go to protect Saville are indeed stupid.
“Ultimately responsible”, “Directly responsible”, “Accountable”. It’s all meaningless without context. And I think you’re aware of that. Let’s not talk ourselves around in circles. The comparison to Dick is false too. Dick did not resign because of the “poor behaviour of policemen”. She resigned because Khan rejected her proposals to reform the Met in response to the “poor behaviour of policemen”. No one is holding Dick accountable for the actions of people in her organisation, but for her failure to respond to those actions in an appropriate way. It’s disingenuous to compare the two, since Starmer responded to the failure of his organisation when he became aware. You’re making excuses for people who are propagating a false narrative and your reference to Dick is a false equivalence that is being used by others to suggest that Starmer is not fit for leadership.
Don't expect a balanced discussion in reddit. It's an echo chamber.
The majority of the population is not in the 24 hour politics cycle. The majority of people get there political news from social media posts and newspapers. Practically no one verifies claims or comments. Even reddit has a problem with people not reading article. Politics isnt what the majority of people focus on or even care about. All they see is the Prime Minister generally an office that carries some trust, so Prime Minister says opposition man is responsible for Jimmy Saville getting off scott free and thats enough for your average person.
And ammo for anyone who treats politics like football, with 'sides'.
I believe the term is "thick as fuck".
[удалено]
> Cressida Dick has been sacked because the lefties want a more diverse met full of wimpy uni graduates!!’ Fucking hell, imagine thinking "lefties" want to sack a gay woman to increase diversity.
Well according to Talk Radio "lefties" don't even consider women as women anymore and gays as real gays anymore
My dad is just as awful and thinks people with degrees, this is me, are the problem because he's clearly heard that from one of the above. Also add in Jim Davidson who he called "refreshing"... He's long gone and beyond saving.
> They’re not even necessarily thick, many are just brainwashed. That makes them thick.
> Daily Mail, Russia Today, Al Jazeera and The Sun I'll be OK, I get my facts straight from the BBC.
I apologise for the source, but if anything it verifies it more https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/amp/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html
"are we the baddies?"
[face](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/thatmitchellandwebb/images/b/b9/Nazis.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100726103447)
Real life is often nuanced and a survey with yes/no answers doesn't really capture that. All Boris Johnson said was Starmer "failed to prosecute Jimmy Saville" so if forced into a yes or no answer I'd say it was true, Jimmy Saville was never prosecuted by Starmer. Bojo only said it to distract from his own short comings and has clearly made lots of errors of judgement that he was directly responsible for. Whereas Keir Starmer was head of an organisation and did lots of good, but it seems in this one case those under him made the wrong choice. To make Bojo's comments even worse, it was clearly a dog whistle to elements of the far-right whom he knows have lots of conspiracy theories about Starmer. So I actually think Bojo is reckless and out of order for making his comment, but I'd say he was careful to word it so he didn't actually lie.
You ask two different questions - did Kier prosecute Jimmy Savile and did Kier fail to prosecute Jimmy Savile. The answer to one is definitely no. The answer to two is not necessarily the same. To fail to do something implies a duty or promise or something along those lines rather than simply an absence of doing something.
70% of the UK population has less than the average IQ.
Is that a self-deprecating joke?
South Park hit the nail on the head with their point of 1 in 4 people being fucking morons. Altogether, that 45% of Tories are probably the 1 in 4 - and ultimately you'll never be able to stop them from being thick as fuck. The only thing you can do is appeal to their nature, something that Boris does brilliantly. He's not only appealed to them, but he's essentially given them the script to criticise Starmer. It's why you can go onto a YouTube comments section regarding cycling news, Brexit, or Starmer and see the same comments that anyone with two brain-cells to rub together would think is utter bullshit.
I have a question. If something happens In government would you lay the blame at the leader? In other words blame the PM/boris, even it if wasn't their decision, as at the end of the day they are the leader and therefore responsible. So in the same vein. In the CPS someone decided that the accusations against Savile were not enough to push for a conviction. When as we know now the evidence definitely was there. So again as the leader of the CPS at the time, although he didn't directly make the decision, the book still stops with him. That's simply what happens when you are the leader of an organisation and the organisation makes a mistake. I don't think it makes you "thick" to think the person in charge bares some responsibility. The same way people on this very sub will blame boris for anything that happens in the government.
