gosub
~#
Thats a good piece of journalism, surprised it hasn't been picked up on by the other papers, but then CPS woman did just arrange trials for a shed loads of journos, so scores to settle presumably take priority.
How much evidence is there of long term high level UK paedophile ring?
- Thread starter free spirit
- Start date
Thats a good piece of journalism, surprised it hasn't been picked up on by the other papers, but then CPS woman did just arrange trials for a shed loads of journos, so scores to settle presumably take priority.
Lurdan
old wave
On which note in today's Times (paywalled) :
Revealed: link between DPP and Janner’s son
Sean O'Neill Crime Editor
Last updated at 12:01AM, April 20 2015
The principal legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions is a barrister who worked in the same chambers as the son of Lord Janner of Braunstone until late last year, The Times has learnt.
The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), consulted Neil Moore — who was based at the 23 Essex Street chambers where Daniel Janner, QC, works — before concluding that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the veteran Labour peer on child abuse charges.
Senior police officers privately raised concerns with the DPP about Mr Moore’s involvement in the decision-making process.
The CPS said the decision was made by Mrs Saunders alone and that Mr Moore informed her that he had been in chambers with Lord Janner’s son before discussing the case. A spokesman said Mr Moore was a barrister of the highest integrity and had not spoken to Mr Janner for two years.
The potential for a conflict of interest will add to the pressure on Mrs Saunders over the Janner case after significant political interventions at the weekend. Theresa May, the home secretary, said she was “very concerned” at the decision not to prosecute, while a previous DPP, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, QC, said it would have been better to have concluded the case “in the full public glare of a courtroom”.
Mrs Saunders announced last week that Lord Janner, 86, should not be charged because his dementia meant that he could not follow court proceedings and was therefore unfit to stand trial.
The professional link between her senior adviser and a member of Lord Janner’s family will add to the perception that she has mishandled a hugely sensitive case. The investigations into historical abuse allegations involve teasing out an area of public life swirling with allegations and conspiracy theories. CPS lawyers are working closely with the police on dozens of historical cases, but there are concerns that the DPP has lost the confidence of victims, detectives and policymakers.
Simon Danczuk, the Labour candidate in Rochdale who campaigns for abuse victims, said that Mrs Saunders “is now seen as a roadblock to justice and it’s hard to see how her position remains tenable”.
The Times disclosed last week that Mrs Saunders had overruled one of the country’s leading experts in child abuse cases by deciding not to charge Lord Janner. A prosecution and a possible “trial of the facts” in the defendant’s absence were recommended by Eleanor Laws, QC, who had been instructed by the CPS to work with Leicestershire police on the case.
Miss Laws felt Lord Janner could be charged with 22 offences against nine alleged victims between the 1960s and 1980s at children’s care homes in Leicestershire. Mrs Saunders agreed there was sufficient evidence to charge the peer but ruled with “deep regret” that his dementia was too severe for a trial to take place.
A CPS spokesman said: “It is the DPP’s job to make these extremely difficult decisions, and that is what the DPP has done. As the ultimate decision-maker, the DPP receives advice from internal and external lawyers but the decision is based, ultimately, on her own assessment of the relevant law and circumstances of the case.”
The spokesman said Mr Moore had acted properly at all times and there should be no questions over his integrity. Mrs May was made aware of concerns about the DPP’s decision at the beginning of last week when Sir Clive Loader, the Leicestershire police and crime commissioner, wrote asking her to intervene. The Home Office said the letter was “private correspondence”. It is understood that Mrs May has passed it to the attorney-general.
A number of the alleged victims in the Janner case are considering lodging civil claims against the peer and local authorities in Leicestershire who were responsible for the children’s homes. Some are also planning to exercise their right to appeal against the DPP’s decision. Although there was sufficient evidence to bring charges in relation to nine people, police say they identified 25 possible victims.
Lord Janner’s family said he was “a man of great integrity” who was “entirely innocent of any wrongdoing”.
