Keir Starmer faces renewed scrutiny over allegations he protected Jimmy Savile

In October 2012, a documentary exposed how veteran British media personality Jimmy Savile sexually abused vulnerable, underage girls throughout his lifetime. This led to an eruption of reports of abuse, spanning decades, and official inquiries into multiple institutions to which Savile was linked. Today, the full extent of his crimes, and the total number of his victims, is unknown. It has nonetheless been confirmed that the BBC, NHS, British police, and many journalists had full knowledge of his paedophilic and necrophilia perversions well before his death.

Along the way, there were multiple “missed opportunities” to stop Savile’s industrial scale sex crimes. Most substantively, in 2007, police made contact with a number of women who had come forward to testify they were assaulted and raped by Savile, leading to the star being grilled by police about the allegations. That investigation was however shut down, and never publicly acknowledged. Details of how the probe was torpedoed didn’t emerge until much later, implicating both investigating officers and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The CPS was at that time led by Keir Starmer, now His Majesty’s Prime Minister, Britain’s new premier has a deep, long-running relationship with London’s national security establishment and security and intelligence apparatus, as well as the elite Trilateral Commission. He helmed the CPS when the Service protected MI5 and MI6 spooks from prosecution for torture, and connived to sustain a bogus rape case against Julian Assange.

The CPS destroyed key emails related to this subterfuge, which served to keep the WikiLeaks founder holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy while facing extradition to Sweden, when prosecutors in both countries knew the charges had no substance. During this time, the Service also shredded all records of Starmer’s four trips to Washington DC. It may be no coincidence that every file held on Savile by the CPS also disappeared in breach of basic protocol.

To say the least, Starmer has clear, grave questions to answer about what he knew about Savile’s crimes, and the role he and his then-agency played in insulating the serial paedophile and necrophilia from justice. The same British media that has fuelled Starmer’s ambitions has aggressively shielded him from critical scrutiny on the matter. What follows are the dimensions of a very British cover-up.

In February 2022, during a parliamentary joust, disgraced former Prime Minister Boris Johnson accused Starmer of having spent his time as CPS chief “prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile.” The broadside ignited a public firestorm, with British politicians of all parties and the entire mainstream media lining up to condemn the premier’s comments as a repulsive libel. A senior Downing Street staffer resigned in disgust. The pressure grew so severe, Johnson retracted his comments in a matter of three days.

However, the fact remained that Starmer was Director of Public Prosecutions when British authorities possessed persuasive evidence of Savile’s heinous sexual crimes over many years, and he inexplicably refused to move against the paedophile. Sources within the CPS have claimed that he had no knowledge of the decision to drop the case. It is also commonly alleged that a formal inquiry he ordered in 2012 into the failure to prosecute Savile condemned investigating police, not the CPS.

As the inquiry report’s contents make clear, this characterization is completely false. Officers who interviewed Savile’s victims in 2007/8 were indeed slammed for not providing them with more information – namely, that others had independently come forward, telling disturbingly similar stories. The report concluded their testimony should’ve been acted upon, as “there was nothing to suggest that the alleged victims had colluded in their accounts, nor that they were in any way [unreliable].”

Despite this, “police treated them and the accounts they gave with a degree of caution which was neither justified nor required.” It is nonetheless clear officers shut down the investigation under express CPS direction. The Service’s designated “reviewing lawyer” on the allegations – an “extremely experienced ‘rape specialist’” – told police “at an early stage” he “would not be inclined to prosecute these cases because they were ‘relatively minor’,” and due to the time that had elapsed since the offenses were allegedly committed.

The CPS lawyer’s “relatively minor” appraisal of Savile’s heinous crimes “troubled” the inquiry investigator. “I would hope that any prosecutor would regard a sexual assault as being in and of itself serious,” they wrote. “These particular assaults were far from trivial: they represented a course of conduct against vulnerable women and girls by a man who was in effect in a position of trust.” As a result, the investigator had “reservations about the way in which the prosecutor reached his decision”:

“The allegations made were both serious and credible; the prosecutor should have recognised this and sought to ‘build’ a prosecution. In particular, there were aspects of what he was told by the police…which should have caused him to ask further questions…I have been driven to conclude that had the police and prosecutors [emphasis added] taken a different approach a prosecution might have been possible.”

Despite these grave criticisms, the investigator concluded, “I have seen nothing to suggest that the decisions not to prosecute were consciously influenced by any improper motive on the part of either police or prosecutors.” Which might be true, if only because all CPS files on Savile were destroyed in October 2010. The report was therefore “dependent on material provided by the police to show what documents were seen by the reviewing lawyer and the advice which was given.”

Even these records were “in parts either incomplete or [contained] internal inconsistencies,” which “made it at points difficult to assess what happened,” and “impossible to recreate with any certainty” what was actually seen by the reviewing lawyer. For its part, the CPS had “no record at all” of the case. The inquiry was told this was due to the decision to take no action against Savile resulting in the Service’s files being “automatically deleted,” according to the CPS’ “normal policy.”

However, Service guidelines on “retention and disposal” of evidence clearly state that documents on “discontinued cases,” in which “no proceedings have taken place or where the case was discontinued before trial,” must be kept for five years. The destruction of the Savile file was a flagrant breach of these rules. The decision to violate the guidelines on such a high profile case had to have been made at the highest levels of the CPS. We are thus left to ponder whether Starmer himself made that call, and if so, why.

It is also an open question how, after reviewing the Service’s handling of the Savile case in 2012, Starmer reportedly “came very close to rubber-stamping the original decision not to prosecute,” before appointing his own CPS chief legal adviser, Alison Levitt, to conduct the formal inquiry. Her report’s findings unambiguously assert that Savile had a very clear case to answer based on the allegations collected against him at that time alone.

In April 2014, Levitt was rewarded for her CPS service with a lucrative job at high ranked law firm Mishcon de Reya. That June, Starmer joined her. The company has been fined enormous sums for facilitating money laundering, and frequently helps wealthy individuals and powerful corporations abuse the British legal system to “intimidate and destroy” journalists. Starmer was forced in July 2017 by then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to depart his well-remunerated position there, after taking a Shadow Cabinet role.

Starmer received over $20,000 for just 24 hours of work at Mishcon de Reya in 2016. Losing the post was undoubtedly a bitter pill to swallow, but he landed on his feet. His position as Shadow Brexit Secretary afforded ample opportunity to undermine Corbyn, pushing Labour towards a pro-Remain stance, contrary to the party leader’s official position, and against the will of swaths of its voters. When the May 2019 European elections rolled around, Starmer was openly demanding a second referendum on Britain’s EU membership, in defiance of other shadow ministers.

Due to intense bullying and threats from Starmer and other anti-Corbyn elements, Labour finally adopted a formal policy of a “people’s vote” on leaving the EU in July that year. It was a cataclysmic error, making the party’s crushing defeat in the December 2019 general election a fait accompli. Was this a conscious act of sabotage by Starmer and his clique to doom Corbyn, and pave the way for their own rise to power? Academic analysis from months earlier showed Labour’s only shot at victory was to target Leave-voting Conservative marginal.

It must not be forgotten that, as the second referendum policy originated with a little-known political party, Renew, set up by individuals tied to NATO’s stratcom division, MI6, and British Army psychological warfare unit 77th Brigade. On the contemporary campaign trail, Starmer has admitted he knew Labour would lose in 2019. Whether or not that was his explicit mission, it paved the path for his own premiership, and empowered his confederates within Britain’s security and intelligence services.