Awkward. Butler-Sloss once said leaders have “sovereign” right to immunity and anonymity

Tom Pride reveals that Butler-Sloss once claimed acted to protect King Fahd of Saudi Arabia’s anonymity during a court case, fearing that revealing his name would allow the press to put even more information before the public. So, definitely not someone to head a public inquiry into child abuse by the rich and powerful. To the establishment, of course, it makes her the ideal person to put in charge of the case. As for Fahd, it’s not hard to see why she acted that way. He was obese, brutal and corrupt – but we need their oil, and their cooperation in the Middle East. Hence her decision.

Pride's Purge

(not satire – it’s the UK today)

I’ve already written about the unsuitability of putting Lady Butler-Sloss in charge of the official inquiry into child abuse by VIPs – not least because she would have to investigate her own brother.

But here’s an even more compelling reason she must stand down.

Unbelievably, Butler-Sloss has stated that she thinks heads of states and leaders have the right to immunity from court action.

She has also said that she thinks heads of states and leaders should have the right to remain anonymous during court cases.

In 2004, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss – then president of the high court’s family division – assigned a false name to a case launched in the English courts to protect King Fahd of Saudi Arabia:

Judge protected king with false name

The reason she gave for her bizarre actions was because she said the king was entitled to “sovereign immunity“.

She…

View original post 270 more words