The Sunday Times reported that a signed letter from Lord Janner, who is on leave of absence from the Lords, was received by parliamentary clerks on April 9.
Last updated at 12:01AM, April 20 2015
The principal legal adviser to the director of public prosecutions is a barrister who worked in the same chambers as the son of Lord Janner of Braunstone until late last year, The Times has learnt.
The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that Alison Saunders, the director of public prosecutions (DPP), consulted Neil Moore — who was based at the 23 Essex Street chambers where Daniel Janner, QC, works — before concluding that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the veteran Labour peer on child abuse charges.
Senior police officers privately raised concerns with the DPP about Mr Moore’s involvement in the decision-making process.
The CPS said the decision was made by Mrs Saunders alone and that Mr Moore informed her that he had been in chambers with Lord Janner’s son before discussing the case. A spokesman said Mr Moore was a barrister of the highest integrity and had not spoken to Mr Janner for two years.
The potential for a conflict of interest will add to the pressure on Mrs Saunders over the Janner case after significant political interventions at the weekend. Theresa May, the home secretary, said she was “very concerned” at the decision not to prosecute, while a previous DPP, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, QC, said it would have been better to have concluded the case “in the full public glare of a courtroom”.
Mrs Saunders announced last week that Lord Janner, 86, should not be charged because his dementia meant that he could not follow court proceedings and was therefore unfit to stand trial.
The professional link between her senior adviser and a member of Lord Janner’s family will add to the perception that she has mishandled a hugely sensitive case. The investigations into historical abuse allegations involve teasing out an area of public life swirling with allegations and conspiracy theories. CPS lawyers are working closely with the police on dozens of historical cases, but there are concerns that the DPP has lost the confidence of victims, detectives and policymakers.
Simon Danczuk, the Labour candidate in Rochdale who campaigns for abuse victims, said that Mrs Saunders “is now seen as a roadblock to justice and it’s hard to see how her position remains tenable”.
The Times disclosed last week that Mrs Saunders had overruled one of the country’s leading experts in child abuse cases by deciding not to charge Lord Janner. A prosecution and a possible “trial of the facts” in the defendant’s absence were recommended by Eleanor Laws, QC, who had been instructed by the CPS to work with Leicestershire police on the case.
Miss Laws felt Lord Janner could be charged with 22 offences against nine alleged victims between the 1960s and 1980s at children’s care homes in Leicestershire. Mrs Saunders agreed there was sufficient evidence to charge the peer but ruled with “deep regret” that his dementia was too severe for a trial to take place.
A CPS spokesman said: “It is the DPP’s job to make these extremely difficult decisions, and that is what the DPP has done. As the ultimate decision-maker, the DPP receives advice from internal and external lawyers but the decision is based, ultimately, on her own assessment of the relevant law and circumstances of the case.”
The spokesman said Mr Moore had acted properly at all times and there should be no questions over his integrity. Mrs May was made aware of concerns about the DPP’s decision at the beginning of last week when Sir Clive Loader, the Leicestershire police and crime commissioner, wrote asking her to intervene. The Home Office said the letter was “private correspondence”. It is understood that Mrs May has passed it to the attorney-general.
A number of the alleged victims in the Janner case are considering lodging civil claims against the peer and local authorities in Leicestershire who were responsible for the children’s homes. Some are also planning to exercise their right to appeal against the DPP’s decision. Although there was sufficient evidence to bring charges in relation to nine people, police say they identified 25 possible victims.
Lord Janner’s family said he was “a man of great integrity” who was “entirely innocent of any wrongdoing”.
