Newspapers are filth.

I think it was grossly unfair that several 'bad character' witnesses with unsupported, hearsay were brought to the first trial. There were several angry exchanges with the defence lawyer. One even snapped: “How do you sleep at night”? to Sonia Woodley QC when questioned about inconsistencies of her account to the police. The presence of character witnesses only served to contribute to the high level of emotional intensity at this trial.

think I said before..I met Rolf years ago and he shook my hand, looked interested and held my elbow as he listened intently to whatever rubbish I was saying.

I'm not a very tactile person but he is from many claims.

Of course I could have claimed he groped me but he didn't.

I can see other non-tactiles like me re-inventing such events as a terrible "sexual assault" given the right media campaign which proclaims just looking at some person the "wrong" way id "visual rape".

Karma will kick in eventually and false accusers will not enjoy the fruits of their terrible falsehoods.

Karma will kick in for Keir Starmer and Tom Watson also who will 1. In Keir's case never become PM and 2. in Watson's case..well I can't imagine.

hedda wrote:
think I said before..I met Rolf years ago and he shook my hand, looked interested and held my elbow as he listened intently to whatever rubbish I was saying.

I'm not a very tactile person but he is from many claims.

Of course I could have claimed he groped me but he didn't.

I can see other non-tactiles like me re-inventing such events as a terrible "sexual assault" given the right media campaign which proclaims just looking at some person the "wrong" way id "visual rape".

Karma will kick in eventually and false accusers will not enjoy the fruits of their terrible falsehoods.

Karma will kick in for Keir Starmer and Tom Watson also who will 1. In Keir's case never become PM and 2. in Watson's case..well I can't imagine.

To me, Keir Starmer appears horrible and a bit thick. How did he get to be leader?

Honey wrote:
Keir Starmer appears horrible and a bit thick.

From a poor family in East Surrey, Starmer was a brilliant student, successful human rights lawyer, accomplished barrister and graduate of Leeds and Oxford universities.

As well as being an innovative, fearless and progressive Director of Public Presecutions and Member of Parliament. Perhaps he's the brightest in Westminster.

middlemas wrote:
Honey wrote:
Keir Starmer appears horrible and a bit thick.

From a poor family in East Surrey, Starmer was a brilliant student, successful human rights lawyer, accomplished barrister and graduate of Leeds and Oxford universities.

As well as being an innovative, fearless and progressive Director of Public Presecutions and Member of Parliament. Perhaps he's the brightest in Westminster.


And how does all that stop him being horrible and thick?

Honey wrote:
middlemas wrote:
Honey wrote:
Keir Starmer appears horrible and a bit thick.

From a poor family in East Surrey, Starmer was a brilliant student, successful human rights lawyer, accomplished barrister and graduate of Leeds and Oxford universities.

As well as being an innovative, fearless and progressive Director of Public Presecutions and Member of Parliament. Perhaps he's the brightest in Westminster.


And how does all that stop him being horrible and thick?

Mr Hindsight or the Man with 2 Cents; are better titles rather than Sir.

Keir Starmer -What is known of any key cases of human rights atributed to his success that gave justice and fairness. I have not found anyhing yet.

But we do know that he gave weight to "believe the victim" in historical sex abuse cases based on NO tangible evidence. This is an odd position for someone standing on the side of human rights because for any one concerned with human justice would automatically know there are two sides. The compliant could be a victim or a criminal. So why did he not simply do the right thing and advocate "take seriously" and investigate for the truth based on reliable evidence. This is so obvious for a genuine human rights person who is the real McCoy.

The evidence of his words so far appears strongly on the side of an opportunist rather than someone who cares deeply. I read/heard some of his speech on ideal society or whatever it was. But like most polictians he attacks and offers platitudes but no actual workable plan of action to solve the problem.

Example of what can be acheived when action is taken is the housing of many homeless because of Covid 19. Yes one or two day wonder and not improved upon but nonetheless shows what can be acheived when action and not words is taken. Just a pity governments and oppositions do not learn from small successes and get the idea of action. Solve the problem.

Keir Starmer was a contributor to Rolf Harris' wrongful convictions and many others.

Forgot to note that is what is really known of the former human rights lswyer.

I could even be forgiving if he acknowledged his error maybe feeling for the many geniune victims who have been treated badly and ignored mainly in current sexual abuse cases with possible geniune evidence. He would have a chance to use his "Sir" to appeal for a review of all historic cases to sort out convictions based on unreliable evidence and jury/judge/prosecutor emotional appraoch as opposed to factual. If he really wanted justice that is.

wjlmarsh wrote:
He would have a chance to appeal for a review of all historic cases to sort out convictions based on unreliable evidence

All in Westminster have the opportunity to make such appeals, not only the legally competent and accomplished.

Surely the Leader of the Opposition's job is to hold the government to account. Never was there a better time for forensic analysis.

Of utter incompetent, basic and inept governance. The Starmer jury is out as his performance this autumn is critical.