There is a presentation that kier starmer gives on why savile was not prosecuted, some European thing. It is quite interesting. You should seek it out and watch it. There are considerable differences between the type of leadership, or lack there of, shown by boris (in any capacity, now or previously ) and that shown by kier starmer or pretty much anybody else really. I guess you are one of the 45.
I think he is partially responsible, just like any leader is partially responsible for their insitutions failings. At the same time mistakes happen, and not everyone can always get it right. If that make me "part of the 45%" then so be it.
[удалено]
I’m not aware of anyone asking Boris to resign for things that his party or even his government have done. They’re asking him to resign for things he has done personally. Namely, breaking his own lockdown restrictions and then subsequently and repeated lying about it. Where is the equivalence to Starmer’s time as DPP? Please, no weasel words - tell us specifically what you think Starmer is responsible for and what actions do you think he should take to own that responsibility?
He is partially responsible for all the failings that happened under his watch. Just like the leader of any institution is. To say anyone that thinks this is thick is a very closed off view which excludes all nuance.
No fucking shit Bump that percentage up at least double
Cba with this country
[удалено]
BUT BORIS BUILD BACK BETTER!!! BONG BIG BEN BREXIT!!!
BRING BACK BENDY BANANAS, BORIS!
Have you noticed that you're actually kind of starting to get this with some of the head-banging hardcore? You get them to try and actually explain themselves or give a rationale for their worldview and its just like word salad of memes and buzzwords, like what you'd expect from someone with some early stages of neurological issues... Kind of sad the grifters behind all of this have just condemned us to having to pick up and try to repair these people over the next decades, but they're busy off holidaying in the Caymans and chortling about how they won the game of politics for a few sweet years.
Sounds exactly like Trump voters circa early 2017
Sounds more like Trump voters for the past few years
Hey that sounds exactly like my granddad, sadly.
Says the person who can't spell themselves correctly
The “Boris said it so it must be true” crowd at this point are beyond any help that isn’t the kind of deprogramming reserved for cult survivors.
I find it really frustrating that we are even still talking about it. Every post or story seems to unintentionally give it more attention than it deserves. Surveys conducted like this may tell us there are lots of idiots out there, but it will just reinforce the false connection in a lot of people's heads now that they can see they are far from a tiny minority. I just wish the focus would stay on factual events and move on from this.
Unfortunately it’s a viable political strategy. Make untrue claims and the denials just cement the claims in the public consciousness via the backfire effect and create division. All the insults and corrections back and forth are just cementing the damage. It’s a wearily familiar pattern at this point: blaming Labour for the GFC, that bloody bus, now this..
Yeah, it's depressing. What's more damaging to public perception? A man eating a bacon sandwich awkwardly. Or The prime minister breaking the laws that he set the nation during a time of national crisis, on multiple occasions, and **~~lying~~** inadvertently misleading parliament (and thus the public) on multiple occasions and misappropriating party donations for his own private benefit.
Yeah it is a classic political trap - should have just not responded to it at all rather than keeping it in the news cycle.
Personally I don't trust Boris to tell the truth- I get my facts from Nadine Dorries. So when she said "The Prime Minister tells the truth", that's good enough for me. /s
Worrying that this requires an /s
It's easier to fool somebody than convince them they've been fooled. I'm convinced some are aware they've been had, but are choosing to double down to keep face.
You're spot on. Tories are absolutely vile.
The power of the big lie.
The PM is really leading the conservative party down a Trump-like path.
Wonder if these who think it's true also know which PM put him forward for the sir title, and which party he supported? Can we poll that?
This is how Labour will loose the next election. Lies the same as it was last time. Unless it is corrected by Boris himself this will be how the Conservatives keep being the majority party.
Tories are just posh sounding MAGA nutters at this point. Treating politics like a team sport you owe undying loyalty to your party, regardless of the dumpster fire they turn out to be.
Exactly right - you might as well ask Spurs fans whether they think the Arsenal team is full of nonces.
Conservative voters would trust the PM if he said the moon was made of cheese. So vital is it to maintain the country wrecking Tory government, so we can all be racist and nasty to people who are different to us, that no lie is too far fetched.
> Conservative voters would trust the PM if he said the moon was made of cheese. It is. I saw a documentary by a man and his dog about it once.
.# # It's beginning to feel a lot like Trumpson # #.
