Janner Request To Keep Seat In Lords

From today’s edition of The Sunday Times

The reference to the general election indicates that this is a recent development. Lord Janner seems to have been well enough to sign a letter requesting that he remain a voting member of the House of Lords.

It seems that he is fit enough to plead for his job but not fit enough to enter a plea regarding the  very serious criminal allegations that have been made.

I think it is fair to ask, what the hell is going on here ?

Janner can’t have it both ways !

Untitled

Advertisements

28 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

28 responses to “Janner Request To Keep Seat In Lords

  1. Anon

    Miserable Pleader!

  2. Anne Wade

    wonderful!
    thanks for picking this up. I’ll enjoy spreading the word.
    Anne Wade

  3. Reblogged this on Guy Debord's Cat and commented:
    According to news reports this week, Greville (Lord) Janner will not be facing prosecution on charges of child sexual abuse because he’s suffering from Alzheimer’s. This was the same excuse that allowed Ernest Saunders to escape a prison sentence and Augusto Pinochet to avoid justice. In Saunder’s case, he made a miraculous recovery. To the best of my knowledge, no one has recovered from Alzheimer’s. Pinochet was similar: as soon as he touched down in Santiago, he practically danced across the tarmac. As The Needle points out, Janner recently requested to keep his seat in the Lords. Interesting. No?

  4. Pingback: Janner Request To Keep Seat In Lords | Alternative News Network

  5. Is this really a surprise to anyone. Dementia as many forms: did the DPP inform the public of the type he suffers. The following link classifies the form of dementia http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents.php?categoryID=200362

    Of course he may have another disease, nicknamed the Murdoch syndrome. This illness affects men in their eighties who have or held positions of power. This syndrome is temporary and not along term condition. I give you an example: Mr X attended a parliamentary hearing he was described as looking like an Ukrainian pensioner dragged from his sick bed in a retirement home to be fed to a war crime tribunal and the worlds media for crimes he could not ever remember giving the orders. Would the man survive the interrogation and the viewer began to feel sorry for him.

    After the integration which seemed to bear some resemblance to a Soviet show trial the man appeared to be a broken man and overnight he must have been treated for his condition in a NHS hospital as the ageing process was reversed the Murdoch personality syndrome suddenly kicked in and he changed his personality in the Television studio
    when he was interviewed by a reporter, he was wearing sunglasses, acting all tough and virile, and obviously nothing close to the frail old man he appeared yesterday.
    My suggestion is the next decrepit old git pretends to be frail and needs care, the state should send them straight to a NHS geriatric ward,

  6. Dan

    Sunday, April 19, 2015
    Challenge to CPS decision on Greville Janner’s trial for alleged child abuse

    All Parliamentary candidates have the same access to Government offices as MPs.
    I have used this privilege to write about the failure of the CPS to bring Greville Janner to court.
    I would like to see this argument taken up by the media, but paradoxically, candidates cannot access the media during the election period, because the other candidates will object of unfair coverage.
    To get round this I am inviting the other candidates in Weston (Lab, Libdem, Con and UKIP) to copy this letter, send it to the Attorney General, and then we can publicise what we have done together. It will help the cause of justice, and also raise the profile of Weston super Mare.
    So, Tim, John, John and Ernie – are you with me on this?
    Use the comments slot below.
    See my Wiki on child abuse by VIPs here.

    Attorney General’s Office
    Victoria Street
    London
    SW1H 0NF
    correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

    19 April, 2015

    Dear Attorney General

    Reference: CPS decision on Lord Janner of Blackstone

    I write in my capacity as a potential Member of Parliament to challenge the decision of the DPP, Alison Saunders, not to prosecute Lord Janner for alleged crimes, namely 16 indecent assaults between 1969 and 1988, and 6 counts of buggery on under aged boys between 1972 and 1988.

    I have read the CPS’ justification for their decision here http://cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/lord_janner/.

    Please do not refer this letter downwards to the CPS, and please do not treat it as a complaint against the CPS. I have been in lengthy correspondence with the CPS and have used their complaint service already, and I have no confidence in their decisions and processes, for the reasons set out below. I wish to challenge the judgment of the DPP directly. This is now a matter for the Chief Law Officer.
    Alison Saunders in her justification document accepts that the evidential basis for a criminal prosecution of Janner is sound. However, she argues that there is no public interest in prosecuting him because he is unfit to plead.

    She bases this argument on the evidence of four medical experts who agree that he has dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, and that they have “general agreement” as to the level of cognitive ability on a Mini Mental State examination.

    However, there is no reference to any brain scan having been carried our. If scans were performed but reports on the scans were left out of the CPS justification document, there has been a failure of due diligence in reporting, and Saunders should be rebuked.

    If on the other hand brain scans on Janner were not performed, there has been serious negligence. In my extensive correspondence with the CPS on this case I explicitly requested several times that brain scans should be carried out, because they give objective evidence that goes far beyond medical history taking and examination. If they were not carried out Saunders should be invited to consider her position.
    If we accept for the sake of argument that Janner is indeed suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, there are three precedents where paedophiles have been tried and convicted of sexual crimes against children. The names are David Massingham, John Hayford and Michael Collingwood. I can supply references if requested, but the CPS should be able to find them.

    Either Alison Saunders knew of these cases and negligently failed to deal with them in her report, or she did not know of them, in which case there was a failure of due diligence as a lawyer.
    There is no provision in the CPS Code of Practice to exempt people with dementia from facing trial. In the absence of such provision, but in the presence of sufficient evidential basis to proceed, Alison Saunders has used the public interest test.

    Now clearly there is a major public interest in bringing to court people who are abused of serious sexual crimes against children, especially children who for one reason or another were in the care of public organisations.

