- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,983
- Reaction score
- 3,069
- Country

Which one?one of his many, many employees told him.


Which one?one of his many, many employees told him.

Correct. He therefore wasn't aware of the case at the time the reviewing layer decided not to prosecute.It is also an open question how, after reviewing the Service’s handling of the Savile case in 2012, Starmer reportedly “came very close to rubber-stamping the original decision not to prosecute,” before appointing his own CPS chief legal adviser, Alison Levitt, to conduct the formal inquiry. Her report’s findings unambiguously assert that Savile had a very clear case to answer based on the allegations collected against him at that time alone.
Its supposition, its one of many ways he was told.Which one?

It's lies.Its supposition
I like how it all reads.Correct. He therefore wasn't aware of the case at the time the reviewing layer decided not to charge.
I’m just throwing ideas about. It’s not lies, you’ve failed to disprove itIt's lies.

You are throwing lies about. You've read the report, it is quite clear that the reviewing lawyer who decided not to prosecute simply wasn't the PM.I’m just throwing ideas about.
I don’t believe everything I read.You are throwing lies about. You've read the report, it is quite clear that the reviewing lawyer who decided not to prosecute simply wasn't the PM.
My point was/is, you and I have NO IDEA what any of the managers do for a living; nor what would be the consequences of sacking them. 'My wife's friend's sister says...' is not evidence.
Correct. He therefore wasn't aware of the case at the time the reviewing layer decided not to prosecute.

Gut feelings don't count.By any stretch of the imagination that's inconceivable.
Exactly my point.Unaware that one the highest profile 'entertainers' in the country had a file on him.
By any stretch of the imagination that's inconceivable.
You’ve no proof.Gut feelings don't count.

Course I have, the report documents it all.You’ve no proof.