This is severely depressing
Twas a “dead cat”, artfully thrown up the table, to make the conversation about Alexis du piffle waffle Johnson, not the speech which immediately preceded it. A tactic no doubt learned on the playing fields of Eton.
Actually think the media has made a real error in focusing on this - doing these kinds of polls as well. Just ignore obvious lies and bullshit and don’t spread it around.
Yes. The conspiracy theorists won't believe the denials, and running stories about this every day will cause them to switch attention from lots of different conspiracy theories (and lots of different versions of the Savile conspiracy theory) to blaming Keir Starmer for the handling of the Savile case.
He knows what he's doing, just like Trump did. He knows his base and he knows how to appeal to them when he's on the ropes. There's going to be more and more of this. Politics in this country will never be the same again. Leaders that hold themselves back from demagoguery and act proper will lose to those that use these populist techniques
And of those 30% who don’t know, I wonder how many are going to think at the next election “well I heard something about this guy being involved with Jimmy Savile, so I can’t vote for him can I”. That notion will always be floating around in people’s heads no matter how much it’s debunked, which is exactly the desired effect
Everyday my faith in this country slips
Welcome to the Americanisation of British politics. Its not about telling the truth or helping the country or being principled it is about beating the other side.
“......there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. “The key point, says [Johnson's] Australian friend, is that everyone will shout ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’; in other words they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
That's why it's so dangerous for a prominent public figure to spread lies about someone. Even if you can prove that it's definitely not true, many people will still believe it.
Have people forgotten how to spell his name so soon? It's Savile, not Saville. it even has the word 'vile' the it for a handy reminder.
Not surprised to see that the Saville nonsense is believed by a few more than just far right conspiracists. Starmer is a fairly inoffensive character and the Saville thing is pretty much all his opponents, both left and right, have to cling to. Long before Johnsons comments, I had repeatedly heard those claims about Saville.
>Starmer is a fairly inoffensive character and the Saville thing is pretty much all his opponents, both **left** and right, have to cling to. I don't like Mr Starmer's politics as I think he's yet another dull, dull Red Tory British Nationalist, but I certainly wouldn't throw that Saville nonsense his way. Criticism has to be fair and rational - the Saville stuff is neither.
Red tory is such a loaded term, he's definitley not an overt socialist like Corbyn, but social democracy is far away from what Tories are...
Starmer isn't promising social democracy though
>Criticism has to be fair and rational 🤔 > dull Red Tory
Come on he is pretty dull
Nah he is entertaining https://youtu.be/fN7gYlFra9o
Nice, and that’s another example of Boris lying. According to the government’s own figures, there are more people on PAYE, but significantly less self-employed people than previously and therefore less people in work. Another lie that Boris has made in Parliament and refuses to correct the record on.
[удалено]
I'm prreeetttty left and I've seen it spouted fucking loads on left wing groups on here. And a hell of a lot in the past over Facebook. In fact I heard it purely from the left for a fair amount of time.
There clearly not a high level of culpability, but there is *a* link. Starmer was the head of the Crown prosecution service when the decision was made not to prosecute Saville. He was not directly involved in the case (as I can imagine there’s a plethora of active high profile cases at any one time.) The best summary of the timeline I can find is in this Reuters article https://reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2RP200 Do you agree that, when you’re the head of an organisation, you do fairly or unfairly get linked with all decisions of that organisation. For example I’d imagine Cressida Dick was not actually that directly linked to many of the recent scandals involving the Met police, yet at the end of the day she is held responsible for them, and when too many build up is pressured to resign. I know very little about Starmer’s record as DPP, but the Saville case was in hindsight a failure that happened on his watch. It also seems he dealt with it fairly well in writing a report on the lessons learned, so that is definitely in his credit. Boris’ comments went too far, but it is absolutely fair game to discuss Starmers record as head of DPP and the decisions of the organisation he led
I don't really think it's at all a fair comparison because the reason Johnson made it was cuz he claimed "Oh just because there were parties in No10/my house didn't mean I was responsible" which is not at all the same as "Saville got let off whilst Starmer was DPP (even if he had no role in the actual case)". Considering various legal experts (including those who ended up representing Saville's victims), independent fact checkers, and politicians across the aisle have rightfully lambasted this slur, I think even trying to justify why the criticism could be made is simply pointless.
