I don't go along with the "Hate Starmer" crew. I've no feelings about him as a person nor yet as a PM. My dislike of him is down to his "You will be believed even if you are lying" instruction to police as DPP. And his clear desire to appeal to "voters" without giving depth of thought. But I simply cannot understand why the obvious solution to the small boats problem is being ignored. And Gaza/Israel/Lebanon. Other than that, I'm content to let him move forwards but I do truly believe that the Savile/Al Fayed crime wave against dead people, reflected in the Weinstein/Epstein/Diddy/RKelly crime wave was stoked by his DPP decision and is absolutely certain to bring him down, get him arrested and possibly jailed. Inevitable - and wrong; but that's what happens when you mess with Madam Karma.

Great leaders possess many things. Starmer doesn't own a single one of them. Don't think he'll last the course. Still believe Rayner or Cooper will be PM come the next election. Starmer is the terrible bore at the Xmas party everyone avoids. At least Corbyn rocked the boat.

I don't feel that the Al Fayed and Savile cases are the same. It seems to me, from what I've seen of the women claiming abuse by Al Fayed, that most of them are telling the truth. In fact, I haven't seen one who doesn't seem credible. Not only do they each appear to have a unique story and not be parroting each other, but their reasons for not speaking out before - though at least one apparently did go to police, with the CPS deciding not to pursue the case - seem far more understandable to me than those who didn't say anything about Jimmy Savile until after the Exposure documentary. Al Fayed was a billionaire and employer of these women, with real influence, even on the police, so had an actual hold over them/their careers/potential future employability and a vast source of money to sue. No matter how much was said about Jimmy Savile being "untouchable", I just don't believe that a TV entertainer with no connection to his alleged victims would have had the same clout as Al Fayed or that Jimmy Savile's alleged victims (once they reached adulthood)/alleged witnesses the same reasons to not go to the police at some point during his long life.

I understand your point JO and I'm sure the millions who have decided Jimmy or Rolf were predators would feel the same about THEIR detractors. I know most of those who don't like me are happy to believe the false accusers. Al Fayed strikes me as a very unpleasant man who tried it on with anybody he fancied; happy to push the boundaries - then acceptable by society, now no longer (and quite right too). I'm sure many of those who suffered from his attention are telling the truth. Others have, over time, exaggerated the effects or even the treatment (as some did with Savile, Rolf, Diddy and others). Some have leapt on the bandwagon - who can prove them liars? There may well be trouble free cash in it.

Still strikes me as most odd that some of the women accusing Al Fayed now decided to remain in his employ at the time. He wasn't keeping them there against their will. Surely anyone in such a position would find alternative employment? Just sayin.

JK2006 wrote:
I don't go along with the "Hate Starmer" crew. I've no feelings about him as a person nor yet as a PM. My dislike of him is down to his "You will be believed even if you are lying" instruction to police as DPP. And his clear desire to appeal to "voters" without giving depth of thought. But I simply cannot understand why the obvious solution to the small boats problem is being ignored. And Gaza/Israel/Lebanon. Other than that, I'm content to let him move forwards but I do truly believe that the Savile/Al Fayed crime wave against dead people, reflected in the Weinstein/Epstein/Diddy/RKelly crime wave was stoked by his DPP decision and is absolutely certain to bring him down, get him arrested and possibly jailed. Inevitable - and wrong; but that's what happens when you mess with Madam Karma.

There can only be an obvious "solution" to the small boats problem if it is actually a problem.
It is very clear that the current situation is exactly what the government wants, and I dont know why everyone is pretending otherwise?

Jo wrote:
I don't feel that the Al Fayed and Savile cases are the same. It seems to me, from what I've seen of the women claiming abuse by Al Fayed, that most of them are telling the truth. In fact, I haven't seen one who doesn't seem credible. Not only do they each appear to have a unique story and not be parroting each other, but their reasons for not speaking out before - though at least one apparently did go to police, with the CPS deciding not to pursue the case - seem far more understandable to me than those who didn't say anything about Jimmy Savile until after the Exposure documentary. Al Fayed was a billionaire and employer of these women, with real influence, even on the police, so had an actual hold over them/their careers/potential future employability and a vast source of money to sue. No matter how much was said about Jimmy Savile being "untouchable", I just don't believe that a TV entertainer with no connection to his alleged victims would have had the same clout as Al Fayed or that Jimmy Savile's alleged victims (once they reached adulthood)/alleged witnesses the same reasons to not go to the police at some point during his long life.


But some of them kept accepting five hundred quid from Al Fayed.
What did they think they were being paid for?

JK2006 wrote:
I understand your point JO and I'm sure the millions who have decided Jimmy or Rolf were predators would feel the same about THEIR detractors. I know most of those who don't like me are happy to believe the false accusers. Al Fayed strikes me as a very unpleasant man who tried it on with anybody he fancied; happy to push the boundaries - then acceptable by society, now no longer (and quite right too). I'm sure many of those who suffered from his attention are telling the truth. Others have, over time, exaggerated the effects or even the treatment (as some did with Savile, Rolf, Diddy and others). Some have leapt on the bandwagon - who can prove them liars? There may well be trouble free cash in it.

If you wait until someone is dead before claiming abuse, it is simply too late to be believed, and tough luck!

Honey wrote:
Jo wrote:
I don't feel that the Al Fayed and Savile cases are the same. It seems to me, from what I've seen of the women claiming abuse by Al Fayed, that most of them are telling the truth. In fact, I haven't seen one who doesn't seem credible. Not only do they each appear to have a unique story and not be parroting each other, but their reasons for not speaking out before - though at least one apparently did go to police, with the CPS deciding not to pursue the case - seem far more understandable to me than those who didn't say anything about Jimmy Savile until after the Exposure documentary. Al Fayed was a billionaire and employer of these women, with real influence, even on the police, so had an actual hold over them/their careers/potential future employability and a vast source of money to sue. No matter how much was said about Jimmy Savile being "untouchable", I just don't believe that a TV entertainer with no connection to his alleged victims would have had the same clout as Al Fayed or that Jimmy Savile's alleged victims (once they reached adulthood)/alleged witnesses the same reasons to not go to the police at some point during his long life.


But some of them kept accepting five hundred quid from Al Fayed.
What did they think they were being paid for?


It was an open secret that many of the young women who worked in Harrods were professional hookers and escorts.