The Sunday Times reported that a signed letter from Lord Janner, who is on leave of absence from the Lords, was received by parliamentary clerks on April 9.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
I was just pointing out the obvious contradiction of putting forward medical evidence about incapacity whilst still being in a position to vote on national legislation (and theoretically be the 1 lord that swung a tight vote). In practice he's unlikely to be seen in the lords, but it does show his fucking brass necked hubris that he could still feel entitled to cling onto his 'Lordship'. In turn that also highlights the nature of the Lords, an amateur, cosy arrangement where the retired powerful still get a chance to do a 'job' entirely on their own terms.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
From my own experience, belief is seldom a primary factor.
A more accurate translation (IME) might be: The lawyers and accountants did a cost/benefit analysis with regard to Janner possibly taking them to court, and worked out that standing up the story could be a lot more expensive than standing it down. A lot of the time it boils down to pure economics, and on a paper that didn't have muscle of the likes of the Scott Trust or Rothermere's billions standing behind it, standing down a story with the potential to bankrupt the paper can seem like a rational decision.
Lurdan
old wave
The press were clearly aware of Janner hiring high-powered legal representation from the start (they were intended to be aware) and I'm certain you're correct that the dynamic you describe was a main motive for press caution later on. In 1991 I'm not convinced that was the case.
The Beck case was one of the first of its kind and the focus was entirely on him as that years candidate for 'most evil man in Britain' (he was undoubtedly a reasonable candidate for the 'honour'), and more widely on care home staff. It remained on him through the ongoing consequences of the investigation into his activities, the subsequent reports, the scandals over compensation etc.
My belief that his testimony about Janner was not taken as credible - that it was 'a good story' but not a true one - derives from the positive tone of the press coverage after Janner's commons statements. They range from a piece by Craig Seton in the Times ‘The ‘Janner diversion’ that failed to save Beck from justice’ which clearly takes his side to a more distanced but positive profile of Janner by Ian Katz in the Guardian which focuses on the irony of an MP with a 'healthy appetite for the oxygen of publicity' being 'silenced' by contempt of court laws. (All December 4th 1991). Jenner still clearly had a lot of credit as a well-connected campaigning MP. Probably didn't hurt that he had also been an NUJ member and that apparently one of his many causes had (perhaps ironically enough) been journalistic freedom.
What is also notable is the sympathy for Janner's 'plight' in the coverage of the rejected proposal to amend contempt of court laws - proposals which the press would not have been in favour of.
Journalists love to claim that they "knew [insert surprising revelation from past] all along" and that if it wasn't for those pesky [insert name of laws] they could have told us. Sometimes it's true. Personally I don't buy it in this case. But of course that's just my opinion.
There is a somewhat more persuasive account (imo) of the journalistic 'groupthink' at the time by Dani Garavelli in todays Scotsman. She had been a junior reporter at the Leicester Mercury at the time of the Beck case.
At the time it "made sense". Well doesn't it always.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
double post
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Who writes The Needle?
gosub
~#
don't know, was referring to the Sunday Times piece that he/she scanned
teqniq
DisMembered
Further questions raised about whether or not Lord Janner is fit to stand trial
E2a his actual signature has been blanked out to avoid 'identity theft'
E2a his actual signature has been blanked out to avoid 'identity theft'
Last edited:
In the end, the Beck jury was told the Janner allegations were a “red herring” and he was exonerated. The narrative was he had been the victim of a smear campaign by Beck, and other Leicestershire MPs, including Keith Vaz, rallied to his defence. At the time, this made sense. Beck’s guilt was never in doubt and Janner had not been charged. Countless cover-ups later, it seems naive. As indeed it was. It has now emerged the original allegations were never properly investigated. Derbyshire Chief Constable Mike Creeden, then a DS with the Leicestershire force, says orders came from on high that Janner should not be arrested nor his home searched
The above is from Dani Garavalli's article quoted by @Lurdan.The fact that Janner was not arrested when the Beck allegations came to light does not of course mean that he was not questioned by police at that time.
The above is from Dani Garavalli's article quoted by @Lurdan.The fact that Janner was not arrested when the Beck allegations came to light does not of course mean that he was not questioned by police at that time.
