Alison Levitt, the lawyer appointed by Keir Starmer to produce the report which “cleared” him of involvement in the decision not to prosecute Jimmy Savile, is married to Lord Carlile, friend of two serial paedophiles, Greville Janner and Cyril Smith.
Carlile played a role in the Establishment cover-up of Janner’s crimes.
As the Guardian article states of Starmer’s successor as Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders:
What’s more, Saunders admitted Janner should have been charged in 1991 and that there were two further missed opportunities in 2002 and 2007 when the “evidential test was passed”, meaning there was a realistic prospect of conviction.
The husband of Alison Levitt, the lawyer appointed by Starmer to investigate the non-prosecution of Jenner, was very much a part of the Establishment rallying around in 1991 to block the prosecution of Janner. On 3 December 1991 Carlile made a speech in the House of Commons which attacked Janner’s public accuser in startling terms:
I can but echo the tributes that have been paid to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). He is a man of determination and enthusiasm, whose integrity and will power have crossed party lines. I for one value the friendship that he has given me in the eight and a half years that I have been a Member of the House, despite the fact that we are in different parties and disagree on many issues.
Mr. Beck is an evil man. Perhaps more to the point, he is a corrupt man. Several hon. and hon. and learned Members who are present, some of whom have already spoken, have, like me, had the opportunity over the years in their professional lives to meet corrupt and evil people and to examine and sometimes cross-examine them in court. I am sure that those who share my professional experience will agree that those who have trodden in the mire of corruption all too easily become corrupt to the core. They cease to recognise the difference between what is good and what is bad and between what is honourable and what is corrupt.
They turn, like Mr. Beck, easily to more corruption and try to wheedle their way out of their own previous corruption–and that is what has happened in this case. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West was slandered with dreadful calumny by Mr. Beck.
We now know that the police had a great deal of corroborative evidence for Beck’s claim that Janner was abusing children in care homes. I do not claim Carlile knew this – I do not know. Carlile states that Janner is his friend. They were both MPs, both QCs, both members of Friends of Israel, both patrons of UK lawyers for Israel and of the Friends of Israel Educational Foundation. They were regulars on the same parliamentary committees dealing with legal affairs. They were both to leave the Commons at the same time and both to join the Lords only slightly apart.
Alex Carlile may well have had no idea Janner was a paedophile. After all, he shared a cramped parliamentary office with Cyril Smith for many years, and apparently never realised that Smith was a prolific paedophile. Possibly Alex Carlile is simply a particularly unobservant man.
It is however unfortunate that Starmer chose to appoint as the legal eagle to exonerate him over Jimmy Savile, the wife of the stalwart parliamentary defender of Britain’s second most prominent paedophile. I presume that Starmer never noticed that either, just as he did not notice the decision by his office and the staff under him not to prosecute Savile.
It is extraordinary that these people manage to become so rich and powerful when they are entirely unobservant. Especially as Levitt, Starmer, Carlile and Jenner were all top QCs.
Anyway, that is just an everyday tale of unobservant folk.
Here is the clincher in this episode of how the Establishment functions. Carlile went on to found a company, SC Strategy Ltd, in partnership with Sir John Scarlett, former Head of MI6, who obtained that position as the main author of the infamous “Dodgy dossier” of lies on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. They were joined for a while as a Director of that company by Lord Arbuthnot, former Tory junior defence minister and husband of Lady Arbuthnot.
Lady Arbuthnot was the initial and later supervising magistrate on the Assange extradition hearings.
The Establishment: like a circle in a circle, like a wheel within a wheel. If you read this together with my initial article on how the Establishment functions, you will have had two doses of effective vaccine against the lies of the mainstream media.
I have often noticed that ordinary people like you and I manage, in general, to live our entire lives with no connection of friendship to paedophiles at all. Yet the powerful are always finding they are connected to Janners, Epsteins, Saviles, Smiths, Mountbattens etc entirely by accident. It is of course all nothing but accident, bad luck and coincidence. To wonder if it might be otherwise is to be a mad proto-Fascist conspiracy theorist, apparently.
———————————————
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
I am reminded of the struggle to find someone to chair the investigation into the alleged paedophile ring at Westminster. The Establishment was being investigated, but it was inconceivable that the chair would be anyone other than a member of the Establishment. Unfortunately that would mean they were conflicted. It looked as if, oh horror! someone from outside the Establishment would have to be chosen but eventually the problem was solved by bringing in someone from a foreign Establishment.
Actually, the most important whitewashing act was excluding investigation of Northern Ireland, since that was where the most explosive allegations could be found.
Try reading: https://villagemagazine.ie/https-villagemagazine-ie-anglo-irish-vice-ring-online-book/
and subsequent links therein and draw your own conclusions…
The British establishment knows that vast swathes of the country do understand very well the real reason why the elites went berserk last week. It’s why it was vital to very early on stigmatise any heterodox thought on Starmer-Savile as nazi conspiracy theorising.
This sentence of yours stands out – “I have often noticed that ordinary people like you and I manage, in general, to live our entire lives with no connection to paedophiles at all.”
I’m absolutely sure that is not true. Would other readers like to comment? Maybe this can be a kind of straw poll.
I’ll start off… A teacher at my school was later convicted of abusing children, and two of my closest friends were abused by family members or friends of the family.
Ronnie,
I think I fairly plainly did not mean connection to paedophiles as victims, but I shall amend to make that clear.
Even with your last minute amendment you are WRONG.
How many people in your life have you regarded or referred to as friends? For somebody like you it will be in the hundreds.
The proportion of men who are paedophiles has been variously estimated to be from 1% to 5%, so almost without doubt you HAVE known people as friends who are paedophiles.
What a peculiarly aggressive tone, and backed up by nothing but assertion.
No, my tone is not aggressive in the slightest, just factual. You could perhaps read this (and many other scientific peer-reviewed publications) for back up:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460489/
As you might say, Ronnie – “My tone was not aggressive in the slightest” – you are WRONG
Well, if the only thing you disagree with is my tone, then I assume that you agree with the substance of my comment and my backup of the substance. By the way, using capitals for emphasis does not convey anything except emphasis.
What an odd poster.
Whilst Ronnie’s tone might leave something to be desired, I’d say that his general point, that paedophilia is more common than most people think, stands.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460489/
By the way, there’s no evidence that Epstein was a paedophile, i.e. someone who is sexually attracted to *pre-pubescent* children. His constantly being referred to as “the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein” on Beeb / Sky News etc is one of my grating fingernails-down-the-blackboard pet peeves. (See also “so-called Islamic State”)
In my opinion, the term ‘paedophile’ should be reserved for individuals like this prominent public figure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4PLSPvJ9BY
(Warning: contains scenes that some viewers may find distressing. However, it’s still very much the sanitized version – the unsanitized one gets quickly removed for obvious reasons. I’m still staggered the Googlies allow any version to remain up.)
What is this bizarre piece of quackademic research Ronnie and Lapsed Agnostisc are quoting here? Having made the claim that up to 5% of the male population are paedophiles – which the authors define as “a sexual interest in children”, the paper goes on to say:
“Despite common misperceptions, pedophilia is neither a necessary nor sufficient precondition for sexual offending against children. In fact, an unknown, but most likely substantial number of people with a sexual preference for children never commit sexual offenses, and an estimated 40–60 percent of sexual offenses against children are not committed by people with pedophilic interests. Nevertheless, research has shown that people from the general public have extremely negative feelings and attitudes with regard to people with pedophilia, including the ones that do not offend.”
