The Wakefield by-election ought to be a walk in the park for Labour, but it is inconceivable that the decision not to charge an immensely famous and a knighted friend of Prince Charles and of Margaret Thatcher was taken by anyone other than the then Director of Public Prosecutions. Why would anyone want that erstwhile Director to become Prime Minister?
Most people, including me, have never met a paedophile. Yet our lords and masters are forever turning out to have known them for decades, apparently by sheer bad luck, and always without ever having suspected a thing. But never, ever, ever ask why we should be governed by persons whose luck was so much worse than everyone else's, and who were so much easier to fool than the rest of us would be.
It's already widely accepted that Kier Starmer had nothing to do with the Savile case.
ReplyDeleteBy whom? In the words of Doughty Street Chambers, on its page about Keir Starmer: "He was Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service from 2008-2013. As DPP, Keir was responsible for all criminal prosecutions in England and Wales."
DeleteTherefore, Starmer would have been responsible for the decision not to charge Jimmy Savile even if he had never set eyes on the file. But that is in any case inconceivable. We are talking about Jimmy Savile here.
That Starmer took the decision not to charge Savile has now been repeated all over the place, far beyond parliamentary privilege. Starmer has yet to sue anyone for having made it.
Starmer's "experience" as DPP is held up by his supporters as his qualification to be Prime Minister. Yet now they insist that it was a purely titular headship such as might have been given on an unpaid basis to a minor member of the Royal Family. Or, in his heyday, to Jimmy Savile.