No, Keir Starmer did not help Jimmy Savile escape justice
They allege that Starmer "helped paedophile Jimmy Savile escape justice" during his time at the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Normally few would notice what these websites produce. I refuse to link to them for reasons that should be obvious, but regrettably many on the Left have been sharing these vile smears on social media - including many of my Labour friends and one or two Lib Dems.
I shouldn't have to correct what I would imagine is so obvious a lie. But, given how so many seem willing to believe it, here are the facts.
In 2008 (a few months before Starmer became director of public prosecutions [DPP] at the CPS) Sussex Police launched an investigation into a possible sexual assault, but took no further action as the complainant did not wish to give evidence. In 2009 the CPS reviewed four sexual assault claims against Savile and felt there was insufficient evidence with which to proceed - again, because none of Savile's accusers were prepared to support police action. Frankly, the CPS makes a lot of decisions like this and it would be strange for the director himself to make the decision personally - that's the responsibility of the reviewing lawyer. We may well question that decision, but asking whether there was in fact sufficient evidence is one thing; to assume that such evidence would have resulted in a conviction is quite another. Have any of us seen the evidence the CPS was presented with? Have those spinning these accusations - or spreading them - actually spoken with any of those who brought the initial complaints against Savile?
Starmer took over a CPS under fire on various fronts and, after 2011, especially on the Savile issue. While he had no personal involvement in the decision not to proceed, Starmer did commission a review, headed by Alison Levitt QC, in which he revealed failures at the heart of the CPS and in 2013 issued an apology. He acknowledged those failures, pledging to change the culture of the CPS and its internal mechanisms. A "fundamental shift" was required, he argued, as "we cannot afford another Savile moment in five or ten years".
While "no improper motives" were found, the Evening Standard reported that one of the review's major criticisms was that "the CPS lawyer (my italics) should have challenged the police conclusions and sought to build a prosecution against Savile". It also suggested the complainants should have been informed that there had been other complaints about Savile, as this would potentially have encouraged them to give evidence. This is a rather stinging evaluation, but not one that pointed to failings on the part of the director himself; indeed, if any of the criticisms are directed at a particular person it is the CPS's reviewing lawyer.
Starmer went further than to apologise on behalf of the CPS. He also argued that legislation should be introduced to require professionals to report suspected child abuse. "Without a change in the law, there'll be another Savile", he warned.
Among the proposed changes Starmer supported were (and I quote directly from Counsel magazine) "greater support for complainants [with] more thought given to the use of pre-recorded cross-examination of child witnesses; the extent to which vulnerable complainants can be subjected to repeated cross-examination; joint police/CPS panels set up to enable those who have made allegations of sexual assault in the past to have their cases looked at again and greater information sharing duties across the Criminal Justice System."
While few would argue there were not serious institutional failures in regards the Savile allegations (indeed, I believe the CPS handled the complaints extremely badly as indeed did Sussex Police), those failures were organisational rather than personal. The allegation that Keir Starmer was individually responsible is as dangerous as it is false.
It's important to understand how the CPS works. It is not a "top down" body in which all decisions are made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Individual cases are considered by a reviewing lawyer. The lawyer will belong to one of 14 regional teams, each headed up by its own crown prosecutor with responsiblity for prosecuting cases locally.
It's worth pointing out that decisions made by the CPS are taken against the tests set out within the Code for Crown Prosecutors and relate to the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. CPS decisions therefore should not be taken to imply either guilt or innocence, and are not final in the sense that they can be revisited should further evidence come to light. I would recommend anyone in any doubts as to CPS procedure to read Section 3 (The Decision Whether to Prosecute) of the Code for Crown Presecutors. Paragraph 3.7 makes it clear the involvement of the DPP is only required in "a limited number of cases", determined by Parliament, known as consent cases.
To quote CPS guidance, "consent cases are statutorily created, with the requirement for consent being imposed in order to prevent certain offences being prosecuted in inappropriate circumstances. The legal requirement is generally for consent to have been obtained or given before the prosecution is 'instituted'." The Savile accusations would not have been considered to constitute a consent case and therefore there is absolutely no reason to believe Keir Starmer would have had any involvement in the case; indeed, there is every reason to believe he should not have had any. If Starmer had interfered in the Savile matter, he would have been acting contrary to the Code and other CPS guidance.