So what’s the point of this “research”? To paint paedophilia in a more postive light, so the general public do NOT have such extremely negative feelings and attitudes with regard to people with pedophilia? Perhaps we should welcome them into the LGBTQ…P community? Or am I just hallucinating?
Thanks for your reply Wall. The paper that Ronnie and I linked to (sorry about the repetition, mods – I skipped over Ronnie’s post earlier) provides 3 [THREE] citations for its claim that up to 5% of the male population have paedophilic tendencies. It wasn’t aimed at the general public but at healthcare and counselling professionals. I believe the idea was to give them an idea of the prevalence of such tendencies within society, with a view to reducing the distaste that some of them might feel when dealing with individuals who seek their help with such matters.
This is important because most people are far more prone towards committing illegal acts (e.g. illegal drug taking) when they feel isolated from and rejected by wider society. Most paedophiles do not abuse children, nor do they view child pornography – not least because, in contrast to other forms of pornography*, it’s quite difficult to access. However, if they feel there’s no one they can talk to about their problems, the chances of those things happening are much increased.
One final thought: the Western world doesn’t have quite as much revulsion towards paedophilia as many people think. For example, the age of consent in many EU countries, including Germany & Italy, is 14, and until very recently it was 13 in Spain – which it still is in Japan. Even though the average age of puberty onset is falling – likely due to hormones and hormone mimetics in the water supply – many kids of those ages will still be pre-pubescent. Then there’s the Leader of the ‘Free’ World, who was elected in spite of his predilections (see above Utube link) being widely known.
*In my view, the kids being exposed to that (which will be the majority of them) are, in general, being far more damaged than they might have been by being exposed to a dodgy uncle who has a bit of a fiddle when the parents are too pissed to notice at Christmas. Could be wrong.
How about “people known to be paedophiles” or “people convicted of paedophilia”? Which is I think is closer to what was meant. The various estimates give no indication of who is actually doing it – so you don’t know any of those people to be paedophiles. They may be distributed differently in different populations, particularly if bunched in social classes or subcultures, so the probabilities won’t be the same for everyone. The estimates themselves might be based on shaky assumptions, or using questionable definitions of the key term. So who knows who might have friends who are paedophiles, unless those people have actually been convicted?
Let’s not forget that to end up on the sex offenders register may just involve a crime that in reality has nothing to do with sexual offences or pedophilia but may just involve teenagers and uncontrolled hormonal urges, homosexuality or dodgy images. The Police can sometimes be pretty thick and petty when applying the law, and money and position plays a part.
“The proportion of men who are paedophiles has been variously estimated to be from 1% to 5%…”
To which I can only reply that, “97.3% of unsourced statistics cited on the Web are made up”.
Ronnie, your claim would be more convincing if you used sources and evidence instead of capitals. On most Web sites, such use of capitals is deemed to be “shouting”, and on some it is enough to have your comment deleted immediately.
—
[ Mod: Indeed.
How capital letters became internet code for shouting (and why we should lay off the caps-lock key) – by Alice Robb (New Statesman, 17 April 2014)
Incidentally, “Ronnie” has used several identities over the last few weeks and shares some features with a banned troll with a similarly critical attitude, so he’s being watched closely. ]
[ Mod: From the moderation rules for commenters:
Sockpuppetry.
…. the adoption of multiple identities within the same thread is not to be allowed.
Comments under any sockpuppet identity may now be deleted.
Arguments concerning moderation should not appear in comment threads. ]
—
[ — snip — ]
“The proportion of men who are paedophiles has been variously estimated to be from 1% to 5%….”
Why the gender qualification?
Because the data show that men are far more likely to be paedophiles than women.
Ronnie, it’s a lot harder for women to ‘have sex’ with prepubertal boys. Not unless they were the kind that favoured wearing strap-ons….the male is supposed to be rather active during the sexual process, after all.
It’s a lot simpler if adult men with carnal desires simply abuse a frightened, passive, submissive female child….
Has anyone ever enquired into how many ‘matrons’ at boys boarding schools fancied a bit of hanky panky initiation sessions with adolescent boys??!!
Rhys Jagger
It’s terrible that you suffered years of bullying at school. I went to the same prep school as Piers Motgan. It was a wonderful school and the matrons and headmistress were all.models of maternal affection. Other schools we played sport with had scary bullying from their teachers on the touchline.
The Art mistress told she was a beatnik. “What’s a Beatnick Miss.? ”
” Somebody who never washes but just applies another layer of make up on top of yesterday’s. ” Ugh was the obvious snswer to that.
My parent substitutes male and female, are still very important and respected foster parent role models for me today. To be subjected to bad role models at an early age will stay with the victim all their life in the same way.
One way to cope with sexual abuse is denial, which unfortunately helps paedophiles to escape justice. Denial shunts the problem further down the line, onto victims’ spouses and children. Sexual abuse is always ‘ prolific’, in the sense of the later generations that are affected by the abuse further down the line.
Female perverts not considered because there aren’t that many? It’s an odd form of justice to run a quota system.
I read the article you referenced, and clearly there is a great deal of ignorance at large about pedophilia, which results in the demonisation of people who “have” the condition pedophilia. In particular, it was new to me that many pedophiles never commit abuse and conversely, that many who commit abuse do not actually “have” pedophilia. This needs more public coverage. But I think Craig is referring to people who have committed abuse and what has happened to the evidence against them. The issues that are raised about the Establishment closing ranks – which is undeniable – needs somehow disengaging from the demonisation of pedophilia as a condition, although God knows how because the public imagination is another country.
Craig, with respect, I think you’re missing the point. Many paedophiles are unmasked years later, decades later, when ordinary families, ordinary friends, ordinary colleagues – people like you or me for the most part – never had an inkling over all those years. That doesn’t necessarily mean that no-one knew. In institutions like the Church or Schools, there might have even have been a cover-up. The fact is that any of one us is open to being deceived – many paedophiles are clever and manipulative, with outward personas that give no clue, and it’s also the case, thank goodness, that most of us generally like to think the best of people around us. That isn’t to say your raising the troubling cozy relationships in the Establishment is wrong, obviously not, they continue to be a huge concern as you’ve so expertly demonstrated, but your more general observation could be challenged, which Ronnie was doing. (And Ronnie, FYI, a bald “you are WRONG” in capital letters is the internet equivalent of shouting and should generally be avoided) Cheers. JKM
Turns out an English teacher at my Woodard Corporation school when I was a pupil there in the early seventies was an alledged peadophile. I always wondered why he was so ‘ tolerant ‘ of me! Nothing ever happened in any way to me though and his predilictions were not discovered until well after he had left his post at that school.
Just wanted to add that I really appreciate this blog in general. But the last paragraph of this also stood out at me, even amended. According to the stats, we probably all know paedophiles who are not yet unmasked. Anecdotally, I’ve known several unrelated people who seemed pretty decent people but were later unmasked as paedophiles and sent to prison. I didn’t know any of them very well, but in each case I knew seemingly decent people who knew them better, and as far as I know they had no inkling and saw no warning signs. That doesn’t excuse the establishment situations that are detailed here, though, at all. I think the situation is very subtle.
I find it quite easy to spot an establishment/celebrity paedophile from their photographs. They usually wear a ring on their left pinkie finger. I have many photos which show this. I wondered if in fact, it was some kind of club, like the Masons or something.
Try it for yourself. If someone relatively famous is said to be, or suspected of being, a paedophile, just go and look at a few photos on Google images. You’ll see what I’m talking about.
