Bulletguy Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:55 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:51 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:21 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Oh FGS you idiot......how many more times do you have to be told? This is worse than potty training a little baby. FGS grow up. For info ;-) ........... "What does prosecute mean in English? Meaning of prosecute in English. prosecute verb (LEGAL) to officially accuse someone of committing a crime in a law court, or (of a lawyer) to try to prove that a person accused of committing a crime is guilty of that crime: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute Do you have any evidence of Snakey Starmer being in court prosecuting a terrorist? >:-) ......... Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Stop moving the goalposts just because you've been shot down in a barrage of flame. You made yourself look an idiot just as you did in the Cummings thread, just as you do on most threads. You've had everything explained to you very clearly in a number of posts, none of which you appear to have read so i suggest you go off to your cot, wait for mummy to tuck you in, then ask her to read the posts for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 8:03 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:55 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:51 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:21 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Oh FGS you idiot......how many more times do you have to be told? This is worse than potty training a little baby. FGS grow up. For info ;-) ........... "What does prosecute mean in English? Meaning of prosecute in English. prosecute verb (LEGAL) to officially accuse someone of committing a crime in a law court, or (of a lawyer) to try to prove that a person accused of committing a crime is guilty of that crime: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute Do you have any evidence of Snakey Starmer being in court prosecuting a terrorist? >:-) ......... Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Stop moving the goalposts just because you've been shot down in a barrage of flame. You made yourself look an idiot just as you did in the Cummings thread, just as you do on most threads. You've had everything explained to you very clearly in a number of posts, none of which you appear to have read so i suggest you go off to your cot, wait for mummy to tuck you in, then ask her to read the posts for you. I'll translate ... He/she cant ... Dummy thrown ... Liar again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Birdbrain - 2020-10-25 8:05 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 8:03 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:55 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:51 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:21 PM Bulletguy - 2020-10-25 7:18 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Pelmet.......you're making a complete and utter ass of yourself now. Brian said absolutely nothing of the sort and you're skewing his post in a futile desperate attempt at saving face. Stop clutching at straws. Stop squirming LOSERS.......and Prove me wrong >:-) ........ Show a court case where he prosecuted a terrorist (lol) (lol) (lol) ......... Oh FGS you idiot......how many more times do you have to be told? This is worse than potty training a little baby. FGS grow up. For info ;-) ........... "What does prosecute mean in English? Meaning of prosecute in English. prosecute verb (LEGAL) to officially accuse someone of committing a crime in a law court, or (of a lawyer) to try to prove that a person accused of committing a crime is guilty of that crime: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prosecute Do you have any evidence of Snakey Starmer being in court prosecuting a terrorist? >:-) ......... Just askin (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Stop moving the goalposts just because you've been shot down in a barrage of flame. You made yourself look an idiot just as you did in the Cummings thread, just as you do on most threads. You've had everything explained to you very clearly in a number of posts, none of which you appear to have read so i suggest you go off to your cot, wait for mummy to tuck you in, then ask her to read the posts for you. I'll translate ... He/she cant ... Dummy thrown ... Liar again They don't like Up'em do they Birdy? (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 10:25 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? I pointed out that Snakey has worked for Sh1tbag Shiner, as to how often and on what cases that's a question you should be asking of your great White Dope, seeing as he seems to have white washed that inconvenient truth out of his CV >:-) .......... Whilst your at it ;-) .......... Could you ask him which IRA terrorists he has "actually" prosecuted as he claimed (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 8:59 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 10:25 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? I pointed out that Snakey has worked for Sh1tbag Shiner, as to how often and on what cases that's a question you should be asking of your great White Dope, seeing as he seems to have white washed that inconvenient truth out of his CV >:-) .......... Whilst your at it ;-) .......... Could you ask him which IRA terrorists he has "actually" prosecuted as he claimed (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... None of that is true. You tried to make out he had been party to the case in which Shiner fabricated evidence in Iraq which is just utter bulls**t. As said he was on the the NI Policing Board and head of the DPP and CPS for five years so take your pick. Just because he perhaps was not counsel in the court does not mean he has not been responsible for prosecuting Terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 9:55 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 8:59 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 10:25 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? I pointed out that Snakey has worked for Sh1tbag Shiner, as to how often and on what cases that's a question you should be asking of your great White Dope, seeing as he seems to have white washed that inconvenient truth out of his CV >:-) .......... Whilst your at it ;-) .......... Could you ask him which IRA terrorists he has "actually" prosecuted as he claimed (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... None of that is true. You tried to make out he had been party to the case in which Shiner fabricated evidence in Iraq which is just utter bulls**t. As said he was on the the NI Policing Board and head of the DPP and CPS for five years so take your pick. Just because he perhaps was not counsel in the court does not mean he has not been responsible for prosecuting Terrorists. So you are saying that its OK for Snakey Starmer to claim the achievements of CPS lawyers as his own? ;-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? .. or is it because he can only ever see one side of the story. As in he takes one side on BoJo's Brexit and won't change his mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Because he closes his mind to anything that conflicts with his prejudice. So he thinks anyone explaining the other side eg. the defence barrister, must be a liar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 John52 - 2020-10-26 12:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? .. or is it because he can only ever see one side of the story. As in he takes one side on BoJo's Brexit and won't change his mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Because he closes his mind to anything that conflicts with his prejudice. So he thinks anyone explaining the other side eg. the defence barrister, must be a liar Nope......I'm just confronting your Lefty LIES >:-) .......... Has Snakey Starmer ever prosecuted a terrorist in court as YOU claimed?........NO! >:-) ......... Has Snakey Starmer claimed the achievements of his CPS lawyers as his own?........YES! >:-) ........ Spinning the truth is obviously not a problem for Comrade Snakey >:-) .......... But I guess he has had lots of practice >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 11:47 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 9:55 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 8:59 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 10:25 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? I pointed out that Snakey has worked for Sh1tbag Shiner, as to how often and on what cases that's a question you should be asking of your great White Dope, seeing as he seems to have white washed that inconvenient truth out of his CV >:-) .......... Whilst your at it ;-) .......... Could you ask him which IRA terrorists he has "actually" prosecuted as he claimed (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... None of that is true. You tried to make out he had been party to the case in which Shiner fabricated evidence in Iraq which is just utter bulls**t. As said he was on the the NI Policing Board and head of the DPP and CPS for five years so take your pick. Just because he perhaps was not counsel in the court does not mean he has not been responsible for prosecuting Terrorists. So you are saying that its OK for Snakey Starmer to claim the achievements of CPS lawyers as his own? ;-) ............ If he was in charge and responsible then yes but I haven't seen him banging on about it apart from when challenged by Johnson. He told the truth. He was responsible for prosecuting terrorists. One things for sure if a trial under his watch had gone pear shaped you would be on it faster than s**t through a goose with some headline like "Lefty Starmer lets Terrorist go free" etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 12:27 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 11:47 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 9:55 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 8:59 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 10:25 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? I pointed out that Snakey has worked for Sh1tbag Shiner, as to how often and on what cases that's a question you should be asking of your great White Dope, seeing as he seems to have white washed that inconvenient truth out of his CV >:-) .......... Whilst your at it ;-) .......... Could you ask him which IRA terrorists he has "actually" prosecuted as he claimed (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... None of that is true. You tried to make out he had been party to the case in which Shiner fabricated evidence in Iraq which is just utter bulls**t. As said he was on the the NI Policing Board and head of the DPP and CPS for five years so take your pick. Just because he perhaps was not counsel in the court does not mean he has not been responsible for prosecuting Terrorists. So you are saying that its OK for Snakey Starmer to claim the achievements of CPS lawyers as his own? ;-) ............ If he was in charge and responsible then yes but I haven't seen him banging on about it apart from when challenged by Johnson. He told the truth. He was responsible for prosecuting terrorists. One things for sure if a trial under his watch had gone pear shaped you would be on it faster than s**t through a goose with some headline like "Lefty Starmer lets Terrorist go free" etc etc. GOOD!.........Then he must also be responsible for allowing Jimmy Saville to go unpunished and for Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to get away with raping 1000's of children for years >:-( ....... Coz they happened when he was DPP 8-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-25 7:04 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? . BINGO! >:-) ........... Well done Brian you have just pointed out why Snakey Starmer lied when he said he had prosecuted terrorists (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... He's a defence Liar (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Dave. Here are a couple of extracts from a Wiki piece on the role of Director of Public Prosecutions: "The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is the office or official charged with the prosecution of criminal offences in several criminal jurisdictions around the world. The title is used mainly in jurisdictions that are or have been members of the Commonwealth of Nations." "In England and Wales, the office of Director of Public Prosecutions was first created in 1880 as part of the Home Office, and had its own department from 1908. The DPP was responsible for the prosecution of only a small number of major cases until 1986 when responsibility for prosecutions was transferred to a new Crown Prosecution Service with the DPP as its head. The Director is appointed by the Attorney General for England and Wales." It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Your central argument seems to be that the boss must personally do everything. That does not apply anywhere. In doing so, you are ignoring the adage that: "Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on." Substitute nit for flea and stop picking. This parrot is well and truly dead. Only you think it can be resuscitated! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 12:31 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 12:27 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 11:47 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 9:55 AM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 8:59 AM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 10:25 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:51 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-25 6:40 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-25 6:34 PM https://politicsrestuarantsclothesandholidays.blog/2020/09/25/no-surprise-but-they-did-vote/ >:-) ............ I am not even going to open that morons blog again. Come back when you have some real evidence. Yawn. *-) Here you go >:-) .......... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/keir-starmer-accused-sweetheart-deal-london-bridge-terrorist/ https://allworldreport.com/world-news/has-keir-starmer-really-spent-a-lifetime-seeking-justice-underdogs/ Well we can ignore the second one as its just the same opinion piece Teflon told me to go and look at. Can you show me however in either evidence to back up your libelous claim that Starmer was involved in the case where Phil Shiner fabricated evidence in the Iraq trial which was your initial claim and what I was asking you to prove? I pointed out that Snakey has worked for Sh1tbag Shiner, as to how often and on what cases that's a question you should be asking of your great White Dope, seeing as he seems to have white washed that inconvenient truth out of his CV >:-) .......... Whilst your at it ;-) .......... Could you ask him which IRA terrorists he has "actually" prosecuted as he claimed (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... None of that is true. You tried to make out he had been party to the case in which Shiner fabricated evidence in Iraq which is just utter bulls**t. As said he was on the the NI Policing Board and head of the DPP and CPS for five years so take your pick. Just because he perhaps was not counsel in the court does not mean he has not been responsible for prosecuting Terrorists. So you are saying that its OK for Snakey Starmer to claim the achievements of CPS lawyers as his own? ;-) ............ If he was in charge and responsible then yes but I haven't seen him banging on about it apart from when challenged by Johnson. He told the truth. He was responsible for prosecuting terrorists. One things for sure if a trial under his watch had gone pear shaped you would be on it faster than s**t through a goose with some headline like "Lefty Starmer lets Terrorist go free" etc etc. GOOD!.........Then he must also be responsible for allowing Jimmy Saville to go unpunished and for Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to get away with raping 1000's of children for years >:-( ....... Coz they happened when he was DPP 8-) ............ Good? Interesting choice of words. Show me any country or head of prosecutions where all the right people have been trialled with a 100% success rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 12:13 PM John52 - 2020-10-26 12:02 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-25 7:00 PM So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? .. or is it because he can only ever see one side of the story. As in he takes one side on BoJo's Brexit and won't change his mind even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Because he closes his mind to anything that conflicts with his prejudice. So he thinks anyone explaining the other side eg. the defence barrister, must be a liar Nope......I'm just confronting your Lefty LIES >:-) .......... All you've done is continued to make an absolute clown of yourself spouting utter drivel and garbage.....and you've gone from terrorists to IRA terrorists and now to Jimmy Savile FGS. Funny but when you're dancing in your girlfriends little echo chamber of rabid obsession with Asian gangs, you aren't remotely interested in Savile, UK's most prolific sex offender. Allegations against Savile were made at the end of 2012 and Operation Yewtree was set up in October same year. In 2013 as DPP, Starmer announced changes to how sexual abuse investigations would be handled in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, including a panel to review historic complaints. Brian has gone to great lengths to explain in detail to you over the past few days the basics of the judicial system but you have shown you have zero understanding of basic law eg; defence/prosecution and due process and anything which doesn't suit your narrative, you ignore preferring instead to follow your batsh1t crazy deranged ideas. The points Brian raised in the post John quoted, i noticed you failed to address any but it's safe to conclude your don't like Starmer because, 1) he's the Labour leader, 2) you're in mortal fear of him annihilating the Tory party, and 3) you know Johnson is way out of his depth when facing Sir Keir at the despatch box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? Why don't you try answering the question instead of deflecting Brian? >:-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 2:54 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? Why don't you try answering the question instead of deflecting Brian? >:-) ............ Says he who has not answered ONE of those question he put to you yesterday. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Bulletguy - 2020-10-26 3:12 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 2:54 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? Why don't you try answering the question instead of deflecting Brian? >:-) ............ Says he who has not answered ONE of those question he put to you yesterday. *-) I was talking to your organ grinder :-| >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barryd999 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? I suspect he is bored Brian and finds it amusing to wind up the sensible members on here with bonkers wild accusations about Keir Starmer. Pelmet would make a good reporter on the Daily Star or maybe even the Sun. "Keir Starmer ate my Hamster". