Starmer Smears

Certain right wing politicians, curiosities and their media apologists are determined, ahead of a General Election, to smear Keir Starmer in relation to the Post Office scandal and his time as DPP at the CPS. However, in all seriousness it's more a measure of their desperation than anything.

The beauty of a smear is that it takes no more than a short sentence - or sound bite. The problem with a comprehensive rebuttal is that it takes paragraphs, which people can't be bothered to read.

Starmer was DPP at the CPS from November 2008 to November 2013. There are several potential problems in trying to smear Keir Starmer in relation to his time as DPP: 

• Lack of evidence: Starmer's record as DPP is generally well-regarded, and there is no clear evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct. Any attempt to smear him would likely need to rely on speculation or innuendo, which could backfire and damage the accuser's (Farage) credibility. 
• Focus on process over outcome: Critics of Starmer's time as DPP often focus on specific decisions or cases, such as the Post Office Horizon scandal. However, these criticisms often fail to take into account the wider context in which these decisions were made, or the fact that Starmer was ultimately responsible for a large and complex organization and not every case the CPS prosecuted crossed his desk.
• Politicisation of justice: Attempts to smear Starmer based on his record as DPP could be seen as an attempt to politicise the justice system. This could damage public confidence in the CPS and other law enforcement agencies, something that's a key tactic in the playbook of the populist.
• Counterproductive for Starmer's opponents: Smearing Starmer could actually help him by making him appear like a victim of unfair attacks. This could rally his supporters and give him a boost in the polls. 
• Potential for legal action: Depending on the nature of the smears, Starmer could take legal action against his accusers. This could be a costly and time-consuming process, but it could also be successful in silencing his critics. 

It is important to note that these are just potential problems, and the effectiveness of any attempt to smear Starmer would depend on a variety of factors, including the specific allegations made, the way they are presented, and the wider political context. Overall, it is likely that any attempt to smear Starmer based on his record as DPP would be difficult and risky, and could ultimately backfire.

Looking at specifics:

• Joining the dots: The CPS prosecuted only a handful of Post Office cases. Numbers are uncertain at this stage, but it could be anywhere between 3 and 30. Certainly not enough to alert the DPP to a spike, as there had been many genuine cases of fraud before Horizon was ever introduced. The CPS is not a single, monolithic organisation, it's split into 14 regional teams handling over 400,000 cases a year. It's inconceivable that Starmer would be aware of each and every case. While the DPP has a vital role in deciding whether or not to prosecute criminal cases, they don't make every single decision themselves. The process is more nuanced, with different authorities playing different roles depending on the severity of the offense and other factors.
• Knowledge: Alerts over the failures of the Horizon System did not come to light until 2010 when a Parliamentary Select Committee expressed concerns about it, but this was not taken up by the media, nor Parliament itself. It was not until 2015, after Starmer had left the CPS, that it came to public attention with the Panorama programme which is credited with exposing the potential miscarriages of justice. However, this did not gain much traction and it is suggested that it did not have a high viewership figure.
• Corrupt evidence: When the evidence is comprised of corrupt information supplied by the Post Office and the defendants cannot provide evidence themselves, there's little anyone - defence or prosecution - can do. If there was a potential for a miscarriage of justice, it would be up to the presiding judge to take that decision, not the CPS. In any case, it's the defence's responsibility to question any evidence presented by the CPS, but both sides were presented with exactly the same, corrupt evidence. It was the Post Office that withheld evidence, not the CPS.
• Guilty pleas: When many of the accused had been bullied into pleading guilty to a lesser crime in order to avoid either a costly litigation or prison, then what is the CPS to do when, in effect, there is no trial as the defendant appears in court to plead guilty? In many cases the evidence is not even presented, except in summary form so the judge can decide of the appropriate sentence.

There is undoubtedly only one party that's responsible for any miscarriage of justice - the Post Office, which did not tell the full story about the scale of the problem, backed up by Futitsu, which was responsible for a catalogue of errors.

Democracy would be better served by Farage, rather than casting innuendo around with gay abandon,  by him explaining the corruption within the Leave campaign and his role in it. He has, after all, spent a lifetime trying to demolish institutions we benefit from.

It would be interesting to know whether he would brand the prosecution or the defence as lefty, woke lawyers? Both sides can't be lefty - either the prosecution is, or the defence.