The ever prolific Cathy Fox has gathered together a wealth of Frank Beck and the Leicestershire child abuse case.
https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/child-abuse-in-leicestershire-working-document-frank-beck/
https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/child-abuse-in-leicestershire-working-document-frank-beck/
Lurdan
old wave
Not clear about the date but my understanding is that he and his solicitor went to Leicester Police station by appointment where he was interviewed. A story last September in the Times (see below) said
This was during the investigation into Beck. According to Mick Creedon, then a Detective Sergeant involved in it, the scope of the investigation concerning Janner himself was specifically limited to that one interview. He also stated that there had been concerns about the credibility of the main evidence against Janner, which had been given by a former care home resident, because he was giving it to support Beck. (This was the witness who later testified for the defence during the trial).
Child sex inquiry into MP ‘blocked by senior police’
Mick Creedon said there were concerns about the credibility of the evidence
Sean O’Neill Crime Editor
Last updated at 12:01AM, September 25 2014
An investigation into child abuse allegations against a prominent politician 25 years ago was blocked, one of the country’s most senior police officers has revealed.
Mick Creedon, chief constable of Derbyshire, told The Times that he was a detective sergeant in 1989 when he was ordered to limit his inquiries into Greville Janner, a leading Labour backbench MP. Mr Creedon said there was “credible evidence” against the MP, now Lord Janner of Braunstone, QC, that warranted further investigation, but he was given orders forbidding an arrest or a search of his home or offices.
“The decision was a clear one — he will be interviewed by appointment and there won’t be a search of his home address or his constituency office or his office in the House of Commons,” Mr Creedon said.
The order was “conveyed” by a superintendent but Mr Creedon believes it came from chief officers. He added: “It was a decision made by people more senior than me.”
The allegations against Lord Janner, 86, who was a senior Labour backbencher and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, surfaced during the police investigation into Frank Beck, the manager of Leicester children’s homes who died in jail after being convicted of abusing boys in his care.
A former resident of one home alleged that he had had a two-year sexual relationship with the MP when he was a teenager in the 1970s. The alleged victim later aired the allegations in public when he gave evidence at Beck’s trial in 1991.
However, Mr Creedon said there were concerns about the credibility of the evidence against Lord Janner, notably that the key witness was in thrall to Beck despite being the victim of abuse.
The alleged victim also gave evidence for Beck. None of the other hundreds of residents interviewed made any allegations against the MP.
The witness had produced affectionate letters that were allegedly from the MP, some on House of Commons notepaper, and provided a detailed description of the inside of the MP’s Hampstead home. Mr Creedon said: “I look at this now, as a chief constable, as a senior investigating officer, in the light of many inquiries before and since — and one of the lines of inquiry could have been to search the house.
“My view has always been that the allegations were very serious, there was enough evidence to put a file before the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service], and as investigating officers our job was to search out as much evidence as possible to prove or disprove the offence. My interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would be that under the circumstances it would have been justified to search the house [and] offices.”
He said he did not know who made the decision to limit the investigation.
The 1989-91 inquiry was limited to an interview at Leicestershire police headquarters during which Lord Janner gave “no comment” answers.
A file was sent to the CPS, which decided there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
When the allegations became public during Beck’s trial in 1991, the jury was told they were a “red herring” and not relevant to the case. Lord Janner later said there was “not a shred of truth” in the allegations against him.
Those allegations are central to a new police investigation into Lord Janner and others, called Operation Enamel, which has led to warrants being obtained to search the peer’s home in north London and his office in the House of Lords.
The peer, who is in poor health, has never been arrested and has not been interviewed by detectives from the new investigation. His lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.
Mick Creedon said there were concerns about the credibility of the evidence
Sean O’Neill Crime Editor
Last updated at 12:01AM, September 25 2014
An investigation into child abuse allegations against a prominent politician 25 years ago was blocked, one of the country’s most senior police officers has revealed.
