Lord Jenner not to be charged with Historic Child Abuse

123457

Comments

  • swingalegswingaleg Posts: 102,987
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Landis wrote: »
    I am also nervous about this story.
    What must be avoided at all costs is another huge cover up. But if that was to happen....what would the start of that cover up look like?
    Would it start with one half of Westminster saying to the other half:
    "You do realise that the skeletons in the cupboard that are about to emerge are not all Tory skeletons?"

    I think the implications of this decision may be far reaching.

    if the Establishment were intent on a cover up they wouldn't start from here.......from a position where he's been more or less pronounced guilty in the public media without even having a trial

    If they were intent of covering it up surely the cover up would have involved not letting his name into the public domain at all in relation to these allegations !

    Too late to cover up now........the horse has bolted

    Or do you mean that the 'Tory Establishment' has let this one out because he was Labour ?..........

    I have nothing at all in the way of evidence but my suspicion is that the 'organised Westminster paedophile gang' was Tories ie the Dolphin Square gang and the odd Labour and Liberal person was more of a lone wolf. I suppose if there is evidence that Cyril Smith or Janner were regulars at the Dolphin Square apartments then my view would undoubtedly be wrong

    ( I also think the smoking gun might be 'what did Thatcher know?')
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,405
    Forum Member
    alfamale wrote: »
    I wonder how relevant dementia is to civil proceedings. Because if civil cases for damages can go ahead then at least perhaps his victims could take all his wealth. I don't think burden of proof is a worry (although it might be relevant on each individual basis) because i think this is probably the first time I've ever seen both the police and CPS release criminal charge statements that actually imply the bloke is guilty as sin and its only his dementia that's stopping him going to prison.

    I think the net is closing around Janner now. One victim has gone public (see http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lord-janner-sexually-abused-me-bush-claims-alleged-victim-hamish-baillie-1497343), it appears that the civil cases are starting (see http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/greville-janners-alleged-victims-sue-5540690) and in today's Times (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers), politicians from 7 political parties called for Janner to be prosecuted. I certainly hope that the case is reopened and that Janner is given a new independent medical inspection to see just how really ill he is.
  • alfamalealfamale Posts: 10,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Janner seems to have been sound of mind enough to sign over his £2M property to his children in Mar 2014 according to Daily Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051384/Janner-gave-children-deeds-2m-home-height-abuse-probe-echo-Stuart-Hall-case-slash-potential-payouts.html
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    I certainly hope that the case is reopened and that Janner is given a new independent medical inspection to see just how really ill he is.

    Independent of who?

    Weren't there 4 doctors who agreed that he was unfit to stand trial, 2 for the defence, 1 for the police and 1 for the CPS?
  • BrawladBrawlad Posts: 5,711
    Forum Member
    alfamale wrote: »
    Janner seems to have been sound of mind enough to sign over his £2M property to his children in Mar 2014 according to Daily Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3051384/Janner-gave-children-deeds-2m-home-height-abuse-probe-echo-Stuart-Hall-case-slash-potential-payouts.html

    As he is obviously of unfit mind , the legality of that document is in doubt.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 16
    Forum Member
    I find it somewhat ironic that Janner has called for ex Nazis to be prosecuted, saying that dementia shouldn't be a bar to stop the prosecutions, but then uses dementia to avoid prosecution himself.

    Of course, the establishment are happy for him not to be prosecuted because once one of them is found guilty the whole house of cards will begin to topple and others will be exposed, including those who are still abusing children to this day.
  • clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭

    This:
    Janner hosted at least four private banquets as well as dinners and afternoon teas at the House of Lords after being diagnosed with Alzheimer's;
    A dossier about the peer is among 114 files on child sex abuse that have gone missing from the Home Office;
    Mrs Saunders has admitted that having dementia is 'not a bar' to being prosecuted.


    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054583/The-rape-justice-Damning-new-evidence-Labour-peer-Lord-Janner-s-child-sex-abuse-covered-police-social-workers-20-years.html#ixzz3YJHiIuSh
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
  • *Sparkle**Sparkle* Posts: 10,955
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm torn on this.

    Obviously, if he's guilty, he's guilty and all of the evidence points that way.

    On the other hand, I do agree that it's dangerous to conduct a criminal trial against someone with severe dementia, especially as it will only get worse, and there's no realistic likelihood of him going to prison etc.

    Dementia is a disease that progresses, but also one that's variable, so it's quite plausible he'll have lucid days or hours, but still not be fit to stand trial. Regarding signing powers of attorney etc, I believe that it's not uncommon for everyone to have to wait for a time when the individual is sufficiently lucid and to get them on a good day, or the right time of day etc.

    The fact he's famous shouldn't influence our views.

    However, I completely agree that this shouldn't prevent civil actions, and that could include claims against his estate.

    I've read he's still getting paid to be a 'Lord', and that should probably stop. If there is no mechanism for that, it should be introduced as soon as possible.
  • jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I find it somewhat ironic that Janner has called for ex Nazis to be prosecuted, saying that dementia shouldn't be a bar to stop the prosecutions, but then uses dementia to avoid prosecution himself..................