Indeed, Starmer's leadership was characterised by a determination to radically change the CPS's culture - especially in regards sex offenders. I'm not going to express an opinion on the success of those efforts, but the notion that Starmer was "soft" when it came to sex offences doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny of the facts.
I can understand why some with an obvious political agenda are seeking to dishonestly associate Starmer with paedophilia, but it is counter-productive and does them no credit whatsoever. However, I am frankly appalled that others are either too willing to buy into the narrative, too susceptible to the outrage culture, incapable of doing a little research or simply gullible.
I am also amazed that people who have made it a personal article of faith not to buy The Sun are quite happy to share articles from far-right hate sites on their personal social media pages.
When the government is mishandling a major crisis the opposition response should probably not be to go to war with itself over a vile right-wing lie that is so preposterous even the Daily Mail won't touch it. Given I'm not a Labour supporter and don't particularly like Keir Starmer it might be assumed that I shouldn't care...but I do, because the response to this says a great deal about the current state of UK politics.
It should be obvious to any sensible, rational person that Keir Starmer had no personal involvement with decisions taken in relation to Jimmy Savile. It should also be obvious that we take right-wing "news" websites with a pinch of salt. And it should be obvious that sharing this kind of rubbish only serves to weaken the opposition at a time when we need it to be strong.
So, a little request. Please think before sharing.
Thank you.
Additional notes:13.4.20
I see some people are being led to this page from Google searches asking "Did Keir Starmer defend Jimmy Savile?"
The answer is no. There's no evidence the two even met, or even that Starmer handled Savile's case directly. In any case, it would have been absurd for the director of public prosecutions to defend someone his own organisation had determined to prosecute. Not to mention that, as no charges were ever brought against him, Savile was never defended by anyone.
________________________________________________________________
14.6.20
Some are asking how I know this.
Actually, everything I cite and reference is in the public domain and easily accessible to anyone who wishes to look for it.
I should perhaps have added that I have professional experience with the MoJ (2012-2014), working alongside and in partnership with (but not for) the CPS, and have a reasonable working knowledge of how the CPS functions.
_________________________________________________________________
17.6.20
Update: Information added in relation to consent cases.
________________________________________________________________
27.6.20
Full Fact, the independent fact checking website, has now (rather belatedly, I might suggest) addressed this question and drawn identical conclusions to mine.
Comments
That the police and CPS could have done things differently is an undeniable statement of fact. What it doesn't prove is that the current Labour leader was complicit in helping Savile evade justice.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211355/BBC-D
J-demands-Keir-Starmer-apologise-role-historic-sex-abuse-scandal.html
I think that's an entirely different situation.
Paul Gambaccini is taking the opposite view in a sense - he argues that the CPS was too quick to jump to conclusions in relation to individuals' guilt. He claims Starmer's reforms to the CPS were damaging to many innocent people who were later publicly named.
While Mr Gambaccini has a strong argument and this is certainly more newsworthy than a misguided attempt to link Starmer with the reviled Savile, I'd perhaps suggest that this should disprove the notion that the CPS under Starmer was determined to be "soft" on those accused of the kind of crimes Savile was alleged to have committed. I'm not going to enter into a discussion on Gambaccini's concerns other than to suggest that one of the biggest problems is the way in which the system allowed for people like Gambaccini, Cliff Richard and Jimmy Tarbuck to be publicly named - and shamed - even before the CPS have made a decision as to whether or not to prosecute.
I'm certainly open to dicussion about how to create a fit-for-purpose CPS. But I think it needs to be a) detached from any personal antipathy we have towards the man who was DPP from 2008 to 2013, and b) considered alongside criticisms of the media in such cases. The BBC's behaviour over the Cliff Richard allegations was nothing short of disgraceful, and caused Cliff far more trauma than anything the CPS might have done.
If someone has any evidence whatsoever of Starmer's personal involvement in the Savile decision they should provide it. Given over a decade has passed and no-one has done this to date, I think it's safe to say there is no reason for believing he had any such involvement at all.
As I said, it would be highly unusual - indeed, unprecedented - for the DPP to become personally involved in a decision at that level. It's not within the DPP's remit. That's not to imply ignorance, but to state professional boundaries.
as you know so much about it can you tell me the link between him and the ian tomlinson story,as that seemed very bad aswell and police just let off..