What bizarre rubbish!!! Show us these “many photos”.
I think he’s being facetious. ;O)
How many stories have circulated in the past, and been written about, about people who attended public/private schools being sexually abused/bugg*ered by masters or senior pupils ? How many of those were ever prosecuted ?
@Clint I sent off for George Melly’s autobiographical trilogy the other day, I’m rather cringeing in anticipation.
Mist001, you appear to have uncovered a culture of wearing signet rings on the left pinkie … which isn’t really much of a secret, considering that there are numerous websites devoted to explaining what that means: https://www.afashionblog.com/why-are-signet-rings-worn-on-the-little-finger/
It was historically used to imprint a sign of honour on wax seals, and the design signified the owner of an estate: therefore nobility or landed gentry. In later years, it was passed down to the non-inheriting sons of those estates as a sign of their noble or landed descent, partly as compensation for their lack of inherited land. These were the businessmen who made the deals that ran the private economy, selling property or signing contracts between commercial companies, and the rings were used as a sign of trust. But of course the practice became a fashion adopted by sloanes in similar social circles and people who just wanted to give the impression of being upper-middle class or trustworthy – including crooks and shady conmen. Did you ever notice what’s on Del Boy’s left hand? He’s got two – https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/re-nation-del-boy-trotters-18600669
You seem to be asserting a strong correlation between signet rings and kiddie-fiddling, purely on the basis of a few photos you’ve noticed of people in the news who’ve been accused or suspected of such behaviour. I don’t think your hypothesis would last very long if you looked for any counter-evidence (false positives or false negatives), or if you had a lot of friends in that social bracket. Wearing a signet ring is either a noble tradition or a pretentious fashion statement. (Maybe Del Boy was aspiring to join a secret cabal of child molestors, but I don’t think that was John Sullivan’s intention.)
What a plonker!
A couple of people defending paedophiles here today. As for your Daily Star link, the matter was raised many years ago when he wasn’t named but was described as ‘The nations favourite market trader’ and was alleged to have an interest in young boys. Interestingly, one of my photos shows him wearing a pinkie ring on his left hand.
I don’t know if this links work, I just picked it at random but you’ll recognise a few notorious faces in this:
https://ibb.co/HqFP5MT
It would be interesting to know to whom you are referring. Or perhaps you are just smearing those taking a different view?
Thanks for the link. Me thinks some people doth protest too much.
You missed my point, Mist001. Del Boy is a fictional character, written by John Sullivan and dressed by the BBC costume department. Del Boy wears a signet ring on his left pinkie because it’s a well known symbol of good reputation in business, associated with upper middle-class families … which of course is also exploited by conmen. That’s the meaning of the signet ring, and it’s why the aspirational conman Del Boy is depicted as wearing one. It’s obviously got nothing to do with membership of elite child abuse clubs.
And this is why the establishment closed ranks over Starmer on the non prosecution of Savile when a crowd gathered to boo him, all manner of establishment folk took to the airways including our own establishment lickspittle Sturgeon to denounce Johnson’s words, though I have no time for Johnson or the Tories, he unwittingly (or not for that matter) set the cat among the pigeons with his comment in the HoC.
Nothing will ever change because these folk and folk like them are weaved through society mostly at the top and mid-levels, all we can hope for is to join the dots together now and then or point out on occasion, when they move as a phalanx to protect one of their own.
It is of interest that only part of Johnson’s attach on Starmer has received a lot of coverage. Johnson said “The right honorable member opposite as director of public prosecutions spent his time prosecuting journalists and failed to prosecute Jimmy Saville”. A search on Google fails to show the first allegation about the accusation of prosecution of journalists. To my knowledge this could easily refer to Starmer’s urging of the Swedes not to have ‘cold feet’ and the relentless pursuit of non other than Assange. Is Johnson referring to Assange or is he referring to something else?
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2022/01/your-man-in-the-public-gallery-assange-hearing-day-oh-god-it-never-ends/comment-page-2/#comment-1008072
We can’t know if Boris was only referring to operation elveden but neither could anyone accuse Boris of supporting Assange.
Thanks ET I missed your post. I would have been very surprised if Johnson was referring to Assange but there’s a coincidence for you!
The decision not to prosecute Savile is seen as at best anomalous and at worst an “establishment conspiracy”. Don’t let facts get in the way of an entertaining trope.
The first allegations raised against Saville came from inmates from Duncroft Approved School in the 1960’s.
Sometime later they got together on the platforms Friendsreunited and Care Leavers Reunited to swap stories of their experiences at Duncroft. Fortunately, retired academic Susanne Cameron-Blackie (an inmate of Duncroft at the same time) was participating in the chat rooms under the pseudonym Anna Raccoon. Cameron-Blackie was able to debunk these stories as the fantasies of attention seeking trolls hiding behind their own pseudonyms in the safety of a chat room.
When these allegations were investigated by the Police, they were confirmed as being false.
At first pass, the Police will have taken the allegations with utmost concern. Multiple “complainants” all from the same place at the same time, all alleging that Savile was a paedophile. The problem was, the allegations didn’t withstand scrutiny.
Oddly, Savile did “hang about” Duncroft from around 1975 and there can be no innocent explanation for that.
If Savile had been taken to court, his lawyers would have a been able to use the discredited Duncroft allegations to argue that their ahem, “eccentric” client was for some reason the target of historic, malicious accusations. Looking like the child catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang-bang probably didn’t help.
https://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/free/lobster75/lob75-anna-raccoon.pdf
It’s interesting that the defence of Sir Kier seems to be not that he ordered an nvestigation into the allegations against Jimmy Savile and found them groundless, but that it wasn’t his position to order an investigation. JS’s guilt seems to be taken for granted.
Thanks Mr/Ms Vlob.
I hope I am understanding this poperly but the gist of the article seems to be that the Savile affair was the result of some demonstrably false allegation completely debunked by actual evidence. The whole affair could well have been a moral panic generated by the media storm. Does anyone remember the amazing allegations of Satanic worship from Orkney in the noughties? These were eventually utterly discredited and appear to have been the result of a campaign for restoration of christian values by some christian fundamentalist sects, suggesting that the secular world had descended into a pit of depravity. My memory is sketchy now but an eminent public academic anthropologist reported on the affair.
This is all rather extraordinary because the Savile affair seems to be central to some wider theory that our social and political institutions are irredeemably corrupted by the permissive sexual values that appear to have become dominant through the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s before the backlash of the 90’s and 20 noughties and even more recently (think of ‘me too’ and the recent shifts in feminist theorising which led to Craig’s imprisonment through his defence of Alex Salmond’s alleged licentiousness. Indeed one could further extrapolate to the Assange affair which hinged upon his sexual activities and these being characterised as transgressive in order to detain him and suspend/discredit his wikileaks activities.
I am not attempting to minimise or exculpate Savile but is it possible he has become symbolic of rejection of the sexual permissiveness of the youthful era of most of the commentators on this blog? Could it be that Savile was simply in a position to exploit this sexual laxity of the time by his association with the pop celebrity culture of
that era?
.
Starmer the self declared zionist, friend of Israel and employer of Mossad agents.
“Carlile states that Janner is his friend. They were both MPs, both QCs, both members of Friends of Israel, both patrons of UK lawyers for Israel and of the Friends of Israel Educational Foundation.”
Go figure.
“Carlile went on to found a company, SC Strategy Ltd, in partnership with Sir John Scarlett, former Head of MI6, who obtained that position as the main author of the infamous “Dodgy dossier” of lies on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
There are intimations in Miles Goslett’s book: ‘An Inconvenient Death’; about the ‘death’ of David Kelly, of Senior legal figures rumoured as being involved in pedophilia.
