Thread 14 Starmer - The Starmeristas Strike Back

[DuncinToffee]

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5224857-thread-13-starmer-facts-are-for-lefties?page=40&reply=141063174

@PandoraSox apparently some relatives jeered at the victims during the court cases I would definitely agree to looking at their citizenship if we can deport people jeering at victims yes.

Obviously no to innocent family members who have a right to be here.

Do we punish the families of other criminals?

Well beyond the fact that locking up a families breadwinner will always be a punishment, then no.

In theory collective punishment went out centuries ago. However before we remind ourselves of the horrors of Lidice and Oradour sur Glane, we have to acknowledge that Britain "has form" in this area.

Sadly.

Edited as I found the Sky News story

Jess Phillips is listening to victims and Labour announced that a new victims panel is being set up by the government to hear about the abuse by grooming gangs.

https://news.sky.com/story/jess-phillips-does-not-rule-out-new-national-inquiry-into-grooming-gangs-13285393

The victims have been saying they don't want another inquiry though. It's good that Jess Phillips is listening and prepared to support them if they have changed their collective approach.

I haven't heard this anywhere else though, can you link to your source?

“Nothing is off the table” is rather different to “If they want an(other) inquiry we’ll give them one”.

https://www.thepoke.com/2025/01/08/victoria-derbyshire-asked-nadine-dorries-about-the-definition-of-political-opportunism-and-it-was-a-magnificent-own-visible-from-space

Jeering the victims is vile and despicable and I think they should be prosecuted for contempt of court. But I am not sure deportation is proportionate. What happens to the children, for a start.

This is what Phillips said

news.sky.com/story/jess-phillips-does-not-rule-out-new-national-inquiry-into-grooming-gangs-13285393

This is what Starmer has said

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-01-08/debates/517CDDB3-39C1-4D50-BD1B-AF8AA560F06A/Engagements

The upshot is they are both saying the survivors need to be listened to.

What Jess Philips is quoted as saying on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast is that "Nothing is off the table." and "And if the victims come forward to me in this victims panel and they say, 'actually we think there needs to be a national inquiry into this', I'll listen to them" (from Sky news).
Which seems proper enough to me.

What Starmer is quoted as saying is : “This morning I met some of the victims and survivors of this scandal, and they were clear with me that they want action now, not the delay of a further inquiry.
“The Jay inquiry, the last national inquiry, was seven years, which would take us — with a further inquiry — to 2031. I think action is what’s required.”
(from the Times)

Has the Tory amendment been voted on yet, I am losing track!

Think it's at 7pm

@Notonthestairs "some" yes but what about others?

Do they all get a say, how do they work out whose voice counts.

"Elizabeth* name changed victim from Rotherham said starmer is afraid of an enquiry and she's glad Elon has spoken out.

I imagine they appoint spokeswomen amongst themselves and delegate that authority. But I can't possibly know. I'm sure you could email Jess Phillips and ask the question directly.

Anyone know why the Jay Inquiry recommendations weren't acted upon?

Now that is a good question

I think that's a question for at least 3 conservative Prime ministers, although the women and equalities minister in 2022 might be able to shed some light on it. According to Nadine Dorries, it was never discussed at any cabinet meetings, so clearly not deemed important.

Apparently Johnson complained it was costing to much.

Well, Dorries said the report never even went to cabinet so it clearly wasn’t seen as a priority. If I’m being charitable I’d say that they were playing such a frantic game of musical chairs with jobs from 2022 onwards that nobody was in the relevant post long enough to implement anything.

Sorry I just heard that now on Andrew marr show

They actually said there are so many victims they will probably have differing views.

That is exactly what Starmer said in the House. That he had met with some of them and that he was aware there are differing views.

So he automatically goes with the easier route?

Who gets to decide which views mean more

If implementing the Jay Inquiry recommendations were easy I guess that the previous government might have got on with them.

Remember “Nothing is off the table”? It was only a few posts back.

Ultimately the PM. It's a good job we have one now who actually cares about doing the job well. Who doesn't sweep it under the carpet. Who started implementing recommendations before the great Musk appeared. Who actually made it easier to prosecute the gangs.

What do you mean with 'easier route'?