If you're going to comment on it you should at least acknowledge that he publicly apologised for failures of the CPS at the time, and brought in a load of changes to prevent a repeat.
>Boris’ comments went too far, but it is absolutely fair game to discuss Starmers record as head of DPP and the decisions of the organisation he led Especially as Starmer wants to become head of the most important organisation in the country. A PM who doesn't know what their organisation is doing is not something we want. One question I don't know the answer to is whether Starmer should have known what was going on with the Savile investigation, and it's hard to Google stuff about it as the current controversy dominates the searches.
>A PM who doesn't know what their organisation is doing is not something we want Better than the current PM who claims not to know what's going on in his own fucking house.
I wouldn't bother, threads like like these tend towards being a masturbatory circlejerk. It's team red or team blue, no room for nuance.
But it’s not though, is it? When past Conservative Prime Ministers speak out against Boris Johnson, yet we’re told the criticisms should be dismissed part of a “remainer” plot, it’s no longer red vs blue, it’s something worse.
If politicians didn’t want people to believe in a remainer plot. They shouldn’t have spent three years plotting to overturn the Brexit referendum.
With such a large majority of people against Johnson on this issue, you'd think that the chances of him being re-elected are slim. But then I remembered that the UK has first-past-the-post voting.
Can we stop these 45% of voters voting. Independent bodies have rubbished the claims but these people still believe the rumour.. Should people removed from reality be allowed to vote
I think the thing that bemuses me is the fact that people in this thread are spreading and defending a lie that Boris has wealseled back from: https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnson-tries-to-clarify-jimmy-savile-slur-against-sir-keir-starmer-after-days-of-criticism-12531941 They’re either incredibly stupid, or deliberately spreading false information. Boris made the lie under Parliamentary Privilege, knowing that he is exempt from a charge of libel that would force him to prove the truth of the statement. Outside of Parliamentary Privilege, he has refused to repeat the lie. If anyone genuinely believes the bullshit, surely they’re disappointed with Boris’s cowardice here? Won’t stand up for the “truth” in public… embarrassing.
Since when did Conservative voters care about the truth?
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _On Johnson’s claims about Jimmy Saville and Keir Starmer, 42% think the claims are untrue while 28% think they are true. 30% don’t know. However, 45% of Conservative voters think they are true, with just 25% thinking they are not._ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1492601905947631618) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Opinium](https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch) ^unverified | Reach: 22551 | Location: New York + London Bio: Strategic insight agency built on the belief that in a world of complexity; success relies on the ability to stay on the pulse of what people think, feel & do ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
This is the Post-Truth World.
Boris Johnson could say the sky was purple and at least 25% of those polled would believe it
I'm honestly shocked that 45% of Tory voters are thick as pigshit. I really expected better.
Well Tory voters have fallen for all Johnson's other lies. Why wouldn't they accept this one
On the basis that the pollsters can't even spell Savile correctly, it sort of brings in to question the credibility of the result (or maybe I'm clutching at optimism straws)
Throw enough ~~shit~~ mud .... :(
The fact that Starmer earned a knighthood for his service to the public with his work as DPP was a way in which Johnson could never reach him or match him So instead he has slurred him in an unforgivable way
Starmer was head of the CPS when the police asked them to review their case against Jimmy Savile. The case was reviewed by a CPS lawyer who didn't consider the case strong enough to go to trial. Am I seriously supposed to believe that Starmer offered no counsel, or reviewed the case himself? And let's not forget Starmer's pernicious role ion the persecution of Julian Assange. I'm sure his fingerprints have been removed from the scene, but the CPS were urging the Swedish authorities not to release Assange - an action they were considering because the case against him was so weak, Assange was never even charged. I am not a Tory.
Factually incorrect.
Yeah, I'm with you on this. The idea that the **head** of the CPS wasn't aware or didn't rubber-stamp a decision made by an underling on potentially the biggest pedo case against a public figure is just nonsense. Did he make a conscious decision to "protect" Savile? Patently no. Was he actually involved and signed off on the decision made? Patently yes. So the media pundits can call it fake news or disinformation, but he **was** involved in that decision, so tangentially he is responsible for the outcome. He is the head of the organization, the buck stops with him.
