Starmer insults women’s intelligence to blame Sunak for judicial failures when it was Starmer’s CPS that failed to prosecute rapists

[IwantToRetire]

I am so fed up with politicians and their seedy bully boy tactics.

So Starmer having failed to get personal approval from voters who rate Sunak higher than him, doesn't think maybe I should try harder to be more relevant to voters.

No he decides to roll in the gutter and use personal attacks. https://www.jackfm.co.uk/news/politics/labour-takes-inspiration-from-australia-with-sunak-attack-ads-but-they-need-more-to-pull-off-a-proper-ousting/

I'm not saying the Tories are blameless, but lets face it, it was/is the CPS who continued/s to fail to prosecute rapists even when the police present evidence, because the CPS only want to take on sure fire winning court cases to up their stats.

So not only has Labour tried to make out Sunak (who became as MP the same year as Starmer) personally doesn't want child abusers to go to prison, but now has plagerised women campaign's slogan about how rape has been decriminalised. https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/the-decriminalisation-of-rape/

And yet Labour still doesn't know what a woman is, nor have they re-admitted women expelled from Labour for saying women are biological females. But think our tiny emotional brains will be overwhelmed by their crass statements about women's issues.

Labour seem to think that because this sort of politcal sloganeering used by the vote leave party were sucessful during the Brexit campaign, that this is how they will win the next election.

Which is worse? That our politicians think voters are such dimwits. Or that they might be right. https://labourlist.org/2023/04/labour-attack-ad-rishi-sunak-crime-twitter-controversial-advert/

Yes.

And it’s pointless because Labour don’t need to denigrate the Tories to win. They are currently standing in front of an open goal and just need to come up with some good, positive policy to score.

Instead they are starting fights with the other team’s players.

Starmer had to do that because that was what his client requested when said client was requesting an emergency injunction. Starmer would not have had a choice about representing this person (see cab rank rules) and is under obligation as a barrister to present his clients case.

Labour could talk about court closures and backlog, the poor pay for criminal barristers or the nonsensical populist policies pursued by this gov.

Except these points aren't clear soundbites, designed to grab attention and get people talking.

I've no issue with the Labour party fighting dirty. Nobility and moral virtue do not win elections and no party can change the parlous state of this country from opposition.

Whilst the Mumsnet feminism board might not like the ads, I bet they're cutting through elsewhere.

Criticising bad strategies and bad policies from Labour, doesn’t equal ‘Tory sock puppet’ and it’s that kind of juvenile behaviour from people on the left and within labour that meant I haven’t been voting in some time.

I agree that left wingers attacking anyone who criticises Labour as a Tory is tiresome, however, in recent years there have been a lot of plopper accounts appearing on MN to spread falsehoods about Labour.

FWR gets a lot of ploppers so it's perhaps understandable that those with no posting history, pushing specific agendas, are treated with scepticism.

Hopefully the attack ads will work with the intended target audience.

I do not buy the premise of 'oh, I think the Tories have been terrible for schools/hospitals/care/policing/economy/environment/everything but because of some negative ads I decided I want a further five years of Tory government and switched my vote'.

Crime action and policing have been trashed by the Tories. All of us are less safe as a result of their policies.

@donquixotedelamancha there is a sentencing council that decides sentencing guidelines. KS sat on the council in 2013 that decided current sentencing rules about child abuse.

Whilst the Mumsnet feminism board might not like the ads, I bet they're cutting through elsewhere.

Ummm have you looked elsewhere? They’re really not.

You need to broaden what you listen to

Loads of discussion on this on radio, people calling in with similar views to this thread.

Labour are actually being racist.

They're countering the Tories' move on child sexual abuse gangs where the media's headlines centred the references to a reluctance to tackle ethnic minority perpetrators

They're attacking Rishi Sunak as an individual because he's brown. They hope (and probably have research to back this up) that sections of the voting population lump all brown people together.

The Government can direct the Sentencing Council to revisit guidelines. The Sentencing Council are required to consider any proposals made by the Lord Chancellor.

They rightly did that for domestic abusers who kill their partner.

I know. The idea that Starmer is responsible for these sentences because he sat on that council is even sillier than that ad.

Ultimately sentencing policy is controlled by government. Labour have a policy of toughening sentences for CSE. I like the policy even if I don't like the ad.

Starmer would not have had a choice about representing this person (see cab rank rules)

This shouldn’t be just about cab rank rules. The need to have good legal representation for even the worst criminal as part of a fair judicial system should be obvious, especially to Barristers. A fair judicial system is something the fox-killer and 100 other barristers are seeking to destroy by refusing to represent people they disagree with. Something which also then opens up barristers who do act for them for personal criticism.