Go figure.
Dear Craig, thank you for these 2 articles, however I must take issue with the below
“I have often noticed that ordinary people like you and I manage, in general, to live our entire lives with no connection of friendship to paedophiles at all.”
I envy you being in this position. Just as a FYI, I’m far from it, albeit legally dealt with, but it makes life very unpleasant.
Thank you for highlighting the background of this lady Sir Keir selected to exonerate him. Amid all the reporting of this affair I had not seen the name Lord Carlile mentioned once, much less that gentleman’s noteworthy friendships or Commons speech. It seems likely now that all the important details of this affair will slowly gain greater appreciation thanks to the few honest reporters still active.
Either way the Jimmy Savile genie is now well and truly out of the bottle for the Labour leader and I fear no amount of bluster or faux outrage will disappear it again. Savile’s crimes and escape from justice are hardly what any aspiring national leader would wish to be associated with in the public mind. And from what I have heard there are some other choice skeletons from Sir Keir’s time as DPP that could be paraded when the time is least opportune. Then too there are his antics and all his parliamentary votes in the years that followed the EU referendum.
The knight must hope that by the time of the next election his personality and policies will have won enough hearts to render moot his interesting and not entirely savoury or democratic past.
Excellent again.
The Levitt report appears to be this 129 page effort.
https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20130703165341/http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/assets/uploads/files/savile_report.pdf
I have only read the summary. There appears to be no CPS documents available for her to judge on.
Perhaps the CPS was not using email at that point.
Moreover it was not her remit to uncover who was involved in the decision not to prosecute merely to state if it was a clearly wrong decision.
As far as I can tell she never reveals who made the ultimate decision. She does make the case that the no charge decision was not simple (which frankly I find no difficulty in accepting).
2 things.
* Whether Starmer wants to be PM or just wants to prevent the Labour party ever being in power again is debatable – I favour the latter.
Inequality has reversed course from 1980s lows to 1930s highs, and the only politicians that will even recognise the fact are Trump and Boris (I know).
It is quite incredible that the leader of the Labour Party is more tightly bound to and protected by the modern elites than the Old Etonian running the Conservative party.
Where is that Little Red Rooster chappie from the last Establishment thread? He will sort you lot out just as he did before.
You’ll all be sorry, just you wait and see.
Didn’t Johnny Rotten call him out in 1978 and was banned by the BBC soon after for “reasons.” So clearly, things were circulating at that time about Savile. A staff restaurant in Stoke Mandeville hospital used to be called “Jimmy’s” the name being hastily changed after everything came out. Stoke Mandeville hospital was the recipient of most of Savile’s raised charity funds. I recall that there was a paediatrician also convicted of paedophilia who had worked at Stoke Mandeville hospital:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-38366545
An interesting view of Thatcher’s fondness for Savile “was his value as an example of private rather than public provision of healthcare.”
https://conradbrunstrom.wordpress.com/2014/01/18/why-did-margaret-thatcher-like-jimmy-savile-so-much/
Thanks for the interesting article concerning Thatcher’s fondness for Savile. The author perceptively noted that “Thatcher found Savile politically congenial, and when Thatcher found someone politically congenial, then she would ignore any other troubling personality traits.”
Such decisions to ignore the troubling traits in those one considers politically congenial may help to explain how “the powerful always finding themselves connected to Janners, Epsteins, Saviles, Smiths, Mountbattens etc.”
All those connections between the DPP Office, MPs, big law firms, fancy lawyers, judges, paedophiles, protectors/defendors of paedophiles, the royal family and the security services – war-crime cover-ups, dodgy dossiers, pederastic training institutions (also known as Public Schools), Parliament, the Church.
What on earth could be going on here?
If I didn’t know better (because the MSM tell me “nothing to see here”) I’d say the British Establishment is rotten to the core in its every facet.
But then I see acts of selfless kindness – and clear righteous outrage by politicians, lawyers, journalists and the good old BBC (which has never knowingly allowed a paedophile to work for it, and has never covered up for one coming to the defence and aid of poor old Sir Keir – cos they always come to the aid of Labour Leaders under attack) – and I say:
“Gawd bless ya gov. Yer a goodun! one and all!”
And alll is well in Her Majesty’s sacred realm
Mr Glitter, you forgot to mention the Attorney General. For it is she who decides on what is in the public interest in our exemplary democracy.
She is currently busy explaining why it is better that we know nothing about Phil the Greek and his last will and testament.
Perhaps he followed the best of the family traditions and left the best stuff to one of his mistresses.
Better we do not know.
His mistresses – perhaps?
But don’t forget his naval ratings (God bless Kitty Kelley – banned in the freedom of expression loving UK).
Though seeing that such rough trade were generally working class economic conscripts – and actual conscripts during WWII – I guess they’ll be left out.
But the delectable and highly intelligent Suella B would never stoop to such a tactic, surely?
Well, my hunch is that he left something juicy to the widow of John Smith, the former Labour leader.
Surely Suella will deem it proper to protect the children from this harmful knowledge.
Whose children? Phil the Greek’s or those of Elizabeth Bennett’s (aka Lady Smith of Gilmorehill)? – of who the most prominent is arch-unionist BBC hack Sarah.
Bye the way, there is no right-wing political nepotism at the BBC. “The Honourable”Sarah (to give her her Debretts title) is not an untalented hackette whose main recommendation and British state purpose is, with her sister in arms, Kirsty Wark, to denigrate anyone who would suggest that Scotland would be better off escaping the clutches of the dysfunctional British state, and the even more dysfunctional spongeing, idiotic Battenberg-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha crime family.
Oh no. She is there purely on journalistic ability.
Garry, by children I meant us, that is the public (as in “public interest”)
[ Mod: This comment has been duplicated in the discussion forum. ]
—
A few days ago I posted something on the continuing effort to conceal the last will and testament of the Duke of Edinburgh. The Attorney General argues, in a secret hearing, with no opposition, that the “public interest” is best served by keeping the will secret so as to not upset “this unique family”. The judge agrees.
I say old chap! whispers the media. that’s not cricket.
So they are holding a Stewards Inquiry.
I speculated that the problem, or at least one of them, might be something juicy left to the widow of the late leader of the Labour Party, John Smith. Previously I had written of my solid conclusion that John Smith had been “heart-attacked” by his wife. The Duke may have chosen to send her something special….
Anyway, in today’s news:
Scotland
BBC’s Sarah Smith relieved to escape Scottish ‘bile and hatred’
Former Scotland editor says she repeatedly experienced gendered abuse while doing her job
Sarah Smith, the BBC’s former Scotland editor, has said she feels relieved to have left the country after enduring years of misogynistic “bile and hatred” while covering Scottish politics.
Smith, the recently appointed North America editor for BBC News, said she repeatedly experienced gendered abuse while doing her job, which led her to significantly reduce her use of Twitter and to fear she had become a visible target.
Born and educated in Edinburgh, she said she believed much of the abuse came from nationalists because her father was John Smith, the UK Labour party leader who died in 1994. He was a notable critic of Scottish independence.
In remarks published by the Reuters Institute, Smith said: “He was a very well known politician, he was a unionist, people like to therefore assume that my politics must be the same as my father’s, despite me being, one, a different person, and him having been dead for 27 years.”
(continues)
https://archive.is/GmL37#selection-1099.0-1127.235
Sounds to me like another unhappy, embittered woman. Anyway, her mistress is moving her out of harm’s way.