That said, in 2010 the CPS's review found "an irreconcilable conflict between Dr Patel [who conducted the post-mortem] on the one hand and the other experts on the other as to the cause of death. As the sole medical expert who conducted the first post mortem, Dr Patel would have to be called at trial as a prosecution witness as to the primary facts. As a result, the CPS would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tomlinson's death was caused by PC 'A' [Simon Harwood] pushing him to the ground. That being the case, there is no realistic prospect of a conviction for unlawful act manslaughter."
If the CPS was presented with weak or contradictory evidence that would not stand up in a court of law then there could only be one possible outcome. I haven't personally seen all the evidence so I can't comment publicly on it, but I would say that a decision not to prosecute on such a basis is not suggestive of a belief in the innocence of the person accused as much as it is an acceptance that a conviction is so unlikely that it's not in the public interest to pursue it.
Indeed, Starmer seemed to be open to the possiility that the officer was guilty and in May 2011 changed his mind and publicly declared that manslaughter charges had been issued against Simon Harwood following the release of new medical evidence. And so Harwood was tried, something that may not have happened without Starmer's intervention, although he was eventually acquitted as the jury was not content that the excessive force Harwood used had necessarily caused Tomlinson's death. Whether the jury was right or wrong in its verdict, it was their decision and not Starmer's or the CPS's.
Harwood was later dismissed from the Metropolitian Police, something that may not have happened if the case had not (eventually) gone to trial.
Given this, I can't buy into the narrative that Starmer personally is responsible for Tomlinson's killer walking free. Perhaps he made the wrong decision in 2010, but if he did he certainly corrected that mistake a few months later and ensured the case did go to trial.
(By the way, all this information is in the public domain and easily accessible.)
1. The CPS let Jimmy Savile off.
2. Kier Starmer was head of the CPS at the time.
And that's all anyone needs to know. Fake apoligies years later don't mean anything.
The first of those is not a fact, but an ill-informed opinion.
If you believe the factual basis of anything I have written above is mistaken, please inform me which of the points I made are incorrect.
I wouldn't normally comment on the veracity of an apology, but on this occasion I might point out that Keir Starmer's apology was accompanied by a change in policy with the aim of preventing such a situation occuring in the future.
"I was working with rape survivors when Kier Starmer was DPP.
"He was a revolution. The first DPP to seriously engage with the challenge of prosecuting sex offenders.
"I am tired of hearing he was a "disaster". That's 180 degrees contra to events at the time.
"Stop sharing that."
As for Starmer's overall record at the CPS, I'll leave others to evaluate that. My only objective here was to challenge the lie that Starmer was at fault over the Savile case. It's safe to say that he tried to radically transform the culture of the CPS during his time there. I didn't want to enter the debate about how successful his efforts were - that's another issue altogether!
As a life-long Labour supporter - and whilst I can never support the Tories - I also regret that circumstances of Brexit saw the demise of many Conservatives of similar integrity and decency - Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, David Gauke, Jo Johnson, Sarah Wollaston, Anna Soubry etc.The first two of these have a strong legal background. I can never support the Conservatives but the British political scene is somewhat weaker for their absence.
Oh dear...
"He has clearly failed, as the police did, to prosecute or even investigate a prolific paedophile." Police don't decide whether to prosecute. As explained above, it's not the duty of the DPP to interfere in cases, especially when the reviewing lawyer doesn't believe there is sufficient evidence.
"No way were the CPS presented with evidence of a VERY high profile Knight of the Realm abusing kids, without their head having a direct hand in its consideration!" You don't appreciate how the CPS works. Under British justice, we don't treat people differently under the law according to their social status - and I am sure you'll agree that we shouldn't. If the reviewing solicitor felt there was insufficient evidence with which to proceed, why should the DPP go over their head? Are you seriously suggesting people with a public profile should always have their case personally considered by the DPP himself?
"The likes of Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini were questioned by police, Sir Cliffs house being famously raided by police live on tv!! THAT was Starmers direct, unfounded initiative, which only resulted in law suits against the police and the BBC."