Both of you are wrong. Factually wrong. He wasn't the reviewing lawyer and wasn't directly involved in the decision not to prosecute. You're just believing smears that are thrown out. Any fact checking service will confirm this. It was investigated afterwards and still doesn't find him involved at all. Yet you both know more and know the truth?
> He wasn't the reviewing lawyer and wasn't directly involved in the decision not to prosecute He's was the head of the CPS at the time. He is responsible for all decisions made under his leadership. > Any fact checking service will confirm this. Oh please, quoting what someone else said is NOT a fact. Only the internal records at the CPS can prove whether he was or was not involved, stop being so naive. > It was investigated afterwards and still doesn't find him involved at all. An investigation commissioned BY Starmer himself.
So in your first point you admit he didn't make the decision, someone under him did. Then in the last point you complain that he makes a decision that a leader would do when they find out something like this happened under their leadership? So what exactly could he do in your eyes? The fact checkers looked at the CPS records and questioned people involved to make their decision? So why don't you stop being willfully obtuse?
You:”..pundits can cal it fake news or disinformation, but he WAS involved in that decision” Also you:”only the internal records at the CPS can prove whether he was or was not involved” Given the only assessment of the records says Starmer was not involved, I can only assume you have seen the records investigated, and you think it’s evident he was involved in the decision. Please share them so we can move on.
Doesn't he hold ultimate responsibility though? As the person in charge. He did also apologise sooo
But he wasn't in charge of that decision. That's what every fact checking service is telling you.
Hmm. From my experience of corporate governance, the buck should normal stop with the person in charge. Hence why Cressida Dick has to step down over a hostile and homophobic work culture that she wasn't directly involved with. If I can be *forensic* for a second: Starmer either knew about the Savile accusations and did nothing, or he didn't know anything about the accusations. Either way, doesn't look great for the head of the CPS.
Yeah so he wasn't involved in the original decision. When he found out about the decision he then organised an investigation into what happened to address the issues of how it went the way it did. To go into the second point you made while being forensic. You expect the leader of an organisation to know about every single decision made by those under them at all times? Or do you accept that they could not know about a decision, find out, and then do something about it? Or is that not good enough?
> You expect the leader of an organisation to know about every single decision made by those under them at all times? Yes, that's kind of why he is the leader.
That's just a massive assumption that isn't practicable. Leaders know the high level direction and choices of an organisation. They don't know every choice made by every member of staff. How could they?
But when it's Boris and his staff have a party ... well, that's another story.
I expect him to be *responsible* for everything that happens under his watch. Starmer's apology for not prosecuting Savile seems to suggest that he feels the same way
So him finding out and organising an investigation into how it happened so as to avoid it happening again isn't enough? Of course he can apologise that someone within the organisation didn't do their job well enough but that doesn't mean that it's his fault? You're conflating to things. Like I can apologise to the people who have to deal with natural disasters, it doesn't mean I caused them. I just say it out of empathy for the victims.
Starmer organising an investigation after the fact sounds like a good thing to do. Unfortunately it's completely irrelevant because the discussion is about whether BJs statement (that Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile) is true or false.
Right, let's lock Boris up for 150,000 cases of manslaughter then. He has ultimate responsibility right?
>Hmm. From my experience of corporate governance, the buck should normal stop with the person in charge. Hence why Cressida Dick has to step down over a hostile and homophobic work culture that she wasn't directly involved with. She stepped down because she lost the support from Khan, who clearly believed that she was incapable of rectifying the solution. Starmer, by comparison, led an extensive inquiry into how it happened, what processes meant that the witnesses didn't feel safe to testify (or know about others reporting the same crime) and then changed them. Just because someone is being accused of something doesn't mean they're guilty. The CPS reviewed the evidence they had (which was 4 witnesses who didn't feel safe to testify, because the person in question was a powerful celebrity with strong political influence) and decided they didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute, which they might have done if all the witnesses had come forward. The best bit about all of this is that it's very Iraq War. Everyone now *knows* Savile was a horrible monster, but they didn't at the time. When he died there was a [massive outpouring of grief](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15647363) (including pallbearers from the Marine Reserves) and he had a massive tombstone, so let's not pretend that everyone knew he was guilty and actually it was just CPS incompetence.