Was Carlisle not appointed as the Govts,ahem,independent reviewer of terrorism legislation after 911?
Going into business with Scarlett must’ve been a different kind of independence I suppose.
The failure by the CPS to prosecute Janner also occurred under Starmer’s watch, but my reading around it was that probably as with Savile, the reasons were more cock-up than conspiracy, much to do with police mishandling and poor communications between them and CPS. Frank Beck was the Jimmy Savile of the 1990s and introduced Janner’s involvement into his trial appoint when he could see that he was going to lose his case and was facing a hefty prison sentence which he then received. He was preparing evidence for an appeal when he died of a heart attack and it is not out of the question that he was a victim of a miscarriage of justice at least in part.
Police methods in the case of both Beck and Janner, which were based on large-scale trawling and fishing for victims, exploiting media hype and hysteria and the lore of substantial compo have been pretty suspect as were the various Savile Inquiries, which relied on people coming forward long after any event to tell their story with the assurance that it would always be believed, no matter how fantastic. The highly biased methods of the current Jay Inquiry are similar and similarly doubtful.
Don’t know about the Janner case but the disappearance of CPS emails etc in the Savile case, the enabling of Savile by ministers and royalty, the current Conservative support for Starmer, it all suggests the failure to prosecute in that case was no cock-up. Everything about the Establishment’s reaction to the Bozo comment this past week stinks to high heaven.
The sheer weirdness, phoniness, theatricality, unnaturalness and artificiality of these reactions, their coordinated and synchronised nature, their unrelatedness to natural human responses, make them seem to be of a piece with the “Novichok” nonsense as well as the “antisemitism” nonsense. A bunch of “poor players strutting and fretting”. It adds to a deep sense of unease at being governed by people who seem both unprecedentedly incompetent and unprecedentedly corrupt. It’s indescribably unsettling. Where is reality?
I work in the legal world. My initial reaction to Boris’s first comment on this, and the first backlash that day, was “hang on a minute. Yes, it was a low blow by Johnson for obvious distraction purposes, but are you seriously suggesting the DPP was not involved in decisions concerning an incredibly high profile person charged with incredibly serious crimes? Pull the other one.” If he was not involved, that would have been the most extraordinary deriliction of duty.
I find myself utterly astonished by what has happened subsequently to denounce the very idea. Of course he would not have been the person actually doing the analysis, and making the recommendations, but no way was it not all run past him in detail, with him approving the decision.
I’m not someone who tries to cause trouble. I’m a fairly bland middle class, middle aged white heterosexual professional man. But I am someone who finds that my critical thinking skills rebel violently against some of the bullshit I am being force fed these days. For which, see also the official narrative on Salisbury.
“more cock-up than conspiracy, much to do with police mishandling and poor communications between them and CPS”
There could have been a conspiracy to produce police mishandling and poor communications.
Wikipedia tells me that Munira Mirza’s husband runs a swingers agency.Considering that parents who throw the rules in the bin are highly likely to create the same environment for their children, how do these spads get within a mile of No 10? As a child we lived round the corner in <anchester from the Dickenson Road studios where Top of the Pops was made. Whoever was providing the children for the audience must have been fully aware what was going on with Savile. Similarly the entire House of Commons must have been aware of what Boris Johnson was doing during lockdowns.
This sordid Prime Minister , caught like a rabbit in the headlights of public disapproval has thrown a stink bomb, assuming that everybody now possibly knows everything about him, to shut them up. The fact that he has done so is to me an indication that there is much worse sleaze being suppressed about Boris Johnson that anybody in the establishment would ever want to be made public.He condemns himself quite unnecessarily to public suspicion by opening this horrible can of worms about Savile and Starmer.
I can only suppose that he wants to test the waters about the watertightness of parliamentary gossip, fearing quicksand , or sinkhole, or Et tu Brutus, like a aeroplane where the pilot has died being flown back to safety by a trainee with Kwasey Karteng guiding him through to the runway on a mobile phone. Why doesn't he just accept his fate and GO ?!
There really is no comparison between Savile’s depravity and Johnson’s garden piss-ups.
One was pure premeditated evil, the other hypocritical but harmless tomfoolery.
Rhys Jsgger
I suspect if you knew the full story you would say they arecthe same. The only difference being that Johnson is alive snd in office while Savile has artistic licence and is dead. He did after all shag David Cameron’s wife, for no other reason than he happened to be his best mate.
Johnson will regret stirring up the Savile case because Starmer was obeying orders. There again for all we know Johnson was told by the Security Services to nobble Cameron. It’s a competition who can be the biggest bustard. Who wins gets the prize of power. Bullingdon rules.
surely you are mot suggesting Savile and mrs Cameron were some kind of very weird item. that sounds pure bonkers.
rhys – did you see the article ‘upthread’ linked in Vivian o’blivian’s comment
What on earth is a swingers agency?
The ‘Bullingdon Spaffer’ from sheer desperation has let a very incontinent cat out of the bag.
The stench is overpowering, the ordure is everywhere.
Can the collective outrage of the noble fourth estate force it back into the bag ? Can the stains (in two Houses) be expunged ?
Unlike the ‘Great Lie’ perpetrated against Corbyn, they’ll want all this to disappear down a memory hole
The veiled lawfare threats of a bloated old trout won’t keep this establishment nightmare off social media.
They can’t sue thousands merely for asking questions, & drawing rational conclusions.
Can’t predict where this’ll go.
Thanks for your journalism Craig
i dont think your comment is even remotely coherent.
*@ Deepgreenpuddock
Dear Mr Puddock,
Thank you for your generous & lucid appreciation.
Reminds me of the sorts of comments made on my Bolshy essays by my cane wielding history teacher in the 1960’s.
Perhaps my post was a bit over elaborated ( even my dear wife ) said “be more direct”.
I hadn’t heard of “to spaff” myself until a few days ago , & regret its inclusion into the vocabulary.
‘Bullingdon’ ‘ memory hole’ ‘ fourth estate’ ‘ Big Lie’ you surely know.
The “bloated old trout “ was a reference to the RedTrout Star who became quite exasperated in the comment section following Craig’s Establishment Part 1 a few days ago. ( You were quite activated too I noticed).
He huffed , & he puffed, & he threatened to blow everybody’s house down.
Nobody took any notice whatsoever of the dear old buffer’s thinly veiled lawfare threats.
I see that you are still peddling the line that it was a “ disgusting smear”, & the failure to proceed was “ in the national interest”.
I suppose that the destruction of the memos, papers, hard drives relating to the case served the same interests. Pubic scrutiny is verboten !
Just guessing you’ll also have been appalled by Sir Starmer being heckled by a few protestors ( a fascist mob apparently). We might never find out ,though it really does look like it might have been a put up job to garner *even more* sympathy for the forensic one,
(Nearly finished….)
As for the “ can’t predict …” bit, well we really can’t decide whether the slur will die a death, or whether this unforeseen hiatus will impede Starmer’s seemingly unstoppable march to full anointment. The ‘general public ‘ don’t seem terribly impressed yet. Who knows ??
Starmer’s ability to suppress & censor is truly astonishing. Not only of dissenters within the party itself, but of the also the Forde Report, & now (so Electronic Intafada report ) also of the original leaked report into the ‘destroy Corbyn at all costs’ efforts after 2016 by party bureaucrats. Money no object.