    First, sexual abuse has a devastating effect on the subsequent lives of survivors of abuse, and there is a need to demonstrate that society will not tolerate child abuse, even if carried out by VIPs.

    Second, the Law itself comes into disrepute if there is a public perception that VIP status confers immunity against justice. You must be aware that already there exists a common perception that this is the case. This view is particularly prevalent in the community of survivors of sexual abuse. If Janner escapes trial, this perception will increase, both among survivors and among the general public. It is not in the public interest for there to be a perception that there is one law for the rich, another for the poor.

    Against these two major public interest arguments, the CPS advances the minor public interest argument that money spent in bringing Janner to court could be wasted as he is likely to be judged unfit to plead. This argument is extremely weak. The expenditure would be trivial in comparison with other cases that have failed.

    The precedents referred to above are worthy of being considered in court.

    Most importantly, a major legal argument needs to be entertained, namely whether a person who passes the evidential test but who might not be fit to plead for reasons of dementia should be tried as if in absentia.
    The defence could test the evidence given by Janner’s alleged victims. His accusers could be invited to ask if they can positively identify him, possibly by reference to body characteristics such as moles.
    It should be noted also that in coming to her conclusion, Saunders rejected advice of one of UK’s principal authorities on sex offences. Eleanor Laws QC, leading counsel to Leicestershire police’s investigation into Janner, recommended that he be put on trial despite his age and dementia.

    In the light of this, the DPP must have consulted with other people in coming to her decision. The names of these people, the advice they gave, and the degree of pressure that they put on the DPP should be made clear to the public.

    In conclusion, let me summarise the questions I am raising:
    1. The question of whether or not scans have been carried out must be settled.
    2. The question of precedents must be considered.
    3. The question of public interest, major and minor, needs to be reviewed.
    4. Who gave advice to the DPP to persuade her to come to her conclusion?

    I look forward to a timely response to all the points made in this letter.

    Respectfully yours

    Dr Richard Lawson
    MB BS, MRCPsych
    Parliamentary Candidate, Weston Constituency, Green Party
    http://greenerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/challenge-to-cps-decision-on-greville.html?m=1

  7. Gary

    Surely this must trigger CPS to reconsider?

  8. nuggy

    i dident know a lord needed to request to keep his seat i thought a life peer ment just that you were there until death.

  9. chrisb

    Interesting that The Times and therefore Murdoch are running with the Janner story when they hardly touched previous child sex abuse stories. Any idea why? Janner is of course Labour. However, he has always been very much Establishment Labour.

    • Last of the Truffle Snorting Heroes

      I suspect an easy shot at the CPS in the wake of the Elveden fiasco is higher up Murdoch’s agenda than party politics.

  10. godhelpus

    The Public are Not so Compliant any More….

  11. artmanjosephgrech

    we need to hear more from Yvette Cooper Home Sec May found a way to make a point

  12. Sabre

    Given that Alzheimer sufferers can remember their weddings with perfect clarity but keep forgetting that their spouse has recently died one could be forgiven for supposing that he would remember yesteryear perfectly thereby enabling him to either plead guilty or mount an impeccable defence, on the other hand he should have totally forgotten that he recently applied for a leave of absence!

  13. cowli5

    Forgive me for raising a technical point, but technically we don’t really have an attorney general or a home secretary. We are in general election mode and none of the people who have held these positions are doing the job — they are just on the campaign trail. Which of course raises another question: why would the DPP issue this decision — which may be used as a party political issue — during a period when a) public servants are in purdah (ie. actions must be non-political); and b) there is no higher governmental persona to hold her to account

    • ChappersBrum

      Interesting question! This case has been in the hands of the DPP for some time, so why was the decision during the election period? And why has this dragged on for so long, when other cases of historic sexual abuse have been pursued with much more vigour, and much more quickly.

      Suspect that the Janner case, coupled with the Elvendon fiasco will mean one of the first acts of the new administration will be to invite Saunders into a meeting without coffee, and suggest she submits her resignation before 5 p.m. that day and clears her desk, or be dismissed. Given the general shambles that is the CPS at present a new broom is badly needed.

  14. Last of the Truffle Snorting Heroes

    I’d have thought that someone deemed to be mentally incapable of making sound decisions would be removed from participating in a Lords debate (I’m ignoring the obvious joke about the whole chamber here).

    I wonder if any of Janner’s associates are more worried about what he can still remember ? Dementia could leave a sufferer with a perfectly clear recollection of distant events but without the presence of mind to limit the revelation of information damaging to others.

  15. Simon Templar

    Resignation. RESIGNATION. The woman should be sacked on the spot and is Public Enemy No 1 for being a pedophile enabler!

  16. Sabre

    With any luck he will really get the earliest stages of dementia later this week and promptly forget that he has told everyone he has dementia thereby allowing a trial ;-)

  17. Last of the Truffle Snorting Heroes

    DPP legal adviser’s ‘link to Lord Janner’s son’:

    Tucked away in a corner of the DM. May be tenuous but worth a probe….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3046384/DPP-legal-adviser-s-link-Lord-Janner-s-son-Barrister-spoke-prosecutor-prosecute-peer-works-chambers.html

    • dpack

      “He( i assume davis?) told The Sun that the treatment of journalists charged with paying public officials was ‘heavy-handed and lacking in judgment’.”
      what an interesting aside for the mail to include ,murdoch seems to have recovered his faculties since the leverson hearings where he was rather “forgetful” and “vague”

      as to janner there are many good precedents for “reduced capacity”being no hindrance to prosecution and the option of a trial of fact is another possible route towards some sort of justice.