Keir Starmer at it again..

[Del Woppio]

I've been quite conflicted but on balance I think I'm in favour of a further, targeted National Inquiry on the grooming gangs. The Jay report had a wider remit, and focussing in on the issue may benefit. That doesn't mean that there aren't recommendations that can't be implemented in the interim. It may well be that it wastes a few hundred million but who cares, if it can help one girl it's worth it.

Regarding the situation at the time, I find it impossible to believe that there was a written order to ignore it. Impossible. Fair enough I can believe some hushed conversations - "you better be sure Daz you know what they're like" - but outright orders is just nonsense. Maybe a bit too much salt and pepper from the establishment generally speaking at the time regarding racial sensitivities and political correctness etc had affected a few people's decision making processes.

For me the race that impacted the scandal the most wasn't that of the perpetrators, but the survivors. The prevailing misogyny and classism, the 'chavvy little white girls' mentality, the constant degrading of the working classes.

I'd also like to see recriminations for those involved, who's decision making led to the continuation of the torture of these young girls.

 

[Walshes Wolves]

Please supply all the facts that back up your comments and criticisms, so those of us watching from the sidelines might understand.
what FACTS do you have for example to prove that 85% of grooming gangs are not white.
You say that we don't know what percentage of the perpetrators gave their ethnicity to the police, but even though i am not a copper, i guess if a pakistani and an english guy were stood before me, i might hazard a decent guess which was which.
Please clarify, before you totally de-rail an interesting thread.

I already have clarified in a post above.

 

[leedswolf]

I have never said Starmer tried to block the enquiry. I categorically stated he is a decent man who has done more than any one in the last government to protect the children. The only thing I said is he should have a national enquiry to catch the people who did give the orders. I have never suggested and don't believe that he has ever done anything wrong.

I can see vile comments on twitter from far right people, like Musk and others inciting hatred and understand why people are passed off listening to racist comments.

I am only concerned that the people who gave the orders to not protect young children from rape gangs and bthinkbthe people who made those decisions be held to account.

Have you looked at the link?

 

[Walshes Wolves]

Have you looked at the link?

Yes, I have read them all. Which one do you mean?

 

[leedswolf]

Yes, I have read them all. Which one do you mean?

The one that I posted which you replied to which cued my subsequent question.

 

[Walshes Wolves]

The one that I posted which you replied to which cued my subsequent question.

Yes, as I have always said I like Starmer and I think he did and is doing a good job. There are some things that leave more questions than answers in the link, but I don't see the point in going in to detail, as it will only be going over old ground.

 

[leedswolf]

Yes, as I have always said I like Starmer and I think he did and is doing a good job. There are some things that leave more questions than answers in the link, but I don't see the point in going in to detail, as it will only be going over old ground.

The link I gave you also has a timeline and even dissed the idea of any directions from the HO directed the police not to prosecute Asian men because of fears of perceived racist intent.

 

[Walshes Wolves]

The link I gave you also has a timeline and even dissed the idea of any directions from the HO directed the police not to prosecute Asian men because of fears of perceived racist intent.

In 2012 as now it was an ilegal offence to have sex with a child, even if they cocented.
Starmer said in 2012 that he new that was happening and that the CPS, police and judiciary system knew it was happening and it was difficult to deal with, if the children went willfully back with the perpetrators and he implied it would be difficult to prosecute. He was saying it was a problem.
If the Crown chief prosecutor was saying it was difficult to deal with, surely when the police were questioning the children who had made complaints of rape, the police would have known that the CPS and judges didn’t have a watertight conviction and so often didn't proceed.

If this was the case, it wasn't just the police at the police station deciding not to prosecute child rapists, they were not charging them because they were instructed by people above them that it was a waste of time, because they wouldn't get a conviction.

As there was a law in place at that time that there is no such thing as consensual sex with a child, the Crown Prosecution were responsible for choosing not to follow through with with a prosecution, even though the groomers had raped children.

At some time it is a logical conclusion that the police had received orders from the CPS not to arrest perpetrators, because it probably wouldn't get a conviction. This meant that the children would leave the police station after making their complaints and be raped again, so not only was the justice system not arresting people they knew had had sex with children, they were not protecting them and allowing the same crimes to continue, often with many older men.