We’ve now got an unnecessary war to contend with, so I’ll wish you all the best, & remind you that the living will envy the dead should it go nuclear. Regards
Sikunder x
When information like this comes to light, as well as things like spying (e.g. Jamal Khashoggi’s phone being hacked by Israeli software), troll farms (being used to covertly influence online forums etc.), dirty campaigns against good people (e.g. Jeremy Corbyn), blatant lies (see the Jewish Chronicle (numerous occasions)), very often there’s some connection to the Israeli regime.
At the risk of being labelled ‘antisemitic’, I would say that the Israeli regime is a force for evil.
(See also: ongoing oppression of Palestinians (destruction of homes, land etc.), ongoing murder of Palestinians, ongoing ‘news’ blackout about these atrocities in the media (BBC, ITV, etc. etc.)).
The jewish people are not evil, they’re just people like all of us. It’s the Israeli regime that has somehow been captured by, or appears to serve, a very dark force indeed. (As have very many other governments.)
I know that some people will see this comment and say “conspiracy theory” – but, if what I have posted is true, how else could it possibly be articulated?
If the truth sounds like a conspiracy, too bad. It’s still the truth.
The zionist regime and its fellow-travellers are proxies of American Caesar, hence their promiscuous allegations of antisemitism against everyone not antisemitic and silence about Ukrainian nazis, the Orban regime etc blah.
Pegasus and spying in general is the role of humanity’s unseen enemy , Satan. Satan’s double binding goes like this:
You know you are being spied on because the spy has indirectly or directly told you to be on your guard. The multiplicity of your contacts that are trying to manipulate you means government is paying , not just one person.
Government pretends to be keeping tabs on terrorism but is in fact looking for terror patsies and hate you for disagreeing with their politics. The agent’s employment is justified by lies concocted about you by someone else, but his own personal agenda is manufacturing scandal to sell you to the state.
The cocktail of lies is designed to drive you mad because the entire justification for spying on you is fictitious.
You represent no threat to the state and no threat to anybody else. But if you become angry with this gross intrusion into your personal life, you’re toast.
> At the risk of being labelled ‘antisemitic’
You can achieve that simply by declaring Israel an apartheid regime. In that respect, it’s a badge of pride.
I like the disconnect between the job and private morality in this Daily Mail article 27.01.2007
“Government anti-terror adviser Lord Carlile of Berriew has left his wife of 37 years for a talented barrister 15 years his junior.
The Liberal Democrat peer, who is in charge of reviewing anti-terror laws, had a five-month affair with married Alison Levitt before confessing his adultery to loyal wife Frances.
Lord Carlile, 58, told his shocked wife that he was ‘bored’ with her and revealed that he had had another affair years earlier when their three daughters were very young.
Lord Carlile, an eminent QC, has now moved Ms Levitt into the flat near his London chambers that he once shared with his wife. Lady Carlile’s name has been removed from the door and Ms Levitt’s put in its place”.
Then, 2008 after 20 + years as a barrister Ms Levitt becomes a QC, is headhunted to be the Legal Advisor to Starmer’s CPS and wrote the “Savile” report, narrowly missed out on becoming Starmer’s successor as DPP, returned to barrister work and since October 2021 is now a …….Circuit Judge. Another example of private immorality being clearly no bar to “getting on” in public life.
You should submit that as a letter to Private Eye.
Kind regards,
Scott
Who knows what the truth of Carlile’s marriage was? Having a hot shag isn’t the world’s worst crime, you know. And he did then divorce his wife and move in with his former mistress.
It’s not saintly behaviour, but I don’t think you can demand saintly behaviour in real life. if you did, no-one would ever recognise the criminals.
Rhys
agreed (sort of) but these things often have a habit of coming back to haunt.
It’s wrong to use the term paedophile like this. You don’t read reports of ‘heterosexual convicted of rape’ so why use terms like ‘prolific paedophile.’
Being a paedophile is not illegal in itself although I suspect some are convicted for such like gay men were for indecency for simply being homosexual rather than any gay actions, e.g. kissing a man.
The term used, but that only should be used for those who do such, should be sexual abuser of children.
Southpawpunch
The annoying thing about Tories is their weird belief that destroying the socialism is a pious good deed, and their peccadilloes will be ignored on account of their dragon-slaying efforts in the red or blue Tory cause. Starmer and Johnson Labour under this same misconception, that their honour in the Tory cause will justify their exonerated of Savile and persecution of Corbyn and Assange in public opinion.
But neither Conservatism nor Christianity are in themselves a noble enough cause to justify priests sexually abusing children or politicians boozing in No 10 during universal lockdown. The British public want pensions, NHS, education, safety provided by Socialism and they don’t believe in the cause of rabid free enterprise or religion.
Only if the politicians were doing what the public want would their peccadilloes be absolved in the public eyes..
Giyane – the fundamental difference between ‘conservative’ and ‘Labour’ was supposed to be two-fold:
Now it is obvious that such black and white descriptions are far too simplistic. A third difference concerns the role of the State: traditional Conservatives believe in limiting the power of the State wherever possible, whereas for traditional ‘Labour Party’ supporters, the State was the route to solving all problems.
The reality in the real world is that different people have different motivations in life. I am not anti-competitive behaviour, I just grew out of it by the age of about 17. I’m not driven by ‘keeping up with the Jones”, mainly because the standards of the Jones’ in this country was so much lower than the standards of those i studied under abroad, people who never compared you to anyone else, rather focussed on your own personal standards and aspirations.
I found the attitudes of certain Cambridge Dons quite frankly pathetic, forever wittering on about Cambridge vs Oxford. I’d rather go to a third rate institution with a perfect fit than the top one that treated me like muck, to be honest. There was more excellent young talent destroyed in Cambridge in the early 80s than any compassionate society would ever tolerate: the hyper-elitism of the place considered ‘acceptable collateral damage’ to be the way to create genii. I beg to disagree….the highest rates of suicide in the country is no way to treat the top 2% of young humanity….you can honour the best without needing to belittle and denigrate the next best….
Other people are truly driven by ‘the need to reach the top’. Well, the question there is what ‘the top’ actually means. If it means behaving like a psychopath, invading the personal space of anyone you perceive to be your competitor, then it’s questionable that that’s acceptable. I have zero tolerance for people then saying ‘if you can’t stand the heat….’ If you cannot work in an honourable field without becoming a psychopath, what does that say about society, eh??
We have a society where you have to be brutal and ruthless to earn the cash to become philanthropic, apparently. My experience of life is that the brutally competitive are never philanthropic, they need too be seen to be philanthropic. Their brutality and competitive drives are lifelong, their ability to be empathic, shrivelled up in a part of their brain that never developed. They surround themselves with yes-folk, promote them as long as they are ass-lickers and crush anyone who says they respect them but do not fear them. So much for ‘an icon of society’, eh??
Both the Labour Party and the Tory Party are hierarchical, top-down authoritarian power cultures. It’s the way that power operates.
It’s not going to change in the future, I’m sorry to say.
Rhys Jagger
I don’t mind being a slave to a compassionate God, whose plans for me encompass and surpass my knowledge of my own self. The British Empire needed a good kicking by two world wars in order to produce a welfare state. The recidivist Tory and Labour Parties who want to turn the clock back to pre-war times will in line for a good kicking by Xi and Putin if they try to rebuild their Victorian empires today. I suspect US sanctions would leave Russia and China completely unscathed. I hate New Labour and Populist Tories enough to say. Bring it on. We are not going to change these recidivist British criminal elites any other way.