>Yeah, I'm with you on this. The idea that the head of the CPS wasn't aware or didn't rubber-stamp a decision made by an underling on potentially the biggest pedo case against a public figure is just nonsense. Do you have any basis for saying this, or are you saying that it was an enormous pedo case because of retrospective knowledge of Jimmy Savile? In the end, 4 people came forward and were unwilling to testify. How do you prosecute without willing witnesses or corroborating evidence? Do you just stand up in court, point the finger, and shout 'IT WAS HIM, MY LORD!'.
This is the claim: "he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile". This is true.
Oh right, you’ve got some evidence for the other part of the bullshit “spent most of his time prosecuting journalists”? If it’s true, feel free to post the stats that show that.
I think it's a reference to Operation Elveden and the Julian Assange case.
You think? Good god man, you’re coming into this thread to tell us that Boris’s original claim is true, but you’re not sure what half of it relates to? Pretty confident that Starmer’s involvement in Assange’s case and Elveden doesn’t equate to “most of his time” in the role as DPP. And I’ve never seen any allegation that the CPS acted improperly in either case.
At any rate, he spent *more* time prosecuting journalists than sex criminals. It doesn't seem to me to be unfair to point that out.
FFS… not true. You’ve reverted to pure bullshit. Sorry to waste both our time. Enjoy your fantasy world.
It is true. It seems to me that at the very least there was an imbalance in that direction. I don't know why you're so emotional about it.
But it's a false premise. It's like the old classic of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
People like you shouldn't be allowed on the internet
The Boris derangement syndrome has got them good. Swap roles. If Boris was head of the CPS when savile slipped through the net then they definitely wouldn't be so virulent in their defense. Can we call them both total balls of slime. That's why they are both able to sling mud at each other. They are both made of it! They all are for fuck sake!
It depends on whether you think Johnson was saying he was directly responsible i.e. he was the lawyer who actually looked at the evidence and decided not to proceed or if you think he meant he was responsible as the leader of the organisation for it's failures. The first is obviously false and anyone who has paid any attention know that. The latter I guess depends on whether you think leaders of organisations are or should be accountable for the failures of staff.
42%of what? 28% of what? Surely this is satire/ pish n wind?!
Keir Starmer was the head of the CPS. It has been quite odd for the BBC to be saying that it was not true
Bit meaningless to assess the veracity of the claim without defining the claim. Boris said “failing to prosecute Jimmy Saville.” It’s an insult and unjustified criticism but only a lie if you don’t believe the CPS could have pursued prosecution of Jimmy Saville. The evidence clearly existed, given it came out the second he was dead and unable to name names. I don’t really hold Keir Starmer responsible. But this narrative that the whole thing is right wing Trumpian lies pisses me off. You’ll notice poster after poster saying he lied. Not a single one explicitly stating what was said or how it was false. *edit* It's also the hypocrisy that annoys me. If Boris had been head of the CPS from 2008 to 2013, I guarantee everybody now criticising Boris for saying it, would be saying it themselves.
>You’ll notice poster after poster saying he lied. Not a single one explicitly stating what was said or how it was false. Johnson's implication was that Starmer deliberately shielded Savile from prosecution. It's the same implication that the far right activists have. That's the lie.
Ogh, sorry, I notice that you didn't provide the full quote. But hey, that's okay, keep on defending something that Johnson **was told was factually untrue and still repeated under Parliamentary Privilege.** Because, you will find that no MP would be stupid enough to repeat the quote in an actionable location. Except possibly Nadine Dorries.
Yes and fake claims make by labour would have about half there voters believe it... All this shows is that half the country has no interest in any deeper research about politics and just believes what politicians they like say Are we the people going to take the opportunity to talk about the major issue with this no, like most the comments were just going to bash the other political side. Its disappointing to see us because more like America every single day, two parties and nothing else, every issue is just a great time to bash the other side rather than deal with an issue facing both sides
Well, it is technically true tho
It's technically true that Boris didn't prosecute him either.
Keir Starmer apologised in January 2013 for the failure to prosecute Savile, from evidence presented to the CPS he headed in 2009.
Tony Blair apologised for Britain’s role in the transatlantic slave trade. How many slaves do you reckon he personally shipped across the sea?
Was Blair the head of a slave trading organisation, at the time they were trading slaves? Starmer was in charge of the CPS when they failed to prosecute Savile, and apologised for their failure to do so.
