Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: For those like WYOT unconvinced by Starmer's edict
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
hedda |
The real mystery is why anyone including Plod (especially the goat who gave a presser outside Ted Heath's old home) actually believed fantasist Carl Beech.
His tales were ludicrous and easily disproved such as his mad claim a boy was tied between 2 cars and torn apart.
What other shocking miscarriages of justice have some of these vile corrupt cops committed over the decades?
And why would a trained lawyer like the ghastly keir Starmer issue a shocking edict that accusers should "be believed" off the bat before any investigation?
What other acts and decisions has Starmer been guilty of? There couldn't possibly be just one seeing he is a pathological liar. |
|
JK2006 |
Well put Wyot - we don't really disagree. I shall need all the help I can get in 2025 to accomplish the tiniest amount. If the crazy IPP situation can continue despite court and parliamentary condemnation, what hope does a tiny vile pervert have? |
|
Wyot |
It is not that I am "unconvinced" by his edict as such, or the damage I am sure such a legally ridiculous and stupid comment will have had, and continues to have.
Just that clearly he can't have meant it literally, but still wanted it - for self serving career reasons - to be assumed that he did mean it literally.
Such is the mendacity and lack of character of our PM.
And good luck with it next year. |
|
JK2006 |
when he, as DPP, ordered police to believe all claimed victims before investigation, he essentially told them to tell accusers "you will be believed even if you are lying".
That was why the Carl Beech lies were described as "credible and true".
This was because, in the past, the majority of claimants were NOT believed.
Quite rightly in the majority of cases. People wanting revenge or cash or sympathy or custody of kids or a dozen other reasons that old school coppers like Dixon of Dock Green saw straight through and sent home after a cup of tea and some sympathy.
However there were hundreds - thousands - of genuinely abused who often got ignored. The public through media were furious about that. Quite rightly. And Starmer, always keen to appeal to the loudest shouters, went along with it.
But going from one extreme to the other caused millions of miscarriages of justice.
If he'd qualified it with "unless you are lying", there would have been far fewer cases.
And far fewer cops forced into situations they hated (and thousands left the force as a result).
Decent honest men and women resented being ordered to use the law to break the law.
In 2025 I intend - with your help - to put that right. |
|
|
|