Mick Creedon, chief constable of Derbyshire, told The Times that he was a detective sergeant in 1989 when he was ordered to limit his inquiries into Greville Janner, a leading Labour backbench MP. Mr Creedon said there was “credible evidence” against the MP, now Lord Janner of Braunstone, QC, that warranted further investigation, but he was given orders forbidding an arrest or a search of his home or offices.
“The decision was a clear one — he will be interviewed by appointment and there won’t be a search of his home address or his constituency office or his office in the House of Commons,” Mr Creedon said.
The order was “conveyed” by a superintendent but Mr Creedon believes it came from chief officers. He added: “It was a decision made by people more senior than me.”
The allegations against Lord Janner, 86, who was a senior Labour backbencher and president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, surfaced during the police investigation into Frank Beck, the manager of Leicester children’s homes who died in jail after being convicted of abusing boys in his care.
A former resident of one home alleged that he had had a two-year sexual relationship with the MP when he was a teenager in the 1970s. The alleged victim later aired the allegations in public when he gave evidence at Beck’s trial in 1991.
However, Mr Creedon said there were concerns about the credibility of the evidence against Lord Janner, notably that the key witness was in thrall to Beck despite being the victim of abuse.
The alleged victim also gave evidence for Beck. None of the other hundreds of residents interviewed made any allegations against the MP.
The witness had produced affectionate letters that were allegedly from the MP, some on House of Commons notepaper, and provided a detailed description of the inside of the MP’s Hampstead home. Mr Creedon said: “I look at this now, as a chief constable, as a senior investigating officer, in the light of many inquiries before and since — and one of the lines of inquiry could have been to search the house.
“My view has always been that the allegations were very serious, there was enough evidence to put a file before the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service], and as investigating officers our job was to search out as much evidence as possible to prove or disprove the offence. My interpretation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act would be that under the circumstances it would have been justified to search the house [and] offices.”
He said he did not know who made the decision to limit the investigation.
The 1989-91 inquiry was limited to an interview at Leicestershire police headquarters during which Lord Janner gave “no comment” answers.
A file was sent to the CPS, which decided there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
When the allegations became public during Beck’s trial in 1991, the jury was told they were a “red herring” and not relevant to the case. Lord Janner later said there was “not a shred of truth” in the allegations against him.
Those allegations are central to a new police investigation into Lord Janner and others, called Operation Enamel, which has led to warrants being obtained to search the peer’s home in north London and his office in the House of Lords.
The peer, who is in poor health, has never been arrested and has not been interviewed by detectives from the new investigation. His lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.
Beck's trial concluded on 29th November 1991. Janner made his first Commons statement on Monday 2nd December. (Hansard Report here). And his second more detailed statement the following day in an adjournment debate about changing the law on contempt of court. (Hansard Report starts here - there are 3 pages of it). Three days later, on Friday 6th, Leicester police stated “On the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service, no further action is to be taken.” (Press Association report dated 7th). The CPS decision had presumably been taken before Beck's trial.
Janner's silk and his own son and now part owner of his flat likes to defend wrongun's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Stuart-Hall-case-slash-potential-payouts.html
http://www.23es.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Daniel-Janner-QC-Barrister-CV-5.3.2015.pdf
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Stuart-Hall-case-slash-potential-payouts.html
http://www.23es.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Daniel-Janner-QC-Barrister-CV-5.3.2015.pdf
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
So, if I've got the timeline right on Milord Jannerrapecunt:
Rapes kids - forever
Writes book - 2008
Diagnosed with alzheimers - 2009
Dec 2012 - delivers speech in Lords
Dec 2013 - house raided
Oct 2014 - 'on leave'
March 2014 - has mental capacity to pass his mansion to the kids, one of whom is linked to the DPP
April 2015 - Milord will not be charged, due to mental capacity
April 2015 + a few days - It's okay, I'm fine! Can I come back to work?
Well, what I draw from this is alzheimers need not be detrimental to your childraping, political or financial career.