“Both the Labour Party and the Tory Party are hierarchical, top-down authoritarian power cultures. It’s the way that power operates. It’s not going to change in the future, I’m sorry to say.”
you are assuming that the conditions that have caused our political systems to evolve as they have will never change. I suspect there are some abrupt chnges on the way. Our politics at the moment are not consistent with some overwhelmingly important changes in the environment (social/natural/biological/philosophical)
The term “paedophile” is a nonsense. It means “lover of children” and are we not all supposed to do that?
Southpawpunch
People who have sexual urges towards children are weird and unpleasant. I am not sure how useful the distinction is that you seek to draw. If you are saying there exist paedophiles who do not actually touch children or watch child pornography, that seems to me a pretty dull point.
Bayard
Bullshit. What you give is the Latin derivation of the word, not its meaning in today’s English.
Craig, sorry, I thought that was obvious from the context. BTW, it’s Greek, not Latin. It’s still nonsense, though. Other words that end in “-phile” don’t mean a sexual relationship, so it’s confusing, or have I been wrong about bibliophiles all my life?
Bayard
Words can change meaning both by translation from Greek to Latin and from Latin to English and through time. The ancient Greeks were quite keen on paedophilia , and Usbek hero, founder of the Mughal Empire in India, also thought it was worth a try according to Wikipaedia.
The euphemistic word of a person who commits the crime of sexual abuse of children is paedophile. Same as the euphemistic word for politicians incorrectly using statistics is damned lies. BTW Fraud is real crime.
The word was invented by Krafft-Ebing in 1900, it is not a translation form the ancient Greek. The word “philia” in ancient Greek doesn’t mean sexual love, that is “eros”, which is why paedophile is the only word ending in -phile that does have the sexual meaning of “love”, presumably because it was coined as a euphemism so that the sexual meaning was hidden.
Well done Craig, for revisiting this. Shocking how so many in the Scottish indy movement are swallowing the MSM whitewashing of Starmer.. the MSM is Scotland’s primary enemy.
Well anyway, here is a great piece on the matter by Jonathan Cook at Consortium News –
Neither Murray ( Craig ) nor I have unique, Sherlock-type powers of deduction that allow us to join the dots in ways no one else can manage. All of this information is in the public realm, and all of it is known to the editors of the British media. They are not only choosing to avoid mentioning it in the context of the current row, but they are actively fulminating against Boris Johnson for having done so.
The prime minister’s crime isn’t that he has “smeared” Starmer. It is that — out of desperate self-preservation — he has exposed the dark underbelly of the Establishment. He has broken the elite’s omerta, its vow of silence. He has made the unpardonable sin of grassing up the Establishment to which he belongs. He has potentially given ammunition to the great unwashed to expose the Establishment’s misdeeds, to blow apart its cover story. That is why the anger is far more palpable and decisive about Johnson smearing Starmer than it ever was when Johnson smeared the rest of us by partying on through the lockdowns.
Boris Bashing & the Assange Factor
February 9, 2022
The sudden chorus of outrage at the prime minister for impugning the reputation of the opposition leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is strange in many ways, writes Jonathan Cook.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/09/boris-bashing-the-assange-factor/?
” I have often noticed that ordinary people like you and I manage, in general, to live our entire lives with no connection of friendship to paedophiles at all. ”
None that you know of. It’s not something offenders brag about or tend to mention in casual conversation.
Peter Mandelson was pictured partying and shopping with Jeffrey Epstein after the latter had been jailed for child sex offences. Indeed it has been established that he contacted Epstein even while the latter was serving prison time in Florida. It is less clear how aware Lord Carlile was of the crimes of Greville Janner and Cyril Smith, but Carlile is not the peer running today’s Labour Party.
Which peer is running today’s Labour Party?
Someone who puts to bed this disgraceful insinuation that Sir Starmer is intensely relaxed about elite paedophilia. As the media have rightly been pointing out.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/starmer-calls-in-mandelson-to-inject-a-dose-of-new-labours-winning-mentality-wr0w25jpb
Ah. You meant Lord Mandelson, the well-known and intensely-relaxed oligarchophile.
I hear there are drugs that will do that to particular sphincters.
Indeed. And doutless there are plenty of Establishment paedophiles who also never get outed. But most people don’t know any outed paedophiles, while the senior ranks of the Establishment find they accidentally bumped into them all the time. Still strikes me as strange.
isnt there a well known fallacy (can’t remember the name) where we tend to confirm our preconceptions with ‘evidence’ which, when objectively assessed turns out to be false or simply, statistically speaking, serendipitous ie. it doesn’t deviate significantly from random?
confirmation bias?
”Its a big club, and you are not in it, you and me are not in the big club”
— George Carlin.
‘It is extraordinary that these people manage to become so rich and powerful when they are entirely unobservant.’
The first rule of the Establishment is that, however observant you might be, you keep all those observations strictly to yourself. The Establishment protects its own and ousts the honest observant types outraged by what they have seen.
I personally find it extraordinary that the route to seniority in the medical profession is through early recruitment into the Security Services. It is well known that much of the work of the Security Services domestically involves emotional torture, something specifically designed to break human health. That anyone purporting to be a doctor could ever consent to being part of that is quite astonishing until you realise that many of those ‘entering medicine’ do so as a social climbing exercise, not as a self-less act of service. There are widespread spying networks in UK medicine and, the higher up the tree you go, the more you must be integrated into the Security Services operations.
Part of this was exemplified by the importance of choosing the right golf club to become a member of if you wished to obtain a consultant’s position in Oxford. Just how golf is critical to being a medical practicioner, as opposed to a minor social coincidence, is beyond me. But I cannot argue with the facts on the ground….
Another well researched bombshell picked out of Starmer’s overgrown garden. Despite the bindweed trying to smother it.
Thank you, will keep up the support for filling in the holes the toxic media dare not touches, those who refused you entry to their circle of cap-duffing scribes, are mere flags in the wind, wherever it blows from they will point their inky digits.
Saville was protected by the establishment who he served; he was their fixer, just as Epstein was, ain’t that right Mr Clinton?
While I’m thoroughly in sympathy with this article and with Craig’s work for Julian Assange I regret the use of the word ‘paedophile’ to mean ‘child abuser’. I take it that a paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. In fact in its widest derivation from the Greek it means someone who likes children. If the word has become a synonym for child abuser then surely another word has to be found to signify someone who is sexually attracted to children without necessarily entering into sexual relations with them. Unless of course one thinks that that category of person doesn’t exist.
Peter Brooke
As the Amazon ad says, There’s more to Prime Minister. A truckload more. A truckload more of what…?
O/T.
Two big demos are taking place in Edinburgh and Glasgow on Saturday at 1pm over the rising cost of living and heating, one will be held outside Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh, the other in George Square Glasgow, they’ve been organised by the People’s Assembly.
Multiple speakers have been lined up for the Glasgow demo, but no speakers have been confirmed yet for the Edinburgh demo.
I don’t know if its just me Craig but Twitter is blocking me from reading your tweets, I can read other Craig Murray’s tweets just not yours. This could be happening to many other folk as well.
Yes, it is happening a great deal lately
I don’t use a Twitter account and even if I thoroughly clear(even reset) my web browser cache I can’t read without popups telling me to login etc. They’ve definitely changed something.
Also, something to look out for is the news Twitter are conducting trials of a down-vote button. This could be quite a sinister development here’s why:
A little background…there’s a website called Ars Technica, Ed Snowden famously used to comment in the forums there, and quite a few of its regulars have deep tech knowledge. It’s become home to scores of ultra pro-govt sockpuppets.