No, I disagree. Being questioned by the police is perfectly acceptable. My problem with how Paul and Cliff were treated is in regards the media's naming of them (the BBC's behaviour in regards Cliff Richard was inexcusable). That's not the fault of the CPS. Paul Gambaccini blames the change of culture Starmer instigated at the CPS for the new approach towards alleged sex offences against children, but he wouldn't claim that Starmer was "soft" - quite the opposite. We can't have this both ways. It's an extraordinary doublethink to argue Starmer was simulteneously soft on abusers and aggressively hounding those accused of abuse. As it is, I wouldn't accuse him of either.
"He now stands at the dispatch box blaming every, science led decision on the Tory leader..." I respectfully disagree. Not every decision has been science-led, and it's about time the government accepted responsiblity for its own decisions rather than seeking to blame scientists. Indeed, only this week we've begun to see scientists distancing themselves from government decisions. But that's another issue.
And please respond to comments if you wish. I always appreciate the interaction.
a) why this is "nonsense", and
b) what evidence you have that the DPP was personally involved in a decision that DPPs do not involve themselves in.
Many thanks.
Oh, I'm absolutely sure of the facts here. There is no way in which Keir Starmer was involved in helping Jimmy Savile evade justice. It's a lie - plain and simple.
"Jimmy saville was a pedophile and had his crimes covered up for decades, impossible there wasn’t enough evidence."
This makes no sense. If crimes are being covered up then logically evidence is being hidden, no?
Have I denied Jimmy Savile's alleged crimes? No.
Have I denied a history of establishment figures turning a blind eye to Savile's activities? No.
This went on, as you say, for decades. What does this have to do with someone who was DPP between 2008 and 2013? I would suggest if Savile evaded justice there are others who carry the blame for that.
As for there being enough evidence, we're talking about the evidence that was brought to the attention of the police at the time - not what came to light after Savile's death. There might have been a great deal of evidence "out there" but at this point it had not been reported.
As the allegations were brought by individuals who were unprepared to support police action there was little the CPS's reviewing solicitor could realistically have done without better evidence. As I say above, and the commission observed, the reviewing solicitor should have questioned the police findings with a view to building a stronger case, and the police should have made the various complainants aware of other complaints. We don't know whether that would have resulted in the women concerned changing their minds and agreeing to take action, but it may have done. However, the idea that the CPS was simply overlooking mountains of evidence because it had some kind of agenda to protect Savile does not stand up to scrutiny.
Of course, whatever the failings of the police and the CPS lawyer dealing with the matter, as it was not a consent case there is absolutely nothing the DPP himself could have done in the circumstances.
The real test of the truth of the claims about Starmer are that no mainstream news outlet has yet to give them any credibility. When the Daily Mail, the Sun, the Daily Express and the Daily Telegraph steer clear of an opportunity to criticise the Labour leader, it's a fair indication we're dealing with a lie.
I don't know if you're aware, but The Sun also publishe3d an article on this, here: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11639371/sir-keir-starmer-jimmy-savile-scandal/ It's nothing like as detailed as yours, and you deserve credit for writing this two months before they got round to it, but I think it proves your point about the 'usual suspects' in the media not giving this fake story any credibility.
On this though, the rational why he wouldn't have had dealings seems sound, thank you. Though I still can't get away from feeling (and not based on my experience) that he wouldn't have been in some way overseeing and signing off on the Saville case, as it was so high profile. Know its a different kettle of fish, though when working for BBC I now stuff was shoved up the chain, to board level. And it would probably be good practice for the director to give input or at the very least be kept up to speed on its progress, as he may be publicly questioned and will need to update. Whether through malevolence or incompetence, it doesn't bode well for the Labour party. AS a lifelong Yorkshire man, who has voted Labour all but twice (1 of those at local election level) I cant see me and mine voting for a Sir anything. The Labour party shouldn't be run by middle class aristocrats. Moan over.... have a good evening
"Was actually looking for which of the CEOs who put up the Grenfell cladding, he had links with, whilst in the home office. Something someone said today so just checking." I have absolutely no idea about that. I wasn't aware Starmer had ever been at the Home Office; prior to becoming DPP he had only had a legal career. He did serve in the shadow Home Office ministerial team as Shadow Minister of State for Immigration under Jeremy Corbyn, of course.
"On this though, the rational why he wouldn't have had dealings seems sound, thank you."
