[Malcolm Armsteen]

Much as I live in a world of nostalgia within my four walls, it gets a bloody rude jolt when I open my front door - remember, I live amongst the ignorantly-called "Turnip Taliban" and it ain't all white Range Rovers and "ladies who lunch" - the flip side is a large East European immigrant workforce on minimum wage in agriculture and meat-packing plants.

Who the Turnip Taleban are has been adequately explained to you. Give over.

[Boiler]

I'll give over when people drop the link to one of the most regressive groups known to mankind.

[kettle]

I'm not sure bringing back Mandleson, a man plagued by allegations of corruption and known to be quite friendly with alleged child trafficking paedophile Jeffrey Epstein would do wonders for Starmer (especially given his proximity to the Saville case).

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Now THAT is smearing.

And his name is Mandelson (note spelling)

I really wish you would introduce yourself as I am getting the feeling...

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I'll give over when people drop the link to one of the most regressive groups known to mankind.

>sighs<

Bye, then.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm not sure bringing back Mandleson, a man plagued by allegations of corruption and known to be quite friendly with alleged child trafficking paedophile Jeffrey Epstein would do wonders for Starmer (especially given his proximity to the Saville case).

Starmer was nowhere neat Saville.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

These are just the usual Corbynite smears.

Really, if you can't do better than that...

[Youngian]

one of the most regressive groups known to mankind.

Oasis?

[Andy McDandy]

Starmer, when DPP, had a finite budget and pool of prosecution lawyers. He had to make decisions on which cases to prosecute based on available evidence, witnesses, courtroom time and many other variables.

As you may recall with Saville, mainstream media coverage of him while alive - while skirting around the darker rumours about him - stopped short of accusing him of anything. He was both litigious and more importantly connected. Also, given that many witnesses and victims waited until he was dead to publicly accuse him, it can be assumed that many felt intimidated, or that they wouldn't get a fair hearing, either from the police or in court. Societal attitudes to rape victims (especially young and vulnerable people, often with troubled backgrounds) is a huge and depressing subject, and although positive change is coming, it will take time and effort.

Given the very slim likelihood of a successful prosecution, it is regrettable but understandable why cases against Saville were not pursued while he was still alive. To accuse him of turning a blind eye is cheap, and unrealistic.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I agree about Mandelson being yesterday's man though, whatever necessary work he did from the mid 80s onwards. His political antenna stopped working a long time ago. I think he was a perfectly reasonable Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under Brown, but he wasted a fair bit of time trying to privatize the Royal Mail.

[The Weeping Angel]

I'm not sure bringing back Mandleson, a man plagued by allegations of corruption and known to be quite friendly with alleged child trafficking paedophile Jeffrey Epstein would do wonders for Starmer (especially given his proximity to the Saville case).

Blimey you don't think Mandelson had Epstein done in do you?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Regarding Epstein, if we ignore the Mail and the Sun, the Mirror has a more balanced account:

US investigators who looked at Epstein’s “little black book” found almost half of it read like a who’s who of British society.

His 301 British contacts had more than 1,000 numbers and dozens of email addresses between them.

There is no suggestion the presence of their names in the book means any are accused of any wrongdoing or even met Epstein in person.

The contacts included celebrities such as Mick Jagger, Simon Le Bon, the late Sir David Frost, Richard Branson, Naomi Campbell, Tamara Beckwith, Jonathan Dimbleby, Loyd Grossman and numerous lords and ladies.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is recorded once, while his former cabinet minister Lord Peter Mandelson has 10 numbers, including one marked “direct line” one for “home” and another for “country home”.

There are 16 numbers for Prince Andrew, including a mobile number, one marked “Palace ex-directory”, one for Balmoral, the Queen’s Scottish residence, where the Prince invited Epstein, and one marked “Sand”, for Sandringham, another royal retreat where he spent time.

Epstein also recorded 18 numbers for Prince Andrew’s former wife Sarah Ferguson, who took £15,000 off the paedophile to help pay off her debts.

[kettle]

To be clear, I doubt Starmer had been involved in any wrongdoings vis a vis Saville. I also think it doesn't matter one jot if the papers decide to do wall-to-wall pedogeddon.

Epstein was extremely sketchy, his activities and the people he surrounded himself with (such as sweaty Andrew, accused of having sex with a trafficked teenage girl). To say nothing of Epstein's mysterious death in police custody.

Mandelson's closeness with Epstein (including calling him up whilsts he was in prison) puts him in an incredibly murky territory. I have no idea why you would want him in any credible operation.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

To be clear, I doubt Starmer had been involved in any wrongdoings vis a vis Saville.

You doubt it.

Weasel words. Show some evidence (other, of course, than Starmer ordering an enquiry (2012) into why charges weren't pressed in 2009) or give over.

I'm getting a bit tired of this. I think I've seen it all before.

Why haven't you introduced yourself?

[kettle]

It's not weasel words at all. I doubt he had much, if any direct involvement with the case and I would not in anyway lay the Saville things at his feet. I don't think he colluded to cover anything up. I won't say "definitely" as that implies a level of familiarity with the events that none of us here have. This is a really strange point to get hung up on.

Why haven't you introduced yourself?

You persistently bring this up, so fine. I looked at that thread, then I saw your post where you said your pronouns were "Oi/You" and thought "jesus, jokes about pronouns. I don't want to see where this goes" and just gave up on it. Maybe it depends on your perspective on these things but I feel that you either think disclosing pronouns is something that needs to be done with some consideration, or you just don't bother. Maybe you all know each other well enough here to feel comfortable with this.

[The Weeping Angel]

It's not weasel words at all. I doubt he had much, if any direct involvement with the case and I would not in anyway lay the Saville things at his feet. I don't think he colluded to cover anything up. I won't say "definitely" as that implies a level of familiarity with the events that none of us here have. This is a really strange point to get hung up on.

Those are weasel words.

[Tubby Isaacs]

To be clear, I doubt Starmer had been involved in any wrongdoings vis a vis Saville. I also think it doesn't matter one jot if the papers decide to do wall-to-wall pedogeddon.

Surrey Police didn't get any further than interviewing Saville once under caution. I don't think it's very surprising that he wasn't prosecuted, and nobody has any evidence that Starmer was involved in that decision. Does the DPP even spend their time looking at individual cases like that?

I wouldn't say you're using weasel words, but I'd say you're wrong about this.

[Oboogie]

To be clear, I doubt Starmer had been involved in any wrongdoings vis a vis Saville.

You "doubt it"?
Why did you even mention it?
There is absolutely no evidence that he was involved in any wrongdoing re Savile. How do we know? Oh the small matter of history...it was before his time as DPP.
Plus, if there was even a sniff of a suspicion, the Tories and the Tory press, would be all over it.
Their silence is all the evidence I need.

The only people I ever see bring up this crap are Right-Wingers on Twitter.
And you.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

It's not weasel words at all.

It is, exactly. You imply that Starmer didn't prosecute Savile because of some unstated connection. That is pathetic, and i'm afraid typical of the Momentum attempts to diminish him.

And I see by your attempts to weasel out of identifying yourself show that you don't do humour. That seems familiar, too.

Why do you do this? Do you think you will change anyone's mind with this puerile drivel?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I wouldn't say you're using weasel words, but I'd say you're wrong about this.

Then what would you call it?