Ars technica is owned by Condé Nast – the global mass media company. Ars runs quite a few v.negative stories, often from its sister publications on Russia/China /Assange etc . Anyone questioning the official narratives, or defending Assange, gets down-voted to hell, and all the usual ‘Russian troll farm’ accusations levelled against them. The real problem though, is enough downvotes and the post disappears from view, creating a perverse incentive system for the dozens of sockpuppets. I don’t know what Twitter has planned, but if it’s anything like Ars it’s a most unwelcome development.
I discovered yesterday that YouTube is blocking me completely.
And subtly. I guess you all know about this already.
For a while I couldn’t put anything up. Then that cleared. But I noticed that nobody was replying to me or giving a vote.
I went into settings, deleted their cookies, went back, and I had vanished.
I did a bit of research and found it to be named “shadow banning”. It’s very subtle as I say because you think you have posted but you are the only person who can see the post. And there are reams of comments on the internet about the YT algorithm that does this heavyhandedly.
Well no point going there again, and thankful for this site where the moderating is relatively light touch.
We are at a time in history in the west, where we have very weak, discredited politicians and ultra powerful intel agencies and big tech due to the importance of the online world with its surveillance capitalism and AI. Increasingly these tech giants are merging with the security state + military to protect their monopolistic nature.
We are all collectively sleepwalking into a dystopia, in which unelected, overreaching securocrats seek to control all information and cancel dissenting voices. And the politicians we elect to represent us and defend our rights, seem to think it is their role to roll over and let this happen by siding with those doing this. This is a direct result of the limited choice democracies in the US and UK – if both parties agree to betray their people, what can be done?
Comments I post on YT have been taken down repeatedly for months now. I have actually seen one disappear within seconds of posting it and I know that its removal was done by YT and not by the host of the channel because I later emailed them about it later – they were obviously as gobsmacked as me. Another thing YT does on an increasingly regular basis is put unwanted content behind its own filters. For instance, the latest Amnesty International report that calls Israel “an apartheid state” was originally open to all viewers. Then a day or so later, I found that I was blocked from viewing it by a “verify your age” firewall. I emailed a few friends to ask if they were experiening the same problem and interestingly got a whole range of replies. One person said there was no filter applied at all, while another confirmed (some days later) that there was now a cautionary notice warning of “disturbing content” but no actual restriction on watching it. Meanwhile, I am still blocked with a “verify your age” firewall which I refuse to comply with since it requires providing YT/Google/Alphabet with private data that I have no intention of supplying them.
So poor Sir Keir was let down by CPS and police “incompetence”.
Tsk, tsk!
Mind you it’s funny isn’t it,. that when it suits them, “they” become very, very competent indeed?
@J Galt The state has only two excuses, “overzealous junior officers” and “crowds whipped up by outside agitators”. This time we have both….
I thought it was widely known that the security services hold a “control file” on politicians. As the name implies, it is there as a means of controlling said politicians. To this end, the security services are more than happy for the venal and/or perverted to become politicians — and there is always a strong suspicion that the morally compromised are likely to be favoured over upright citizens when climbing the greasy pole of politics.
I am reminded of the note sent to Jimmy Savile on his 80th birthday that accompanied a gift: ““Nobody will ever know what you have done for this country Jimmy. This is to go some way in thanking you for that.” I rather suspect that Savile was being protected because he was serving an important function in facilitating the “kompromat” of politicians and others.
As for Starmer, he’s full-on establishment and a globalist, to boot. With Starmer as the leader of the so-called “opposition”, British politics has finally become a simulacrum of democracy that has long been in the making. (Think USA Democrats vs Republicans.) If Starmer becomes Prime Minister, oh boy, we’re going to get the Great Reset on steroids. Fundamentally, the UK is fucked and all democratic means of change have been closed off.
They seem pretty determined that he will be. Never seen anything quite like these outpourings on behalf of a man with few evident qualities.
The UK operates by ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ (NCND) approach.
Jeez, what horrors lurk in a few mundane words?
You seem to have provoked a lot of anger on behalf of paedophilia in general and Jimmie Saville and Jeffrey Epstein in particular. Perhaps old Ronnie’s unevidenced guesstimate isn’t as outlandish as it seems.
Put aside the notorious Prep/Public School system and the UK still has an international reputation for child abuse on an industrial scale. Literally industrial: children, taken from their parents, kidnapped or orphaned formed a vital part of the workforces of the early industrial revolution. Jane Humphries wrote a very good book about it.
Iroquois and Wendat visitors to London and Paris in the C17th were thoroughly shocked by the cruelty perpetrated on children, a stark contrast to the treatment they got in most cultures. The recent ‘The Dawn of Everything’ has a reference to this.
The year before 1619-when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia- a boatload of children arrived to be employed as unpaid labour.
Thousands of children were virtually enslaved and died as plantation labour in the Caribbean too. In all the British colonies-Canada, Australia, South Africa etc- hundreds of thousands of children, from workhouses or scooped off the streets, were given to settlers to use as cheap labour. Gordon Brown apologised for it when he was PM. In Canada the Home Boy system died out in the 1930s (there being no shortage of labour). In Australia it seems to have continued until very recently. The Residential School scandals have deep roots.
In a society in which children must do as they are told it isn’t long before they are told to perform sexual services. In a society dominated by the products of an educational system notorious for its relaxed attitudes towards adults (including teenagers) seducing or raping pre-pubescent as well as adolescent boys and girls, it is not surprising that what is being called ‘pedophilia’ is a protected activity for the powerful.
Finally, regarding the ‘pinky’ ring story it is very likely that younger sons- whose deprivations were necessary to support primogeniture- were encouraged to develop the consolations of the ‘life long bachelor’. Similarly it is certainly the case that schoolmasters (ushers) in the public schools were not paid well enough to marry- Housemasters of course being the exceptions.
As to the current usage of “pedophile” it seems to conflate the perverse sexual; exploitation of pre-pubescent children with the prostitution of nubile young women. The first is a very unusual taboo, in most societies, whereas the latter is the luxury end of the world’s oldest profession.
I understand how tempting it is to call the late Mr Epstein and his friends in high society pedophiles but what they actually seem to be doing-and which is equally reprehensible- is buying and selling the sexual favours of young women- an example of the dramatic inequalities in our society. Blaming ‘perversion’ for something that is hardwired into the capitalist system-exploitation of the poor- deflects attention from the underlying problem which is not individual sinfulness but class rule.
What I find rather disturbing, is the number of posters who are trying to muddy the waters over the use of the description ‘paedophile’.
One poster even seeks to separate the sexual attraction to children from any sexual acts with them.
Jeez, we really are accelerating down the road to hell.
I suppose Fat Jon is among those who think that it’s impossible for a man to be attracted to a woman without wanting to rape her.
Good point, well made, Peter – though I think Jon is in effect saying that it’s impossible to be attracted to a woman without actually being a rapist. It’s certainly not an echo chamber in here.
Anyway if I was him*, I’d be less concerned with a few commenters making logical statements [e.g. thinking about doing something is not the same thing as actually doing it] on a blog – and more concerned with things like this:
Biden touching girls compilation (RAW CSPAN FOOTAGE) – aoflex (19 May 2020) – YouTube, 12m 15s
(WARNING: Contains state-sponsored noncery)
*I assume that’s the correct pronoun – apologies if not.
P.S. Thanks Bevin for the great post above.
Not just one poster but the quackademic paper that two posters have directly linked to actually tries to persuade us all to make the same distinction. Road to hell indeed.
Ah, thoughtcrime!