As there was a law in place at the time, that it is a very serious offence to have sex with a child and also a law to protect children, who was ultimately responsible that crimes continued against children and the police let them continue?

I have a link, with a video of Starmer saying it was difficult to prosecute groomers, (child rapists, if they went back with the perpetrators after. I don't put it on here, because of racist posts that come after the video.

 

[leedswolf]

At some time it is a logical conclusion that the police had received orders from the CPS not to arrest perpetrators, because it probably wouldn't get a conviction.

Based on what?

 

[Walshes Wolves]

Based on what?

Sexual crimes are referred by the police to the CPS. If they don't go ahead that will be a CPS decision. Somebody made a decision not to prosecute perpetrators of rape against children. It must have been a decision made higher up, as to have sex with a child consenting or not consenting is a very serious crime and then knowingly not charge the members of the grooming gangs, knowing they probably would rape the same child again, or other children was a decision made from someone high up. That is why you need a national investigation, to see who made the decisions, to let the perpetrators off for raping children, knowing that they were likely to rape other children.

I genuinely feel sorry for Starmer. I am sure he has done nothing wrong and has done many good things to protect children. I feel he is between a rock and a hard place and he recently lost his brother.

I feel a national enquiry is inevitable and we have a right to know who made the decision to not arrest the child rapists and consequences should follow. It is very plausible that the orders came from
the government, who the CPS was accountable to.

Who do you was responsible for not jailing child rapists and letting them continue to do it and do you think they should be made accountable for their decisions?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

THERE HAS BEEN A NATIONAL ENQUIRY AND THE TWATS CALLING FOR ANOTHER ONE WERE THE GOVERNMENT THAT DIDNT IMPLEMENT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Who do you was responsible for not jailing child rapists and letting them continue to do it and do you think they should be made accountable for their decisions?

You want a national inquiry to find out things we already know? Decisions like this are already a matter of record. We know who made the decisions and why.

You want people held accountable, but don't say what that means. I have already explained that they broke no laws so can't be convicted...so do you just want them named and shamed? We already know what decisions were made and who made them, so carry on...name and shame them, it is all on record.

 

[Walshes Wolves]

THERE HAS BEEN A NATIONAL ENQUIRY AND THE TWATS CALLING FOR ANOTHER ONE WERE THE GOVERNMENT THAT DIDNT IMPLEMENT ANY RECOMMENDATIONS

So who gave the orders and was responsible
not to charge child rapists, which allowed them to continue to rape the same child and, other children?
Completely without about the last government.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

So who gave the orders and was responsible
not to charge child rapists, which allowed them to continue to rape the same child and, other children?
Completely without about the last government.

Mods, can't we have an "oh for fucks sake" emoji.

 

[Walshes Wolves]

Mods, can't we have an "oh for fucks sake" emoji.

I am answering questions, just because you don't want hear a different point of view to yours, doesn't make my point any less valid.
I now don't comment about it unless I am asked something, or like you, you direct the post to me.
It isn't like wanting people to be accountable for not arresting child rapists and allowing them to rape other children, isn’t valid point.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

I am answering questions, just because you don't want hear a different point of view to yours, doesn't make my point any less valid.
I now don't comment about it unless I am asked something, or like you, you direct the post to me.
It isn't like wanting people to be accountable for not arresting child rapists and allowing them to rape other children, isn’t valid point.

"Somebody made decision not to prosecute"........
"It must have been a decision made higher up"
Assumptions, not facts........FFS!

 

[Walshes Wolves]

"Somebody made decision not to prosecute"........
"It must have been a decision made higher up"
Assumptions, not facts........FFS!

Yes I agree and those people were the ones responsible for permitting that children continued to be raped.
Agreed?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Those are your assumptions and have zero evidence whatsoever to back them up

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Yes I agree and those people were the ones responsible for permitting that children continued to be raped.
Agreed?

So you agree you were making assumptions.
Go away for a bit there's a wolves match in play.

 

[Walshes Wolves]

Those are your assumptions and have zero evidence whatsoever to back them up

Somebody made the decision and people followed up those decisions to not arrest child rapists, knowing they probably would rape that child or another again, so the person who made that decision needs to be held accountable.
Do you agree?