    He probably also feels that jewish people are entitled to recover money and assets stolen from them by the nazis (a perfectly fair view) but that it's far too late for palestinians to try to recover the land stolen from them by the jews.
  • MariesamMariesam Posts: 3,797
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    *Sparkle* wrote: »
    I'm torn on this.

    Obviously, if he's guilty, he's guilty and all of the evidence points that way.

    On the other hand, I do agree that it's dangerous to conduct a criminal trial against someone with severe dementia, especially as it will only get worse, and there's no realistic likelihood of him going to prison etc.

    Dementia is a disease that progresses, but also one that's variable, so it's quite plausible he'll have lucid days or hours, but still not be fit to stand trial. Regarding signing powers of attorney etc, I believe that it's not uncommon for everyone to have to wait for a time when the individual is sufficiently lucid and to get them on a good day, or the right time of day etc.

    The fact he's famous shouldn't influence our views.

    However, I completely agree that this shouldn't prevent civil actions, and that could include claims against his estate.

    I've read he's still getting paid to be a 'Lord', and that should probably stop. If there is no mechanism for that, it should be introduced as soon as possible.

    On LBC yesterday on Nick Ferraris show he was interviewing a Labour MP (who thinks more should have been done) and they said they believe its still Lord Janners Intention to keep attending the House of Lords.....I know Labour have suspended him but surely they should stop him doing this because surely if he is unable to stand trial over the allegations surely he cant be competent enough to help pass laws and be a servant of the country?
  • *Sparkle**Sparkle* Posts: 10,955
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mariesam wrote: »
    On LBC yesterday on Nick Ferraris show he was interviewing a Labour MP (who thinks more should have been done) and they said they believe its still Lord Janners Intention to keep attending the House of Lords.....I know Labour have suspended him but surely they should stop him doing this because surely if he is unable to stand trial over the allegations surely he cant be competent enough to help pass laws and be a servant of the country?

    I agree that more should have been done sooner. That's the biggest mistake.

    I definitely agree that if someone is deemed unfit to stand trial because they aren't competent, then they aren't competent to pass laws, but I'm not sure that the current system can prevent that. Essentially, the criminal legal system is rightly enlightened to the issues of dementia, while the House of Lords is presumably behind the times on that one.

    I'm not sure what the rules are for 'sacking' someone from the House of Lords. It's not something they anticipated when they drew up the rules. If you can be sacked for going to prison, but aren't allowed to stand trial, then it creates a loop-hole.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    I thought Lords only got paid if they clocked in 'attendance allowance' and the records show he hasn't attended for some time nor claimed any expenses.

    Re his property, have the Mail assumed he signed the documents that transferred a property? The Land Registry documents I've seen are typed with details of who & what but no signatures.

    Could it be because of his medical condition the daughters have power of attorney and it was their decision?
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    Mariesam wrote: »
    On LBC yesterday on Nick Ferraris show he was interviewing a Labour MP (who thinks more should have been done) and they said they believe its still Lord Janners Intention to keep attending the House of Lords....

    I think that is Labour MP Simon Danczuk, I'm sorry but I would take certain things he says with a pinch of salt.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    Are people saying if they were accused of a crime which they know they did not commit and their was a firm of lawyers in the wings threatening to stake financial claims, they or their family would not take action to protect those assets?
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    From the Mail article

    " There was, in other words, widespread knowledge of Janner’s alleged crimes almost 40 years ago. But status protected him. It would, in the event, be more than 15 years before the local police even began to look at the MP.
    In the late Eighties, Leicestershire detectives, including Mr Creedon, were tipped-off that a paedophile ring led by Janner and a man called Frank Beck was operating in local children’s homes.
    They duly launched an inquiry, carrying out (among other things) the interviews detailed in the boy’s second witness statement.
    Yet at some point the detectives were, as we know, told to drop inquiries into Janner.
    Exactly who gave this order is unclear, and that may now be a matter for the Independent Police Complaints Commission
    ".

    Why the hell isn't this disgusting behaviour and the cover-ups an election issue?>:(
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    Mike_1101 wrote: »
    From the Mail article

    " There was, in other words, widespread knowledge of Janner’s alleged crimes almost 40 years ago. But status protected him. It would, in the event, be more than 15 years before the local police even began to look at the MP.
    In the late Eighties, Leicestershire detectives, including Mr Creedon, were tipped-off that a paedophile ring led by Janner and a man called Frank Beck was operating in local children’s homes.
    They duly launched an inquiry, carrying out (among other things) the interviews detailed in the boy’s second witness statement.

    Was the boy Paul Winston, who acted as a defence witness for Frank Beck?
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    Possibly
    "Central to his claim was the boy quoted above, who appeared as a defence witness, providing what appears to be ample evidence of a sexual affair with Janner".

