[quote WendyTreetops]@Rosscomeasdoody
So, once again, is it a lie to say that Starmer was head of CPS when it decided not to prosecute Savile? Second question, is it acceptable in political discourse to hold senior public servants accountable for the actions of the organisations they lead even if they weren't aware of them?
Johnson's comment was reprehensible but it was not actually a lie. Despite you suggesting this, Johnson did not say that Starmer tried to cover it up, so the fact that Starmer didn't cover it up does not make Johnson's slur a lie. I wish people could think rationally and honestly about this instead of picking a side and getting emotional.[/quote]
Johnson said Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile when he was DPP. The point is that he was sneering and it was intended as a personal slur to try to discredit Starmer. Interesting that Johnson and other MPs have refused to repeat it outside the privileged environment of parliament, because legal action would likely ensue if they did. So yes, I think it could be said that there’s an element of dishonesty in that Johnson made the comment without qualifying why Savile wasn’t prosecuted at the time - lack of evidence, which at the time it was no different from the thousands of other cases deemed not to be suitable for prosecution because there’s very little chance of a conviction.
Keir Starmer became DPP in 2009 - as I’ve already said, one investigation against Savile was dropped by police in 2008 because the victim didn’t want to proceed. The four others reviewed after Starmer became DPP were similar and the decisions not to prosecute were made on the basis that the complainants didn't want to proceed. They were straightforward decisions made by reviewing lawyers. Once it was established that Saviles’ crimes were more far reaching Starmer commissioned the report into the CPS himself. The report criticised the reviewing lawyers for not advising the victims that others were making similar complaints, concluding that had they and the police taken a different approach, prosecutions may have been possible. It also concluded that there was nothing to suggest that the decisions not to prosecute were consciously influenced by any improper motive on the part of either police or prosecutors.
So to my mind, there was no valid reason for Johnson to even bring it up - it had no bearing on the issue at hand. And there was certainly no basis for couching it in terms designed to cast doubt on Starmers’ involvement in the Savile case. And evidently several in the Tory party agree, because after researching the matter, he was strongly advised not to make the comment - he ignored the advice and his attempt at a slur backfired spectacularly. So to answer your questions. No not a lie, but the intention wasn’t exactly honest. And yes, it’s acceptable to hold senior public servants accountable for the actions of the organisations they lead, even if they weren’t aware of them at the time. Which is what happened in 2009 when Starmer was honest enough to commission the report and then accept responsibility as DPP and apologise for the failings uncovered. There was absolutely no basis for revisiting the matter except to attempt to discredit Starmer for his blistering summary of partygate. I do think rationally and honestly about this, I’m not picking a side or getting emotional. Simply stating the facts.