Rapes kids - forever
Writes book - 2008
Diagnosed with alzheimers - 2009
Dec 2012 - delivers speech in Lords
Dec 2013 - house raided
Oct 2014 - 'on leave'
March 2014 - has mental capacity to pass his mansion to the kids, one of whom is linked to the DPP
April 2015 - Milord will not be charged, due to mental capacity
April 2015 + a few days - It's okay, I'm fine! Can I come back to work?
Well, what I draw from this is alzheimers need not be detrimental to your childraping, political or financial career.
Last edited:
Lurdan
old wave
Lord Greville Janner child sex abuse file 'lost' by Home Office - Daily Mirror
At first site the 1986 date is interesting - Janner was supposedly first named in January 1991 in a statement to police made by the man who gave evidence at Frank Beck's trial. In February Beck is reported to have made the same allegation to police. On February 7th 1991 at a pre-trial hearing Beck shouted out "”There has been a conspiracy. There is an MP called Greville Janner who has been abusing children … the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) know about it and it is wrong it is not being made public.” [Craig Setons report in the Times Dec 4th 1991] and the allegation became public.
So 1986 is an interesting date - unfortunately looking at the entry in the Wanless Report (Annex I - 114 File Schedule - the list of missing files) (available here) it becomes evident that this is not a file about Janner but one containing correspondence either written or forwarded by him. The redaction policy (described in a schedule) is to remove names of individuals and there is a redacted name in this entry. However the names of MPs who had written or forwarded the correspondence contained in many of the files are listed first in the title and are unredacted. Not for the first time The Mirror is trying rather desperately to find an exclusive angle.
(...)
At first site the 1986 date is interesting - Janner was supposedly first named in January 1991 in a statement to police made by the man who gave evidence at Frank Beck's trial. In February Beck is reported to have made the same allegation to police. On February 7th 1991 at a pre-trial hearing Beck shouted out "”There has been a conspiracy. There is an MP called Greville Janner who has been abusing children … the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) know about it and it is wrong it is not being made public.” [Craig Setons report in the Times Dec 4th 1991] and the allegation became public.
So 1986 is an interesting date - unfortunately looking at the entry in the Wanless Report (Annex I - 114 File Schedule - the list of missing files) (available here) it becomes evident that this is not a file about Janner but one containing correspondence either written or forwarded by him. The redaction policy (described in a schedule) is to remove names of individuals and there is a redacted name in this entry. However the names of MPs who had written or forwarded the correspondence contained in many of the files are listed first in the title and are unredacted. Not for the first time The Mirror is trying rather desperately to find an exclusive angle.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Apparently the expert in 'mental health' who gave evidence at Barry George's trial for the killing of Jill Dando is the same one declared Janner unfit to stand trial.
The conspiracy theorists will love that one!
The conspiracy theorists will love that one!
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Strictly: "Can I go on pulling a sickie?" - see above.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Yeah, I got that really. It's just nice (if that's the right word) to explore the dishonesty in his position. If he has such a long term debilitating condition, so bad that it stopped a prosecution, he should be leaving parliament. If I've got it right, still being a member but not attending doesn't even bring him any financial benefits. They have to walk through the door, turn on their heels and walk out to get £300 each day - something he now can't do. It's the 'I'm too ill to stand trial', but unable to give up on his active title that turns the stomach. Well, that and raping kids.
Lurdan
old wave
Another Janner story in the Daily Mail - this one reprinting two statements given by the witness who testified about Janner at Frank Beck's trial in 1991. (They are reprinted at the bottom of the Mail story - they are also copied at the needleblog albeit in slightly the wrong order).
The rape of justice: Damning new evidence of Labour peer Lord Janner's child sex abuse covered up by police and social workers for over 20 years - Daily Mail
The first thing that strikes me is that this Mail story appears to break new ground in making unambiguous allegations about Janner. I imagine this is one consequence of the CPS judgement that Janner is unfit to stand trial. It makes it a little difficult for him to sue for libel.