No problem!
"Though I still can't get away from feeling (and not based on my experience) that he wouldn't have been in some way overseeing and signing off on the Saville case, as it was so high profile."
I see where you're coming from, but it's vital that everyone is equal under the law. An accuasation is made and evidence but be reated the same whether the accused is a TV personality and a household name or an unheard of unemployed man. It would be unfair (and no doubt Paul Gambaccini would agree) if our legal system were to treat people differently on the basis of how high profile they are.
There was no option for Starmer to intervene. If he had, it would raise questions about his role and impartiality (indeed, I'd be the first to be asking them!).
"Though when working for BBC I know stuff was shoved up the chain, to board level. And it would probably be good practice for the director to give input or at the very least be kept up to speed on its progress, as he may be publicly questioned and will need to update." The main difference with the CPS is that we're talking about legal processes and the importance of equality under the law. Whether Starmer, as DPP, was informed of developments is difficult to say, although there's no reason why he should have been.
"As a lifelong Yorkshire man, who has voted Labour all but twice (1 of those at local election level) I cant see me and mine voting for a Sir anything. The Labour party shouldn't be run by middle class aristocrats."
Well, I'm not sure I would vote for him either! And similarly I'm unimpressed with knighthoods and "respectability". I feel for people like yourself who don't feel they can vote for their party as things stand...of course, what I've written isn't a defence of Starmer himself but an explanation of how the CPS works and why it's absurd to accuse Starmer of aiding Jimmy Savile.
No doubt I'll find plenty of reasons to criticise his leadership in the coming months, but supposed associations with Jummy Savile aren't one of them.
As a liberal, it's not for me to tell people what to watch on TV.
If Starmer was "sympathetic" to Savile then his actions don't show it. It's also irrelevant in the sense that, as a reviewing solicitor made the decision, Starmer had absolutely no personal involvement in how the CPS dealt with the Savile complaints.
Yes, it was. Which is why they followed their usual procedures. It's also why certain decisions were criticised by an internal review and an apology issued.
"...and you don't think the head of the CPS had anything to do with it." No. I'm saying I know he didn't. Because that would be contrary to CPS procedures.
EVERY CPS decision is important. Are you saying the CPS should have made an exception in this one case, on the basis of the limited evidence it had at the time, so potentially opening the CPS to claims of acting unfairly against people who have a public profile?
"So what your saying is he didn't do his job either way, because Savile was a pedophile and a monster..." No. I'm saying he did his job. There are, of course, questions about how the referring solicitor did theirs. We also didn't know until after Savile's death the extent of the alleged abuse.
"You even said it might not have passed his desk." I'm quite sure it didn't. Why should it have done? Do you really think the CPS solicitors are only competent to deal with cases for "ordinary" people, and anything involving a high-profile personality must be forwarded to the DPP himself? Really??? Would that be fair? Would that really be everyone be considered equally before the law?
"Really, you're trying to defend this. Look at this in any other business and the head honcho would have got drilled for such a mistake. Trust needs to be earned, it's like having Donald Trump in your party."
No, not at all. Firstly, I'm defending nothing, simply explaining how the CPS works and what the DPP's role is.
I think you're not fully understanding what the DPP actually does. They're not a top-down "manager" who has the remit to interfere in individual decision-making.
As for "my party" - I'm not a member of the Labour Party and, as mentioned above, I don't particularly like Keir Starmer. I don't particularly trust him and have never really warmed to him. There is plenty to criticise him for, and no doubt I will in the years to come. But the claim he "helped Jimmy Savile" has no basis in any fact whatsoever.
Your sentiments are totally understood.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions about how the CPS works. I'm not suggesting the way it does things is necessarily the right way in every respect, and I think I've argued that the way it handled this matter back in 2009 was woefully inadequate. The thing is, Keir Starmer may well agree and would insist he did what he could to put things right.
Again, it might be reasonable to question whether the actions he implemented go far enough (or too far). We could perhaps make recommendations that the CPS adopts new ways of doing things - the same goes for the police. The difficulty I have is with those people who point the finger at Keir Starmer without seeing the wider picture (in some cases they don't want to see it, because they're only concerned with attacking the Labour leader).