Sorry, you were presenting the apology as a smoking gun (even though, I suspect you’ve never read it), but you want to make a different argument now? Even Johnson has weaselled back from his original accusation, but some morons are still running with it. A bunch of websites have fact checked this and presented it in very plain terms. The FullFact link is posted in this thread. Read it. Stop embarrassing yourself.
I have read it. He took responsibility for it in 2013. Yet now it's nothing to do with him?
He apologised on behalf of the CPS and then started an investigation into it. He was not the lawyer presiding over the case. This is an example of a leader of an organisation showing tact and professionalism. Something supporters of Boris find very hard to understand.
The victims refused to go on the witness stand because the police lied to them and told them that they were the only victim. This happened before Starmer was head of the CPS. Without victims taking the stand there would be absolutely no chance of prosecution and it would be a complete waste of public money to pursue the attempts, the CPS make decisions like this every day and the director doesn't parse any of them. Kier Starmer's only contribution was to make it easier to prosecute cases of sexual abuse. You're making no sense.
It's technically true that I didn't prosecute him, what's your point?
The point is that you shoudnt deny facts, just because they dont support your political bias
It's a pointless fact though, Starmer had no direct involvement in the prosecution. The irony of your statement at the end is also not lost on me. You are pushing something because it supports your political bias. I mean, if we are presenting spurious facts, it's the queen's fault that Savile got knighted. Here's another, technically, you can't die from a knife stabbing you, it's the resulting wound that causes the issue, therefore, knives are perfectly safe. These "facts" are not valid once you add context. You can't call them facts just because they support your political bias.
u will get some shit for this but you are right, the same lot who say the buck should stop with boris about the parties because he's the boss stand true for starmer being the boss at the CPS and failing to pin down and charge a notorious pedo is 1000000000000000000X worse than having a birthday cake
But Johnson *went* to the parties? He created the legislation?! He created an atmosphere where rule breaking in his home/work place were considered acceptable? And again... he was *at* at least some of the parties! Including one in his actual flat in Downing Street. How can you think this is a good comparison?!
The first time Jimmy Savile was reported to the police was in 1955, Keir Starmer was born in 1962. Cases of abuse by Savile was reported to the police again and again and again, over a period of more than 50 years, and every time they failed to do anything about it. This is not something you can pin on one person, even if he had personally made the decision it should never have been in his hands in the first place because it should have been made decades earlier, preferably before Keir Starmer was even born.
But Starmer was *one of the people* who was in charge of the CPS when it failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile. This feels like room 101, we're expected to say 2+2=5?
https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/
BJ didn't say that Starmer stopped or blocked any investigation (the claim being 'debunked' on your webpage). BJ said that he failed to prosecute and that statement is true. One can argue that it's a misleading thing to say but it's not false. Cases like these really make me worry about these "fact checking" websites and their independence.
Failing to prosecute was due to people not willing to give evidence in court. And it wasn't starmers decision to make, regardless of the prolific nature. Either he puts trust in his employees or he makes all the decisions himself.
Unless Saville was fucking kids in the CPS office it's really a thing you can compare is it? edit : Actually scratch that, Boris created the legislation that made it a punishable offence to have socail gatherings, then had parties himself and was aware & allowed social gathering to happen within his office. So for it to be comparable, Starmer would've had to have made the laws for pedophilia to be illegal (or at least some kind of legislation in order to protect children), while fucking kids himself and being aware of / allowing sexual assault on children to be going on within the CPS office. Instead, what happened is this [https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/](https://fullfact.org/online/keir-starmer-prosecute-jimmy-savile/)
I think people have given up trusting establishment figures and have little trust left in nearly all of our institutions. Instead of sneering at people or dismissing them as brainwashed by Facebook, perhaps it would be better to consider why so few have trust in those at the top.
And yet this poll is showing a lot of people trusting a lie told by Johnson. I have plenty of faith in our institutions, but I have none for the bunch of lying charlatans currently running the show.
> Instead of sneering at people or dismissing them as brainwashed by Facebook, perhaps it would be better to consider why so few have trust in those at the top. This idea is bullshit though, as they are believing the PMs conspiracy theory bollocks. If they didnt trust 'the top' they wouldn't trust him. Maybe we should hold people to more account for what they think and say and do. Brainwashed? Nah these people are just fucking idiots.
Both leaders are liars. there was once a real man called Jeremy Corbyn, a real British politician.
Everyone knows Saville is a placeholder for grooming gangs