[kreuzberger]

I am not sure that I am getting the timing right in my often flawed, Tetris-like recall of events, but were the Sub-Post-People wanting for legal aid, and which might have blown a hole in the prosecution argument?

[davidjay]

Heavyweight jurist, Alex Nunns, weighs in.

Starmer's already said payments should start immediately and the Post Office should lose its prosecution powers. What does Alex want? The PM to personally cancel convictions en masse? That's not normally what PMs do. These are unusual circumstances, sure, but we can doubtless afford to spend a while getting the process right.

By the way, the bloke in the clip doesn't actually say what should happen there- I'm sure he went on to. But the point is that he criticised Starmer for not being "radical". So Alex whacks the clip right up.

And you've even got Corbyn bots repeating the tired line that the CPS prosecuted. These people are beyond obsessed.

[Abernathy]

It is strangely fascinating watching them trying to come up with ways to attack Keir Starmer that will actually land. I think the best they’ve managed so far is that he bought a bit of land to build a donkey sanctuary for his mammy (the bastard). The Savile prosecution smear attempted by Johnson went nowhere, and the much worked on “Currygate” rightly fizzled out.

Wonder what they’ll come up with next ?

[Bones McCoy]

It is strangely fascinating watching them trying to come up with ways to attack Keir Starmer that will actually land. I think the best they’ve managed so far is that he bought a bit of land to build a donkey sanctuary for his mammy (the bastard). The Savile prosecution smear attempted by Johnson went nowhere, and the much worked on “Currygate” rightly fizzled out.

Wonder what they’ll come up with next ?

Failure to prosecute Jack the Ripper, James Moriarty, Lex Luthor, Fletcher Christian, Wile E Coyote and the Riddler.

What a litany of incompetence and neglect.

[davidjay]

I know we should be used to it by now, but I never fail to be amazed at how people who spend their entire lives obsessed by politics regularly give the impression that they don't understand the first thing about how it works.

[Oboogie]

Coverage of the Post Office scandal is leading the news everywhere you look and yet Farage and the Corbynistas seem to be the only people in the country who've not seen any of it.

[davidjay]

Today's attempt...

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Cole's a cunt.

Cunta-Cola.

[Andy McDandy]

Did appeal work for people on death row.

The bastard.

[davidjay]

Does Damien from Brighton and his ilk ever stop to think that if they're on the same side as the Sun, Mail and Farage, their argument might not be all that compatible with the kind of Socialist purity they espouse?

[Andy McDandy]

They see themselves as anti-establishment. All of them, from Fargle to Damien and back. But it's not so much anti-establishment as anti a system that has them sussed. Anti rules, anti standards, anti so many things, but they'd give anything to actually be up at the top.

[slilley]

In addition to the Starmer defended people on death row "smear" attempt, I see there is now a pile on about the Post Office scandal saying that as DPP he should have stepped in and stopped the prosecutions and therefore is partly culpable.

The link below, i have pasted in multiple tweets to explain to people how most of the time it was not for the CPS to intervene.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/p ... osecutions

I can see this level of dirty tricks and smearing getting worse.

Simon

[davidjay]

I can't but think that in their desperate attempts to land a blow on Starmer the Tories have fucked up by having the Post Office and pro bono attacks together when a few days between them would have been more effective. They can't even do character assassination properly anymore.

[Dalem Lake]

In addition to the Starmer defended people on death row "smear" attempt, I see there is now a pile on about the Post Office scandal saying that as DPP he should have stepped in and stopped the prosecutions and therefore is partly culpable.

The link below, i have pasted in multiple tweets to explain to people how most of the time it was not for the CPS to intervene.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/p ... osecutions

I can see this level of dirty tricks and smearing getting worse.

Simon

James O'Brien has started a ongoing segment on his radio show called "Smear Keir", cataloguing the absolute barrel-scraping done to try and paint Starmer in a bad light. One has been that Starmer once bought his mum a farm to procide a donkey sanctuary and then sold it later for a higher value than he paid. That's it.

[Youngian]

Starmer hung out with criminals

[Abernathy]

I don’t think Keir bought his mam a farm. It was more of a field.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Couple of posts from Facebook on the DPP role re private prosecutions.

The DPP's statutory power to take over other prosecutions is unqualified - s6(2) Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The practice of the CPS is set out in a code of legal guidance (on the web). This says that, when they review a case, they will take over and discontinue it if it doesn't meet their 'Full Code Test' for bringing a prosecution - this is basically evidential sufficiency and being in the public interest. The guidance then lists some particular factors that may arise in private prosecutions and affect the above test - one of these is vexatious or malicious.
The CPS is not automatically informed about private prosecutions, but it may be asked to review a case by either party or the court. In these cases, it will call for the prosecution papers and apply the above test. The guide also says it may find out about a prosecution from the press. Here, it says, the CPS will only intervene in exceptional circumstances, with the example given being a prosecution for perverting the course of justice in relation to a rape allegation.

The DPP has the power to take over any discontinue any private prosecution on grounds of lack of evidence or not in the public interest (only on a case by case basis, and not after the event). So there isn’t a slam dunk answer in terms of power to rebut the attempt to tar Starmer. But the DPP doesn’t have a duty to keep private prosecutions under review, nor the systems and resources to do so, nor would it probably have been apparent initially that any given case didn’t meet the tests. Once the general problem became known, the DPP wouldn’t be the obvious or best person to do something about it. So, the attempt to tar Starmer is entirely unreasonable and pure politics (as was obvious anyway).

[Bones McCoy]

Further scandal as Sir Kier refused to help U2 find what they were looking for.

He wouldn't take the case pro Bono.

[Tubby Isaacs]

You can't say anything nowadays, says Harry Cole of The Sun.

[Youngian]

These days, you can’t say anything without the wokes accusing you of being racist