Perhaps for the same reason(s) Savile & Co weren't reported. What those reasons may be is speculation but they don't show the culture there in a good light.
Once again the dismissal of a story because of its source.

I think that might be a stretch Hrolf.

I also think that there is a good chance Trump committed a significant number of crimes he is accused of and is likely to be successfully prosecuted for some of them. He was a man so full of his own importance, he genuinely believed he was bullet proof.

That said, there is a good reason to say he actually is being persecuted. While undoubtedly corrupt to the core, he is hardly alone. Plenty of equally rich and powerful people are equally corrupt but effectively immune. Yet the authorities are going hell for leather to find any possible dirt on this one man in the hope that any of it sticks. If that is a form of persecution, I think it is unarguably happening.

i put it to the floor that

'Labour/Conservatives are wary, and even scared, of the Power of the BBC'

Pope Linekar has the power to crown, and uncrown, our leaders. Upon his every lefty-whim.

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Sounds correct to me.

If you were to follow any random human being around our capital for a period of time you'd probably find a number of driving offences, littering etc. Nobody is perfect and completely virtuous, least of all politicians and certainly least of all US politicians. If it begins to look as though only one is being put through the kangaroo court under a microscope though, you have to ask as to why?

I'm therefore inclined to entertain the notion that Trump's arrogance and perhaps naivety have left him vulnerable. Where there can be grievance however is with him apparently being persecuted for farting in a lift where as dubious a character as Biden is paraded around as though his death stench doesn't stink and the likes of Kamala Harris are utilised for ironically (non)white-washing over this.

It all feels a bit pantomine-esque, like the support groups for Dahmer and Bundy arguing over who's serial killer was worse? Or whether a conservative or labour government would be less disastrous for this country?

I still don't blame the politicians for throwing the fish, it's what they do. I lay the blame on the clapping seals clamouring to catch them. I find the whole thing bemusing and unnerving, it asks more existential questions than political ones. 'Supply and Demand' I suppose, and the quantity of idiots providing the demand is vast.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

Anyone acting as Trump did whilst President is bound to attract the attention of prosecutors and invite indictments. To leave such things unchallenged would be an affront to democracy and the rule of law. It’s not politically biased but it is politically essential.

Just as it would be if evidence of wrongdoing emerged for Biden or anyone else.

Other may well be as corrupt but they aren’t running to be President again.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Let’s not forget that $50m has ‘allegedly’ been funnelled to the Biden family over the last 5 years for absolutely no legitimate business reason other than that Hunter Biden has peddled his Dad’s influence over the world. That is bribery and corruption at its highest level.

The banks who dealt with transfers filed 150 SARS (suspicious activity reports) to the authorities (FBI, NIS and DOJ) who did nothing but now as a result of the Durham report and the Senate Oversight Committee investigation are starting to release the truth.

The Biden’s set up numerous nominee and offshore companies to funnel the funds back to their family. No legitimate legal reason exist to justify that. The poster on here Wisbech tried to defend and argue that the structure could have been for tax or regulatory reasons. Utter bollox! Wisbech has worked in the food industry and is an apologist for left wing bad behaviour or criminal activity. I’m a lawyer and banker and know the red flags of money laundering and fraud.

It’s under investigation so let’s wait and see but it makes Trumps issues look small.

The never ending frustrating issue is that the mainstream liberal left wing media refuses to properly report in an impartial way.

The beatings will stop when morale improves.

With massive atrocities being committed in Israel the main headline on the BBC website yesterday afternoon was Holly Willoughby leaving the morning show on ITV that she presented.

Sense has prevailed this morning as it has been relegated to a minor headline

You can say that no-one is beneath the law and will get widespread support. You can also say that a president (or ex) has to act to a higher standard and will be brought to account if he falls beneath that and I suspect most won't argue with that either. However, since when has it been a factor that running for office is a consideration that any prosecuting authority can factor in when deciding whether or not to prosecute?

I would argue that targeting one man for clearly political reasons is an affront to the stable democratic framework of executive, administration and judiciary. In this case, the executive is seeking to direct the actions of the judiciary. I I am aware that the US judiciary is politicized at senior appellate level, but it is supposed to be blind to political bias at the coal face.

For instance, the New York Stormy Daniels prosecution. The D.A is a stated Democrat and, to all appearances, is directing that prosecution in order to further his political career. How is that well-functioning democracy made manifest?

I hope another poster on this thread who characterized the various courts he is going to have to attend as "kangaroo" is wrong. I hope we are not in the world of Kafka. If the allegations fall beneath the necessarily high threshold required for criminal matters, they must and hopefully will be thrown out.

I can't stand Trump and everything he represents. However, directing public funds to hound him out of the running is beyond the pale for me.

And about time too.

Though the case against it could be wafer thin.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

This indictment concerns Trump's business behaviour, not his politics. There seems little doubt that there is a desire in NY to bring the Trump business empire to book. NY happens to be run by the Democrats. Would they still have indicted him if he had decided to be a Democrat, as he nearly did? I think so. This is about Trump. Not politics.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.