    According to the Mail
    "In a detailed ten-page witness statement, a married father accused the politician of sexually abusing him for nearly two years when he was a teenager at a Leicestershire children's home in the 1970s. He alleged that the former Leicester MP took him to party headquarters, to his constituency surgeries and to the Houses of Parliament. Janner is accused of sexually assaulting the then 14-year-old at his London house in December 1974 while his wife and children were away".

    So he is now 54 or 55 years old.

    And if this to believed...
    "The boy also told how he had been raped by the MP in a swimming pool at Leicester’s Holiday Inn.

    Such revelations drew gasps in court. They ought to have been front-page news. But for much of the trial, the boy’s sensational allegations (and the evidence supporting them) remained out of the public eye. The reason was a strange decision by Edwin Jowitt, the judge, to ban the Press from pre-verdict reporting of the trial. He also intervened, early in proceedings, to prevent Janner being named by a witness
    ".
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Mike_1101 wrote: »
    Possibly
    "Central to his claim was the boy quoted above, who appeared as a defence witness, providing what appears to be ample evidence of a sexual affair with Janner".

    According to the Mail
    "In a detailed ten-page witness statement, a married father accused the politician of sexually abusing him for nearly two years when he was a teenager at a Leicestershire children's home in the 1970s. He alleged that the former Leicester MP took him to party headquarters, to his constituency surgeries and to the Houses of Parliament. Janner is accused of sexually assaulting the then 14-year-old at his London house in December 1974 while his wife and children were away".

    So he is now 54 or 55 years old.

    And if this to believed...
    "The boy also told how he had been raped by the MP in a swimming pool at Leicester’s Holiday Inn.

    Such revelations drew gasps in court. They ought to have been front-page news. But for much of the trial, the boy’s sensational allegations (and the evidence supporting them) remained out of the public eye. The reason was a strange decision by Edwin Jowitt, the judge, to ban the Press from pre-verdict reporting of the trial. He also intervened, early in proceedings, to prevent Janner being named by a witness
    ".
    And that Judge's memory of the case has suddenly gone all hazy.
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    Was the boy Paul Winston, who acted as a defence witness for Frank Beck?

    I'm not quite sure where you are trying to take this discussion but it appears you may be trying in some way, to defend Janner.

    Paul Winston appeared in the Beck trial as a witness to support Beck's assertion that Janner was a serial paedophile who had abused Winston on several occasions. Janner had been investigated at the same time as Beck but the Director of Public Prosecutions, Allan Green, decided not to prosecute Janner. The very same DPP was subsequently questioned by police in relation to kerb crawling in a prostitute's area, as he had been on a previous occasion. Green resigned from public office but revived his barrister practice. His wife left him and not long after, committed suicide, A couple of years later, Green was awarded a knighthood having been put forward by John Major.

    There have been a number of convictions of Altzheimer's "victims" for paedophilia.
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    If anyone remembers the Watergate scandal, remember "The cover up is worse than the crime"?

    With crimes as bad as this, this must be one of history's biggest cover ups.
  • Mike_1101Mike_1101 Posts: 8,012
    Forum Member
    And that Judge's memory of the case has suddenly gone all hazy.

    I find that hard to believe. I can remember incidents that happened at places I worked for 20 or 30 years ago, all of them very trivial indeed compared to this.
  • i4ui4u Posts: 54,814
    Forum Member
    allaorta wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure where you are trying to take this discussion but it appears you may be trying in some way, to defend Janner.

    Paul Winston appeared in the Beck trial as a witness to support Beck's assertion that Janner was a serial paedophile who had abused Winston on several occasions.

    According to the article....
    In the late Eighties, Leicestershire detectives, including Mr Creedon, were tipped-off that a paedophile ring led by Janner and a man called Frank Beck was operating in local children’s homes.

    If that tip off came from Paul Winston why would he act as a defence witness for Beck?

    If you believe Beck was not a paedophile then his defence makes sense and understandable why Winston appeared for the defence.

    But we are then left with the question why were the police tipped off about both men....
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,405
    Forum Member
    The mental capacity of Lord Janner, who will not face child abuse charges because he has dementia, could still be examined by third-party expert witnesses, according to a lawyer representing several of his alleged victims...Richard Scorer, head of the abuse team at Slater & Gordon, which is acting for a number of those looking to bring civil actions, said the prospect of having Janner examined by other experts was under consideration.
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/apr/25/janner-could-face-dementia-test-child-abuse-lawyer-says

    ^^^ That is the least that should be done and I hope that there's renewed pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to do this.
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    i4u wrote: »
    According to the article....



    If that tip off came from Paul Winston why would he act as a defence witness for Beck?

    If you believe Beck was not a paedophile then his defence makes sense and understandable why Winston appeared for the defence.

    But we are then left with the question why were the police tipped off about both men....

    Because both men were co-operating paedophiles and whilst Beck was being prosecuted he was agrieved that Janner was getting off the hook. Beck was a paedophile but not in respect of Winston who was Janner's boy and the only way Beck could get at Janner was by having Winston's support.
Sign In or Register to comment.