The reprinted statements make crystal clear the allegations against Janner in the early 90s.
Note that both statements were made after Frank Beck's trial and conviction (in 1992 and 1993 respectively). It is not made clear in the article who they were made to or why. I rather suspect that there is a reason for that. It's possible that the first statement was made in connection with the Kirkwood Inquiry into abuse in Leicester children’s homes that was set up after the trial. However my belief is that the second statement, which details the initial approach to the witness by the Police, was made in connection with Frank Beck's appeal against conviction. And it is very possible that both were made to Beck's lawyers in that context. (Beck died before his appeal could take place. Interestingly at one point it was announced that Mike Mansfield would be acting for him).
What is said about Janner in the statements speaks for itself. It only emphasises the utter failure at the time to take the allegations against him seriously. One can speculate as to many possible reasons why this was so but one obvious one was that the witnesses testimony denies that Beck - the person who was being investigated and then tried - was an abuser. The CPS would not have regarded this as very helpful, and in light of the other evidence about Beck, clearly they questioned its veracity. A major plank of Beck's defence was that he was being set up as a fall guy to cover up crimes committed by Janner, and this was the most important evidence in support of that. The Prosecution at the trial attacked the allegations made about Janner as a 'red herring' by Beck - which it undoubtedly was - and as untrue - which doesn't follow at all. Beck might have been using them as a 'smokescreen' precisely because he knew them to be true.
I mention this because the Mail article effectively does the reverse of the Prosecution - in the interests of a simplified narrative they play down the role of Beck in order to play up Janner. Indeed they do so in what appears to be an entirely mendacious way
This version of events is contradicted by everything on the public record about the Beck case - indeed it is contradicted by the second witness statement which makes it plain that the witness was approached by an officer who was investigating Beck not "a paedophile ring led by Janner and a man called Frank Beck". Taking these two witness statements together with the contemporaneous reports it's clear that the allegations about Janner emerged during the course of the investigation into Beck. (The statements also do not support the Mail's assertion that Beck and Janner were part of a paedophile ring. The witness testifies that the relationship with Janner began two years before he met Beck, when he was living at a different children's home).
Beck is indeed dead, and as such is 'last weeks cunt'. But I don't think anyone could read the Kirkwood report and conclude that Beck was just 'small fry' who was prosecuted 'instead' of Janner as the Mail implies. Nor that the CPS were wrong to focus on convicting Beck. But that doesn't excuse the failure to take the allegations against Janner seriously.
The Kirkwood report is online as a pdf here.
The rape of justice: Damning new evidence of Labour peer Lord Janner's child sex abuse covered up by police and social workers for over 20 years - Daily Mail
The first thing that strikes me is that this Mail story appears to break new ground in making unambiguous allegations about Janner. I imagine this is one consequence of the CPS judgement that Janner is unfit to stand trial. It makes it a little difficult for him to sue for libel.
The reprinted statements make crystal clear the allegations against Janner in the early 90s.
Note that both statements were made after Frank Beck's trial and conviction (in 1992 and 1993 respectively). It is not made clear in the article who they were made to or why. I rather suspect that there is a reason for that. It's possible that the first statement was made in connection with the Kirkwood Inquiry into abuse in Leicester children’s homes that was set up after the trial. However my belief is that the second statement, which details the initial approach to the witness by the Police, was made in connection with Frank Beck's appeal against conviction. And it is very possible that both were made to Beck's lawyers in that context. (Beck died before his appeal could take place. Interestingly at one point it was announced that Mike Mansfield would be acting for him).
