Keir Starmer has rightly been under fire since Labour last week exploited abused children by publishing a Twitter post claiming Rishi Sunak doesn’t care about protecting children from paedophiles. Sunak is abysmal, but he has no role in the sentencing of offenders – and Starmer himself, as then-Director of Public Prosecutions, played a key role in creating the sentencing guidelines that courts still follow, including specific recommendations on sentencing sex offenders.
And further hypocrisy in Labour’s current stance has come to light thanks to Gil O’Teane, who pointed out that – as a barrister acting on behalf of a convicted paedophile – Starmer asked a judge to keep secret both the offender’s identity and the leniency of the sentence he had received:
There is no suggestion that Starmer was acting improperly in representing his client in 2002 – but there is every suggestion that a man who understood the nuances of sentencing in 2002 is profoundly hypocritical and reckless to disregard his own history in order to make a vile, misleading and inflammatory smear against a political opponent. Especially one who was running the CPS when it chose not to prosecute Jimmy Savile.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.