We might think that there needs to be a Head of Operations kind of person at the CPS distinct from the DPP. But that's not currently how it works, and the DPP has a clearly defined legal role that prevents them from interfering directly in matters delegated to subordinates. Rightly or wrongly, Starmer was bound by his remit.
Emotion is a strong thing and emotional responses are absolutely understandable - we wouldn't be human without them. I think you're right in that there are absolutely MASSIVE questions about historical abuse and cover-ups (even in relation to Savile) but I don't see the CPS's mishandling of the Savile accusations in 2009 as part of it. The reviewing solicitor made some questionable decisions, but there's no reason to think that this was done for such reasons, and Starmer himself would not have been involved. The cloud on the silver lining is that at least actions were taken, belatedly, to try to prevent this kind of thing happening again.
I completely agree with you in relation to the historical abuses of power behind this kind of thing (see my other piece on David Steel). We have to address the past and ensure nothing like this CAN happen in the future. But I also think focusing on Keir Starmer (and this is happening for politically motivated reasons) proves a distraction from this more important task.
Thank you for the comments - it's always good to talk. This topic has generated a lot of interest, and rightly so...
What I know from an understanding of the CPS's processes, is that if Starmer did involve himself then he was acting contrary to the Code and internal procedures. It may be that he was informed of the case, but there is no reason to think that he was and he certainly had no remit to act upon it.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has a very specific role and I think if we're going to criticise Starmer's tenure then we can at least attempt to understand what his job involved (and what it didn't).
Aside from the difficulties that this poses under a legal system where all are (or should be) treated equally, it fails to take into account the localised dimension and the degree to which responsiblities are designated within the service.
The CPS is a different agency to the MOJ, for whom I worked for a little over two years. However, its leadership oeprates in much the same way and there would be no need of senior personnel to be aware of the vast majority of cases we dealt with. I personally dealt with cases involving some extremely famous people - I did not approach their cases any differently, made decisions in the usual way and recorded the outcomes in the usual way. There was no need to report these to more senior staff, let alone top management - and that's because they were ordinary cases of the type we deal with every day, but just happened to involve someone who was well-known to the public.
However, on occasions when a case was sufficiently unusual that it needed to be referred, it would be directed to a regional manager to make an appropriate decision. The same is true of the CPS, which has 14 regional crown prosecutors.
Those alleging a conspiracy are not only interpreting the actions of a lawyer in 2008 in light of accusations about Savile that emerged only after his death in 2011, but are also failing to appreciate how the CPS works.
Not only is there no evidence that any documentation relating to Starmer's personal involvement has been destroyed, there's no evidence it ever existed and absolutely no reason to believe it should have done.
But what have they got to do with Keir Starmer?
I like that he tackles difficult challenges, including cleaning up the mess and divisiveness the Labour Party has created over the years and bring people together. I've never been interested in political parties, but I must be the only person in the world who thinks he's a decent chap, he's polite, articulate and genuinely clever. People discriminate him for seeming posh but look at his humble beginnings, his parents named after the original party founder! Why do we speak negatively about people who do well in life through hard work, yet want to be aspirational ourselves! Why do taxpayers and voters accept a "muddle through" approach from Politicians? Starmer at least develops plans in difficult areas. I'd like any next party to be more centrist as the polarisation of Brexit. Covid etc. is dividing societies to primal instincts.
You didn't write this to get political rants. Hopefully people will take on board the facts you have laid out.
I agree with you on several points. Yes, I do think he's a decent man. Yes, I think he tried to do a lot at the CPS very quickly (my view is that in some respects he got it right, in others perhaps not) - but you're right in that he was committed to reforming on the basis of something that some didn't even want to acknowledge or investigate. So he deserves credit for that.
I'm not a fan of Keir Starmer. I don't dislike him in the way I do some politicians, but I find him rather uninspiring. For example, I wish he was as committed to electoral reform as he was reform of the CPS! I don't feel he has what it takes to revitalise Labour - but, like you, I feel is is clever, often sensible, and I'm not one of those who finds accusations of being a "centrist" offputting.
I believe in being fair to political opponents, which is why I wrote this. And while I am not a huge fan of the Labour leader I can respect him. He inherited a near impossible task at the CPS and was able to make some decisive, and lasting, changes.
