FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Government deeply ashamed
Government deeply ashamed
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-17/government-deeply-ashamed-for-failing-rape-victims-amid-years-of-declining-conviction-levels
Government 'deeply ashamed' for 'failing'
r*pe victims amid years of declining conviction levels
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
From a tweet I just read.
That government r*pe plan in full:
1 Crocodile tears.
2 Refuse to restore 33% cut to CPS budget over last 10 years.
3 Refuse to restore 50% cut to criminal bar in last 20 years.
4 Make dedicated people burn out in effort to meet targets the MoJ knows can’t be met.
5 Blame them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?"
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc "
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris"
From that article:
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime."
Which is exactly what I said he said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris"
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?"
I think the clue may be in the words..an ally of boris.
Would you agree using the words..spaffing the money..is hardly sensitive? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
I think the clue may be in the words..an ally of boris.
Would you agree using the words..spaffing the money..is hardly sensitive?"
Not really anyone else's fault that The Guardian didn't name the source. Anyway, it says he was talking about cases where would be perpetrators are already deceased.
Not sensitive at all no. That wasn't your point though |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?"
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
"
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?"
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall."
It makes a huge difference when you say 'to see if children are still at risk'
If it happened in a children's setting or indeed a care home and you want to investigate whether those settings are still at risk, then you are investigating the here and now. Not the historical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall.
It makes a huge difference when you say 'to see if children are still at risk'
If it happened in a children's setting or indeed a care home and you want to investigate whether those settings are still at risk, then you are investigating the here and now. Not the historical."
If there is a culture in that care home ,surely it would be historical?
If someone was assaulted years ago,even if the person has died,I cannot for the life of me,see why that should not be investigated.
Again using that logic..the likes of bloody sunday,Hillsborough etc should have been swept under the carpet because it was in the past. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall.
It makes a huge difference when you say 'to see if children are still at risk'
If it happened in a children's setting or indeed a care home and you want to investigate whether those settings are still at risk, then you are investigating the here and now. Not the historical.
If there is a culture in that care home ,surely it would be historical?
If someone was assaulted years ago,even if the person has died,I cannot for the life of me,see why that should not be investigated.
Again using that logic..the likes of bloody sunday,Hillsborough etc should have been swept under the carpet because it was in the past."
By all means investigate if that culture still exists. In the present.
Using my logic, these would still be investigated seeing as people involved in those were still alive and able to be prosecuted. Nothing is being swept under the carpet.
What is to gain from an investigation where the would be perpetrators are deceased? I just don't buy that 'justice' is gained from it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall.
It makes a huge difference when you say 'to see if children are still at risk'
If it happened in a children's setting or indeed a care home and you want to investigate whether those settings are still at risk, then you are investigating the here and now. Not the historical.
If there is a culture in that care home ,surely it would be historical?
If someone was assaulted years ago,even if the person has died,I cannot for the life of me,see why that should not be investigated.
Again using that logic..the likes of bloody sunday,Hillsborough etc should have been swept under the carpet because it was in the past.
By all means investigate if that culture still exists. In the present.
Using my logic, these would still be investigated seeing as people involved in those were still alive and able to be prosecuted. Nothing is being swept under the carpet.
What is to gain from an investigation where the would be perpetrators are deceased? I just don't buy that 'justice' is gained from it."
Maybe the victims feel differently.
Whatever it shines a light onto the mans compassion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall.
It makes a huge difference when you say 'to see if children are still at risk'
If it happened in a children's setting or indeed a care home and you want to investigate whether those settings are still at risk, then you are investigating the here and now. Not the historical.
If there is a culture in that care home ,surely it would be historical?
If someone was assaulted years ago,even if the person has died,I cannot for the life of me,see why that should not be investigated.
Again using that logic..the likes of bloody sunday,Hillsborough etc should have been swept under the carpet because it was in the past.
By all means investigate if that culture still exists. In the present.
Using my logic, these would still be investigated seeing as people involved in those were still alive and able to be prosecuted. Nothing is being swept under the carpet.
What is to gain from an investigation where the would be perpetrators are deceased? I just don't buy that 'justice' is gained from it.
Maybe the victims feel differently.
Whatever it shines a light onto the mans compassion."
Maybe the victims don't want it dragged up and have learnt to deal with it in their own way.
No one knows.
Pretty sure we're all aware that Boris isn't very compassionate. I said earlier in the thread that it wasn't very sensitive  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall."
According to the Times, the Ted Heath Enquiry (he died 16 years ago) cost 1.5 million including 14,00 spent on PR defending the enquiry.
Turned up…. Nothing, and didn’t seem to be based on anything other than Carl.
I’ll say it - that example is idiotic police spaffing money up the wall, yes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thought it was quite interesting to see a gmnt minister actually confirm that a decade of cuts have had a detrimental effect on the service.
I wonder how those people who have actually cheered on those cuts, feel about contributing to r@@@ victims belong totally let down?
Actually scrub that, tories don't have a sense of shame.
What did Alex say again about spaffing money up the wall investigating historical sex cases?
He was obviously referring to suspects who had died decades previous and who it was costing millions to investigate, badly. Re Ted Heath, Cyril Smith etc
Incorrect
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/13/boris-johnson-under-fire-over-remarks-about-child-abuse-inquiries
Good old boris
That article says
"An ally of Johnson said he had no intention of apologising or clarifying his remarks about child abuse cases. The MP was making the point that spending tens of millions on historic cases where an alleged perpetrator was dead should not be the priority when the cash could be used on front line policing and tackling knife crime"
If he is/has spoken about people who are still enjoying life then he is wrong. I'd have to agree though, that once people are gone, what's the point in spending millions for zero justice?
So just to clarify..if someone has died..there is no point getting justice for the victims?
Sutely the entire purpose of the investigation into child abuse was to see if children were still at risk?
Oh and later he on denied saying it
What justice could a victim possibly get from confirmation?
Children still at risk? If the would be perpetrator is deceased and the case is historic, it's highly likely that any victims will no longer be children.
Who later denied saying what?
What difference does it make if they were no longer children?
If something has happened in the past ,it should be investigated, for several quite obvious reasons.
Say it happened in a care home?
Or maybe we should have ignored what saville did,because he was dead?
He denied saying..stop staffing money up the wall.
According to the Times, the Ted Heath Enquiry (he died 16 years ago) cost 1.5 million including 14,00 spent on PR defending the enquiry.
Turned up…. Nothing, and didn’t seem to be based on anything other than Carl.
I’ll say it - that example is idiotic police spaffing money up the wall, yes. "
So lets just ignore what people have done in the past
Great plan
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57582462
Seems we were wrong and the cuts were absolutely nothing to do with the issues.
He also answered a question about r### victims by saying how many people we have jabbed.
The rest of the world must be green with envy that we have a bumbling idiot running the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
