Boris' Subtle Game 'If You Weren't Letting Paedophiles Go Free I wasn't Allowing Downing St Parties'

Boris' Clever Game 'If You Weren't letting Paedophiles Go Free I wasn't Allowing Downing St Parties' Boris Johnson is right. Keir Starmer's CPS did fail to prosecute Jimmy Savile. So why all the faux outrage? By Andrew Pierce for the Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar... The interview took place under conditions of the strictest secrecy. In his winter years, a national treasure was facing searching questions from police about historic claims of child sex abuse. It was October 2009 and it seemed Sir Jimmy Savile might finally have to pay for his crimes. Four women had come forward to allege he had attacked them, two saying they were just 14 at the time. It was one of the most explosive police interviews of the year ­ and you might reasonably expect that the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would have been closely involved in checking that the case was being handled properly. Although there is no evidence he was personally involved, as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) between 2008 and 2013, Keir Starmer was ultimately responsible for the controversial and, in retrospect, entirely wrong-headed decision not to bring charges against the serial paedophile Jimmy Savile (pictured) in 2009 Of course, any DPP would struggle to keep up with every detail of the vast number of matters handled by the CPS. But if Starmer is so quick to blame Boris for everything that happens on his watch, it is surely only right he should apply the same merciless standards to himself. Then again, this is the man who adopts a painfully holier-than-thou tone when discussing rule-breaking in Downing Street, but has refused repeatedly to apologise for swigging beer with Left-wing party chums during lockdown last year. So perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by his brazen double standards. Sir Keir Starmer was director of public prosecutions when the decision was made in 2009 not to prosecute Sir Jimmy Savile on the grounds of 'insufficient evidence' - but a report found he was not personally to blame. A 2013 QC-led inquiry found that the decision was made by police and prosecutors locally, not Sir Keir, who was unaware of it. The CPS would also say there was 'no reference to any involvement from the DPP in the decision-making within a report examining the case.' Lawyer turned Labour leader Sir Keir had taken on the role of DPP in 2008 and left in 2013 to pursue a career in politics. Savile, who abused 500 women and children, died in 2011 without facing justice. In 2012, after it became clear the Top of the Pops host had attacked and abused hundreds of children and women in hospitals, schools and while filming his BBC shows, an inquiry was carried out Alison Levitt QC, on Mr Starmer's own orders. She found that police treated the victims and the accounts they gave 'with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required'. Savile also made veiled threats against officers if sexual abuse allegations against him did not 'disappear'. Detectives looking at allegations advised the CPS not to prosecute Savile, believing his explanation that it was all made up and the price of being famous. Alison Levitt was also critical of the approach taken by the CPS' reviewing lawyer, but did not suggest that Mr Starmer was personally involved in the decisions made. The lawyer was also criticised for failing to properly build a case with the police or spot inconsistencies in their reports after interviewing Savile under caution and four of his victims. But there was some criticism that as DPP, Sir Keir should have been more aware of what was happening in one of the highest profile cases in the UK at that time. As head of the CPS, Sir Keir later apologised, admitting the failure to prosecute Savile was a 'watershed moment' for the organisation. But avoided any admonishment in Ms Levitt's report. He said: 'I would like to take the opportunity to apologise for the shortcomings in the part played by the CPS in these cases. 'These were errors of judgement by experienced and committed police officers and a prosecuting lawyer acting in good faith and attempting to apply the correct principles. That makes the findings of Ms Levitt's report more profound and calls for a more robust response.'