Anyway, thanks for your comments, and I don't mind "political rants" when they are as reasonable as yours!
saying Kier didnt know is a untrue but so is saying he did, we're in a limbo because we have to evidence either way.
When a person argues the head of the CPS would have known because of a high profile individual I would lean towards yes. simply saying the CPS doesnt treat people differently under the law is a crazy statement. CPS is made up of people and people will never be unbiased, all evidence is lost so we will never know.
Im interested in knowing how you can take a 100% stance he didnt know?
"Im interested in knowing how you can take a 100% stance he didnt know?" I can't say that. But I am 100% sure that he shouldn't have known because, as the case was not - and never would have been - his responsiblity to look into, unless you're alleging serious breaches of confidentiality within the CPS he would have been unfamiliar with the specific details of the reviewing solicitor's casework. Cases are treated anonymously by the reviewing solicitors and no exceptions are made for people with high public profiles.
That much is fact.
"All evidence from the CPS side has been destroyed and when asked the reviewing lawyer says he cant remember the case." That is absolutely not a fact, and is actually completely untue. The reviewing solicitor certainly remembered it and gave evidence to the Levitt inquiry, whose findings criticised their actions. Evidence has not been destroyed at all and was certainly available to Alison Levitt QC. All the evidence from the respective police forces also survives.
"When a person argues the head of the CPS would have known because of a high profile individual I would lean towards yes." But you're working on the assumption that how the system SHOULD work, when I've already explained categorically that isn't how it works. The DPP is not "head" of the service in the way you, and many others, seem to think. They do not micromanage it. There is absolutely no reason he SHOULD have known.
I'd also say that the only thing particularly exceptional about the Savile case at the time the CPS reviewed it was the fact it involved a high profile individual. The scale of his offences at this stage were unknown. The CPS were dealing with two complainants, none of whom wanted to supprt police action. The CPS deal with countless cases of this type. To suggest the CPS could have done more, as Alison LEvitt does, is one thing - to suggest that it should have instantly been escalated to the Director of Public Prosecutions quite another. If that had happened it would have been deeply irregular practice and if Savile had received "special" treatment it could easily have opened the CPS up to allegations of malpractice and unfairly pursuing someone because of their status.
How the CPS works matters far more to me than who the DPP happened to be at a particular time. I would be frankly appalled if evidence came to light showing that the CPS treats some people differently to others.
Our democracy is ill-served by the Prime Minsiter - THE PRIME MINISTER! - perpetuating discredited conspiracy theories in order to smear an opponent.
The desperate words of a desperate Prime Minister do nothing to invalidate anything I have written here. Indeed, informed reaction to his misinformed comments has confirmed my arguments.
If you wish to believe Boris Johnson then that is entirely up to you, but I certainly don't.
No, Boris Johnson is not right.
As I explained two years ago there is absolutely no reason for assuming that Keir Starmer would even have been aware of the accusations against Savile. I can say this because I understand how the system, and prosecutors, work. The "head of the CPS" is not a micromanager, and is actively prevented by the Code from intervening in individual cases. It's also the case that the reviewing lawyer is accountable to their regional prosecutor, not the DPP.
The fact that Starmer and Johnson play juvenile political games in Parliament has no impact on the argument I've put forward. As you say Johnson was "hitting back" but I think that the public - and Parliament - deserves better than "hitting back" in this pitifully dishonest way. Most of us grew out of that kind of thing at secondary school.
Johnson was being disingenuous and he knew it. I'm not going to allege more than that. I don't think he thought through his comments. But he was being less that truthful and his comments could be construed as misleading the House.
Unfortunately we do not have an electoral system by which the electorate directly elects the PM - instead, the PM is whoever can command a majority in the House of Commons. That's usually the leader of the largest party. If his MPs don't back him, then under our electoral system and the Conservative Party's constitution, they can replace Johnson as both party leader and PM. Parliamentary democracy is antiquated and I would argue in overdue need of reform, but it is what it is.
Obviously I wrote this in 2020 (before the media picked up on it) and my intention was to debunk the myth rather than get into a party-political discussion about Johnson and Starmer. What I will say is that, as far as I am concerned, Johnson should have apologised and withdrawn the remark and we could have drawn a line under this. The fact he hasn't, when he is surely aware of the facts of the matter, I think shows us the type of person he is.