This is an Interesting Insight into the Establishment

The British had their own Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Saville who got away with paedophilia because he was tight with the Royals, particularly Prince Charles, widely admired for his charity work.

He’s been dead for years, but it’s become a thing, because Boris Johnson, my second least favorite Englishman, accused Labour leader Kier Starmer, my lest favorite Englishman, of ignoring credible accusations against the late BBC presenter when he was Director of Public Prosecution and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009.

The entire spectrum of British polity met this statement with horror and revulsion, noting (correctly) that Starmer would not make the decision to prosecute Saville, it was quite literally below his pay grade, and Johnson apologized.

However, as Craig Murry observes, it is inconceivable that it would not have communicated to him that there was an investigation of such a high profile target, even if it would not have been his call.

This is not the sort of thing any manager would want a heads up about, because as Director of Public Prosecutions, it is ultimately his responsibility, even if it is not his decision: (It’s kind of an aside about his discussions of the Assange case)

I suggested in my last post that the British Establishment may be looking for a way out of the terrible Assange debacle without raising difficult truths about the United States justice and penal system. The functioning of the Establishment, the way it forms a collective view and how that view is transmitted, is a mystery to many. Some imagine instructions must be transmitted by formal cabals meeting as Freemasons or Bilderbergers or some such grouping. It is not really like that, although different fora of course do provide venues for the powerful to gather and discuss.

………

There is no doubt that Jimmy Savile’s ability to mingle freely at precisely these kind of social gatherings, hosted by royalty and prime ministers down, provided him with the cloak of Establishment protection which enabled his decades of crime. To deny it is ridiculous. It is also very interesting how unanimously the Establishment has decided to protect Keir Starmer. They faced a real danger for a few years with one of England’s two main parties under the control of genuinely radical figures. Having managed to get the big money friendly Sir Keir Starmer into place and neutralise any possible threat to their wealth, the ferocity of the Establishment’s defence of Starmer is fascinating.

There is no doubt that Starmer was indeed Director of Public Prosecution and head of the Crown Prosecution Service in 2009 when it was decided that credible allegations against Jimmy Savile should not be prosecuted (after they had reached that stage already decades too late). Of course the Director of Public Prosecutions does not handle the individual cases, which are assigned to lawyers under them. But the Director most certainly is then consulted on the decisions in the high profile and important cases.

That is why they are there. It is unthinkable that Starmer was not consulted on the decision to shelve the Savile case — what do they expect us to believe his role was, as head of the office, ordering the paperclips?

When the public outcry reached a peak in 2012, Starmer played the go-to trick in the Establishment book. He commissioned an “independent” lawyer he knew to write a report exonerating him. Mistakes have been made at lower levels, lessons will be learnt… you know what it says. Mishcon de Reya, money launderers to the oligarchs, provided the lawyer to do the whitewash. Once he retired from the post of DPP, Starmer went to work at, umm,

It is remarkable that the media has never got as excited about any of the lies told by Johnson, as they have done about what is in fact a rare example of Johnson saying an interesting truth. Starmer was indeed, as Director of Public Prosecutions, responsible for the non-prosecution of Savile.

But just as Savile was to be protected over actual sex crime, Starmer knew that Assange was to be persecuted over fake sex crime. Starmer’s conduct of the Assange case was entirely corrupt.

I guess that Boris had a stopped clock moment, which is why he was so quick to walk it back.