Keir Starmer is once again feeling the heat for his time as Director of Public Prosecutions. Back in 2008, Fayed, the owner of Harrods, was quizzed by the Met Police after a 15-year-old girl accused him of assaulting her at his luxury store. Though in 2009, the CPS, headed by Starmer, dismissed the case as there was “no realistic prospect of conviction”. Now 25 women have come out saying they were sexually assaulted by Fayed, who died last year. Reminiscent of the the Jimmy Savile case…
Matt Vickers, shadow minister for crime and policing slammed Starmer:
“Keir Starmer is always eager to take credit for other people’s work at the CPS, but whenever something went wrong under his watch it was always someone else’s fault. There was a chance to prosecute Fayed while Starmer was DPP but it was not taken. These latest revelations show this was yet another instance of failure.”
Back then, Starmer himself admitted he took a ‘personal interest’ in high-profile cases. So much for the man who claims to be ‘forensic’ in his approach…
Statement by Paul Dacre, Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers Limited, following Harry’s loss in court today:
“Prince Harry wrote a sad book which boasted about his killing of 25 Taliban, his drug-taking and, in cringe-making detail, how he lost his virginity. There isn’t a laundry in the cosmos big enough to wash all the dirty linen he has aired about his own family. For him, to complain about HIS privacy being invaded takes, not just the biscuit, but the whole tin. Poor Harry. I feel sorry for the way a confused and angry young man has been drawn into this case. The bitter irony is that his mother, Diana, liked the Mail. We were her paper. We took her side in her acrimonious break up with Charles. She and I would speak and meet. The Mail’s superb royal reporter was her friend and confidante. The truth is that this trumped-up action – which has cost well over £50 million and wasted a huge amount of valuable court time – should never have been brought to trial. That it did, raises profoundly disturbing questions about the conduct of elements of the legal profession. Today’s verdict is not just a victory for Associated’s magnificent journalists – several of whom have had a terrible toll imposed on their health and lives – but a free press generally. Make no mistake. This was a conspiracy, supported by Hacked Off, to destroy a paper. Financed by the orgy-loving, racist Max Mosley and involving the actor Hugh Grant, it was also a sinister bid to resuscitate Leveson Two and impose statutory regulation on the press which, even now, is rearing its ugly head in Labour’s Media Green Paper.”