What is said about Janner in the statements speaks for itself. It only emphasises the utter failure at the time to take the allegations against him seriously. One can speculate as to many possible reasons why this was so but one obvious one was that the witnesses testimony denies that Beck - the person who was being investigated and then tried - was an abuser. The CPS would not have regarded this as very helpful, and in light of the other evidence about Beck, clearly they questioned its veracity. A major plank of Beck's defence was that he was being set up as a fall guy to cover up crimes committed by Janner, and this was the most important evidence in support of that. The Prosecution at the trial attacked the allegations made about Janner as a 'red herring' by Beck - which it undoubtedly was - and as untrue - which doesn't follow at all. Beck might have been using them as a 'smokescreen' precisely because he knew them to be true.
I mention this because the Mail article effectively does the reverse of the Prosecution - in the interests of a simplified narrative they play down the role of Beck in order to play up Janner. Indeed they do so in what appears to be an entirely mendacious way
This version of events is contradicted by everything on the public record about the Beck case - indeed it is contradicted by the second witness statement which makes it plain that the witness was approached by an officer who was investigating Beck not "a paedophile ring led by Janner and a man called Frank Beck". Taking these two witness statements together with the contemporaneous reports it's clear that the allegations about Janner emerged during the course of the investigation into Beck. (The statements also do not support the Mail's assertion that Beck and Janner were part of a paedophile ring. The witness testifies that the relationship with Janner began two years before he met Beck, when he was living at a different children's home).
Beck is indeed dead, and as such is 'last weeks cunt'. But I don't think anyone could read the Kirkwood report and conclude that Beck was just 'small fry' who was prosecuted 'instead' of Janner as the Mail implies. Nor that the CPS were wrong to focus on convicting Beck. But that doesn't excuse the failure to take the allegations against Janner seriously.
The Kirkwood report is online as a pdf here.
Lurdan
old wave
Kelvyn Ashby, the former detective who was in charge of the 1991 investigation into the allegations against Janner, has given several interviews including one featured in a Mail story on Sunday, and another in yesterday's Leicester Mercury. Taking these two together gives a fairly clear picture of the investigation. (The Mail story doesn't include some things that are in the Mercury story. By an odd coincidence they contradict elements of the Mail's stories about Janner).
From the Mercury :
This was the witness who testified about Janner for the defence at Becks trial, and who made two further statements after the trial which the Mail reprinted last Sunday. Ashby describes the efforts to corroborate what the witness told them.
From the Mail:
But they were not allowed to do that.
From the Mercury :
From the Mercury :
This was the witness who testified about Janner for the defence at Becks trial, and who made two further statements after the trial which the Mail reprinted last Sunday. Ashby describes the efforts to corroborate what the witness told them.
From the Mail:
The witness had described a journey to Scotland with Janner.
(...)
But they were not allowed to do that.
From the Mercury :
gosub
~#
what would be nice would be some perverting the course of justice charges against historic obsticles
Lurdan
old wave
One of the firms of lawyers acting for victims alleging abuse by Janner has formally requested a review of the decision not to prosecute under the CPS 'Victims Right to Review Scheme'.
Leicester Mercury
BBC
Leicester Mercury
BBC
elbows
Well-Known Member
Bramall questioned: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32538551
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Interesting article by Harvey Proctor denying involvement:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...n-westminster-i-dont-believe-it-10221263.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...n-westminster-i-dont-believe-it-10221263.html
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The vermin won't be happy with Proctor. They've done their best to kill this story for the duration of the campaign...they don't want punters being reminded of noncery at this point.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
it's interesting he states the politicians he names "are but a few" of those like him, wrongly accused . We can draw the conclusion he's talking about all of them pretty much, including smith . Its all a conspiracy by assorted "nutters" according to him .
Which is pretty much what he was insisting for years in the 80s when faced with his previous criminal allegations , until he had no choice but to fess up to them . And he wasn't even charged when that kid that was found under his bed in Tunisia .
Which is pretty much what he was insisting for years in the 80s when faced with his previous criminal allegations , until he had no choice but to fess up to them . And he wasn't even charged when that kid that was found under his bed in Tunisia .
Similar threads
- Poll