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 3:47 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? I suspect he is bored Brian and finds it amusing to wind up the sensible members on here with bonkers wild accusations about Keir Starmer. Pelmet would make a good reporter on the Daily Star or maybe even the Sun. "Keir Starmer ate my Hamster". Why are you Monkeys trying to stop Brian from speaking for himself? :D ......... Surely if Snakey Starmer claims the kudos of the CPS successes as his own ;-) ......... Then surely he also owns its F*ckups >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 2:54 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? Why don't you try answering the question instead of deflecting Brian? >:-) ............ Two things. First, bearing in mind I asked first, why should I do for you what you have not done for me? Second, I neither know no care what role Starmer had in this, or that, case - nor do I intend to begin looking. A journey starts with a single step. If, somewhere, you trip, or stumble, but nevertheless arrive, you have still gained your objective. I'm not counting steps, but looking at the journey. So with the traveller. One false step by a traveller (if, indeed, there was one - something you have yet to prove) does not devalue the journey they made. You distrust Starmer because he may (or may not) have fallen short (in your opinion - but see below) on a couple of cases. And yet, you implicitly trust Johnson (and Trump for that matter) both of whom have very tenuous relationships with truth, integrity, or honour. Doesn't quite leave you as the ideal person to head an inquisition, does it? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 4:38 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 2:54 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? Why don't you try answering the question instead of deflecting Brian? >:-) ............ Two things. First, bearing in mind I asked first, why should I do for you what you have not done for me? Second, I neither know no care what role Starmer had in this, or that, case - nor do I intend to begin looking. A journey starts with a single step. If, somewhere, you trip, or stumble, but nevertheless arrive, you have still gained your objective. I'm not counting steps, but looking at the journey. So with the traveller. One false step by a traveller (if, indeed, there was one - something you have yet to prove) does not devalue the journey they made. You distrust Starmer because he may (or may not) have fallen short (in your opinion - but see below) on a couple of cases. And yet, you implicitly trust Johnson (and Trump for that matter) both of whom have very tenuous relationships with truth, integrity, or honour. Doesn't quite leave you as the ideal person to head an inquisition, does it? :-D I distrust Starmer because he's yet another Commie who has taken over the leadership of Labour ;-) ........ You trust him because he's a Remoaner like you *-) ........ Which is why you're prepared to believe his claims of prosecuting terrorists, whilst ignoring his inaction over kids being raped for years :-| ......... I prefer my moral compass to yours.......... Just sayin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 pelmetman - 2020-10-26 4:05 PM Barryd999 - 2020-10-26 3:47 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 2:43 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:42 PM pelmetman - 2020-10-26 1:23 PM Brian Kirby - 2020-10-26 1:05 PM It is perfectly reasonable that a DPP lays claim to prosecutions s/he has brought against criminals of whatever type. It is their decision whether or not a prosecution should proceed. That does not mean that the DPP him or her self appears as the prosecution counsel in court. It is a team effort with the DPP calling the shots. Then he is also responsible for Jimmy Saville escaping justice and allowing the Asian/Muslim grooming gangs to carry on raping 1000's of children when he was in charge? >:-( ......... Bump? :-| ........... So, what in God's name is your gripe with Starmer having specialised as a defence barrister? Is it that you don't think there should be defence barristers, that you don't think there should be a defence at all, that you don't like Starmer, that you don't like like anyone who is the Labour leader, that you don't think there should be a Labour party, that you don't think there should be an opposition party, that you think Starmer should have chosen a different career, should not have become a barrister, that he shouldn't have become a defence barrister in case he had to defend people you don't like, that he should have foreseen that Shiner (who was previously elected solicitor of the year) had gone rogue before it was revealed, that he shouldn't have become DPP, that he shouldn't have stood as an MP and got elected, that he shouldn't have stood as Corbyn's replacement as Labour leader, that he shouldn't have been born, that he should have chosen his parents more carefully, or just that he should sometimes allow Boris to win? I suspect he is bored Brian and finds it amusing to wind up the sensible members on here with bonkers wild accusations about Keir Starmer. Pelmet would make a good reporter on the Daily Star or maybe even the Sun. "Keir Starmer ate my Hamster". Why are you Monkeys trying to stop Brian from speaking for himself? :D ......... Surely if Snakey Starmer claims the kudos of the CPS successes as his own ;-) ......... Then surely he also owns its F*ckups >:-) ......... Now I'm really confused! :-D Your allegation hitherto has been that he failed to prosecute any terrorists. I've explained as best I can how the process works. So now you switch to holding him responsible for cases that failed, or were not brought. So, what, actually is your gripe? I've given you a good range of choices to explain your obsession above, but answer comes there none. You do know that before bringing a case there has to be evidence, and a reasonable suspicion of guilt? You do realise that the decision to prosecute is based on an assessment of the grounds for suspicion and the reliability of the evidence/witnesses? Do you know why those cases were actually not brought, or were dropped, or lost? Have you even checked if Starmer was involved in the Savile prosecution decisions? Here's a Wiki on Savile: https://tinyurl.com/y3w8rr7w Have a read and see if you can spot when Starmer might have become involved as DPP. He became DPP on 1/11/08. Savile died 29/10/11, so you've only got to look at three years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.