So you agree that the SNP are responsible for the community sentence handed out to a man who repeatedly raped a child?

It’s not vote switching that’s at stake though, it’s voter apathy (according to Matthew Goodwin’s polling, which has a good historical record).

I live in a staunch Labour area with a Labour Metro Mayor who is in charge of crime and policing and it’s an absolutely shit show up here, so voters aren’t going to be convinced that a Labour government is going to improve anything unless they have actual policy.

Pointing at another party and saying ‘they’re shit’ just makes Labour area voters think ‘Yes, but you’re shit too’.

So you agree that the SNP are responsible for the community sentence handed out to a man who repeatedly raped a child?

Since justice is devolved, I assume so; however it seems like the judge in that case passed an unusual sentence which will (hopefully) be overturned.

As said previously I’m sure these Ads are being trialed to see how they go with the public. Note they have been issued during the Easter break when there’s no PMQs so Sunack can’t really have a go back.

I agree, using his name was the giveaway. They could have attacked the Tories on these points without using the name of someone who only recently became party leader and wasn't even an MP until 2015.

To use such a negative ad campaign about issues which could backfire on Starmer shows a lack of competency. Labour are leading in the polls, as a PP said they could run a positive campaign about what they have to offer. This campaign seems like a bizarre act of self sabotage.

Maybe it is because people won’t vote for what they want to offer?

Have they invaded the shadow cabinet too?

www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/96-hour-doctors-strike-bidens-bumpy-landing-starmer-sticks-to-his-guns/

"In their own words (or lack of them): Over the bank holiday weekend, shadow Cabinet ministers have deflected questions about the ads in various ways — but it’s noticeable how few of them have shared them on their own Twitter accounts. Playbook reporter Noah Keate has combed through and found that Steve Reed (the person behind this strategy) has tweeted or retweeted the graphics in question five times, more than anyone else … national campaign coordinator Shabana Mahmood has done so three times … Louise Haigh and Jenny Chapman twice each … Peter Kyle once … and that’s it. Keir Starmer hasn’t actually directly tweeted or retweeted the ads (nor have other members of his top team such as Angela Rayner, Rachel Reeves, Yvette Cooper, David Lammy or Ed Miliband). Starmer’s article for the Mail defending them has got more Twitter love from his team, however."

This is inconvenient. It's from 2012, when Sunak was not an MP but...

https://www.emilythornberry.com/legacy/2012/09/25/cpsbackslidessonrapeeprosecutions/

"CPS backslides on rape prosecutions
25th September, 2012
Emily Thornberry MP, Labour’s Shadow Attorney General, has today written to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, to demand an urgent rethink of the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to weaken guidelines that specialist barristers must deal with every stage of a rape prosecution.
Emily Thornberry MP, Labour’s Shadow Attorney General, wrote:
“Rape campaigners have denounced this as backsliding. The trial process can be notoriously traumatic for rape victims. Historically, courts have not always been sympathetic arenas for rape victims and this put many of them off from coming forward in the first place. This is why it is so important that rape victims can count on the fact that those handling their cases are highly experienced and sensitive to their needs.
“It is not acceptable that your Government’s decision to slash the Crown Prosecution Service’s budget by 25 per cent over the course of the Parliament means that rape victims cannot get the legal support to which the particularly harrowing nature of their ordeal entitles them.”
Vera Baird QC, former Solicitor General and Labour’s Police and Crime Commissioner candidate in Northumbria, said:
“The fact that it is now a ‘should’ rule and not a ‘must’ rule will mean that in practice barristers’ clerks are likely to conclude that there isn’t really a rule at all. The whole drive towards specially trained barristers for rape cases risks losing momentum and go into reverse. This is really shocking news, especially when you consider the extent to which the CPS has invested in this.”"

I hate these new ads and I'm disappointed that Labour feels the need to sink so low, but let's not pretend that the Tories also haven't been using similar tactics. It wasn't so long ago that Boris tried to blame Starmer for Jimmy Saville not being prosecuted.

I notice they've not gone with 'Do you think NHS dentists should be available to all?', 'Do you think it should be possible to see your GP?' or 'Do you think ambulances should be available to everyone who needs one?'

Presumably because they don't have a clear plan to tackle any of those things.

Not that I think the Tories do either.

Quite.

Even if the whole of MN had been taken over by Tory sock puppets, that doesnt make the labour stance any better. By all means find some of the myriad problems with torys and advertise those facts, but this is a bit beyond.

let's not pretend that the Tories also haven't been using similar tactics
Nobody is though. People keep saying that on these treads here but nobody is saying that! It’s just criticising labour doing it, especially as they really don’t need to. Just wish they would tell me what they’re going to do about everything, because I won’t vote if they’re not going to be significantly better than the shit show we currently have.