A New Year message for immigrants

[AlexO]

Pratt my boy
Take off your tight underwear, put away your dictionary, have a wee sing to the stars and then a wee sleep. You will feel just as much a fool tomorrow as you do today. Nighty night.

[AlexO]

Pratty , just have a read at this, Hindsights own words. Knows and crows about individual cases but just absorb what these words are saying

https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/apppag ... n-service/

Extract from above.
The public interest stage is very interesting. Not all jurisdictions have a public interest stage. In some jurisdictions, Poland for example, the only question for the prosecutor is whether there is enough evidence for the case properly to be put before the court. There is no discretion for the prosecutor not to proceed. It is for the court to decide. Hence a lot of seemingly trivial cases go before the court. "We" do have discretion, and so "we" can decide whether it is in the public interest to actually bring charges where "there" is "enough" evidence. Who makes that decision? the DPP.
Interesting that he puts priority of Assisted Suicides, Bribery and Phone Hacking above producing "Guidelines for prosecution of Child Sex Abuse Cases"
His own words Pratt not some Thatcherite etc.
He took the final decisions (because he was allowed to) to ignore or delay prosecution of the Rape Gangs because not in the "Public Interest" in his opinion (perhaps guided by others. Who was in Government in 2008?) but the buck stops here, the Boss, as they say.

[tamada]

Freemasonry has a lot to answer for, from police chiefs to DPP's. Just look at the serial incompetencies of Skelhorn and Hetherington when they were in charge. For context, Starmer was barely a teenager at that time.

[jackspratt]

This is my final response to your nonsense, Alex.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... n-13261107

As anyone can see from the report, the initial decision NOT to prosecute was made in the Manchester office of the DPP. The same office reversed that decision, and prosecuted, when a new boss was appointed.

Put up, or shut up, Alex.

You can forward your humble apologies to Sir Keir here keir.starmer.mp@parliament.uk

[AlexO]

This is my final response to your nonsense, Alex.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... n-13261107

As anyone can see from the report, the initial decision NOT to prosecute was made in the Manchester office of the DPP. The same office reversed that decision, and prosecuted, when a new boss was appointed.

Put up, or shut up, Alex.

You can forward your humble apologies to Sir Keir here keir.starmer.mp@parliament.uk

sPratty
I really wonder if you are completely there. You are trying to convince us(and yourself) that a sub office took the decision not to proceed with a prosecution of horrendous crimes without referring it to the boss (Old Hindsight himself) for approval of their actions. So just 'what' was Hindsights duties as DPP, warm a seat and pickup a good salary.
Put your brain in gear for a change and think it through.

[jackspratt]

Bumped, to avoid taking another thread off-topic.

And still waiting.

[AlexO]

Pratty
Still waiting on your explanation of Hindsight's role as DPP.
This was not some wee Mrs. Smith nicking a couple of tins of beans from Tesco's case.
This was multiple, very serious offences against children on numerous occasions by gangs of Asian Rapists.
To try and convince us that a 'regional' office took the decision all on its 'own' to not prosecute the case (they had the evidence) but did not prosecute because 'not in the public interest' and that this recommendation was not referred to the Boss, Starmer the DPP. therefor he, by approving the recommendation (and thereby by default refused to prosecute) is just unbelievable. The buck normally stops with the Boss in most normal Countries.

[jackspratt]

Alex I am not surprised you have been unable to come up with any evidence, as opposed to your feeble speculation.

I have given you direct evidence. Additionally, the Conservative Party, with all the resources available in their muck-raking offices, and the newspapers, with their resources, have been unable to provide any evidence that Starmer:

.... refused to prosecute the Asian Rape Gangs when he was DPP.

Once again, put up or shut up. Your only source, particularly given your oft proven dumb errors, has no credibility.

[AlexO]

"I have given you direct evidence".
What evidence was that Pratt the same source as the IDF attack on a hospital.
We obviously don't have access to minutes of meetings etc, but I still would like your take on what the Boss of the CPS's job was.
If he agreed to the recommendation from junior advisors then he as the boss is guilty.
Did he just tell the suboffices 'do your own thing?' therefor a complete abdication of his role as Director and ultimate responsibility of decision making.
If so is this the man who remember recommended Corbyn, Abbot and O'Donell as the team to run the UK about 3years ago and now wants the UK to believe he has done a complete 180 degree change and should be trusted with the keys to No 10. Must be really mind bending for you that the source of evidence is the CPS itself.

[jackspratt]

Just more irrelevant bullshi.t, speculation, red herrings and obfuscation Alex.

The combined resources of the Conservative Party and conservative media haven't come up with anything - but you know better.

Put up, or for Buddha's sake, shut up.

[AlexO]

Listen Clown
How does the boss of a non political judicial entity allow regional offices to make seriously important decisions about prosecuting or not extremely serious crimes against children?
Show me one obfuscation or red herring I have posted, you however have consistently refused to even try to explain what Starmer' s role as DPP was and how sub offices (according to you) were allowed to make horrendous decisions that allowed systematic abuse of children to continue for a number of years.

[jackspratt]

Just like the Hamas thread - nothing.

But your abuse continues.

[AlexO]

You really need help, you have convinced yourself that you are the all-knowing, only correct being on UM. Just point to one question you have ever given an honest answer to. Its a bit sad really. Wasn't abuse, its my absolute thoughts/instincts of what you are.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

You really need help, you have convinced yourself that you are the all-knowing, only correct being on UM. Just point to one question you have ever given an honest answer to. Its a bit sad really. Wasn't abuse, its my absolute thoughts/instincts of what you are.

If you are thinking of everyone's favourite know-it-all, he will soon be pleading with admin to delete your post. He gets a bit touchy when he is called out.

[jackspratt]

Wasn't abuse, its my absolute thoughts/instincts of what you are.

A bit of Trumpian "logic" there.