The Questions Alison Saunders Must Answer.

Capture

Following the servile and frankly piss poor interview of the Alison Saunders by Evan Davis on last night’s BBC Newsnight, it is time to set out the questions that the Director of Public Prosecutions needs to answer. Afterall, ‘independence’ does not mean above scrutiny.

1) Were you aware that Lord Janner had signed a letter acknowledging that he understood a complex parliamentary procedure and wished to remain a legislator in the House of Lords following the General Election just weeks before you published your decision not to prosecute him ?

2) Were you aware that on 26th March 2014 following a police raid on Lord Janner’s parliamentary office that he transferred ownership of his home to his children, an act that legally he must be ‘of sound mind’ to do ?

3) Had Leicestershire Police been stopped from interviewing Lord Janner because of his ‘dementia’ before 26th March 2014 ?

4) The CPS had 9 months to examine Leicestershire Police’s file on Lord Janner. When did the CPS medical experts examine Lord Janner ?

5)  The CPS has confirmed that you consulted barrister Neil Moore QC. Leicestershire Police have said that they raised concerns about this due to Neil Moore’s professional relationship with Daniel Janner QC, Lord Janner’s son. Can you confirm that Leicestershire Police raised this concern with you ?

6) What advice did Neil Moore QC give you ?

7) What was the advice of Eleanor Laws, QC, lead counsel to Leicestershire Police’s investigation into Lord Janner ?

8) What was the advice of Clare Montgomery QC ?

Advertisements

18 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

18 responses to “The Questions Alison Saunders Must Answer.

  1. Pingback: The Questions Alison Saunders Must Answer. | Alternative News Network

  2. Would the presenter ask questions like those!

    9) might be “How many other decisions on ‘fitness for trial’ have you made during your tenure as DPP, and what were those?”

    No doubt she would be just as deft with them.

  3. LJMT

    Jeremy Paxman would have asked the questions, but maybe they have moved on all those willing to ask difficult questions that might uncover some uncomfortable truths.

  4. This woman is an incompetent at every level. She is way out of her depth since she was educated at a second-class university. She could only rise to this level in the public sector where inability is awarded and incompetence excused. She has plenty of background. Just look at her feminist zealousness when working with Angiolini (another Scottish incompetent) in intending to drive up rape stats by ignoring false accusation whilst leaning on juries to ensure a defendant is guilty and has to prove his innocence. Lets see how she enjoys being hunted down like vermin.

    • Sabre

      The second class university is irrelevant, her predecessors were all first class chaps from the hallowed halls of Oxbridge. A double first in mods and greats from Balliol or Trinity didn’t prevent them from being a part of this conspiracy to pervert the course of justice while Saunders was still pleading shoplifting cases at the local Mags.

    • BarrieJ

      She’s a ‘safe pair of hands’ all else is irrelevant. She has challenged her critics to have her decision reviewed in court.
      The judge appointed to review her decision would similarly enjoy the full confidence of the political establishment.

  5. Andy Barnett

    10. How many other prosecutions have gone ahead this year, despite the defendant having dementia? (some campaigners have counted 6) In what way were these cases different to the Janner case, such that prosecution was deemed to be in the public interest?

  6. steve

    Shes as complicit in this tragedy of justice as the pedo involved is

  7. penguinface

    Someone needs to call her out on saying she didn’t take the “easy option” too. She bloody did, she took the easiest option of the lot for goodness sake!

    If sending an MP/Lord to trial for child abuse is the “easy option”, how come it’s never been taken in these past forty years?
    The whole point of the current furore and calls for the inquiry etc are EXACTLY BECAUSE the easy option has been taken in every single case so far.

  8. Murrin’s Barrister is calling for confirmation that Janner has no Power of Attorney registered.

    If he really has dementia and yet has transferred his property without a power of attorney being in place then that proves this is all a lie.

    The Office of Public Guardian is refusing to confirm or deny this and is demanding 10 working days to respond (no doubt for MI5 and their mates to fiddle the books…)

    It won’t matter what they say as back dating a POA won’t now do much to change what we know like the letter to the Lords on 09 April and the fact that no one mentioned a Power of Attorney before when of course if there was one in place then that is the first thing we would have been told by our ‘free’ zionist press… They have not done a very good job with covering the tracks this time round.

    Janner for 27 years Leicester MP. For 20 years he was raping vulnerable small boys from the local British kids home allegedly. Now every prominent jewish lawyer is either silent or is leaping to defend the decision not to prosecute (David Pannick QC; Joshua Rozenberg etc)

    http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2015/04/janner-dementia-queried-why-no-power-of-attorney-2582026.html

    • Sabre

      … If he really has dementia and yet has transferred his property without a power of attorney being in place then that proves this is all a lie… It could be argued that he isn’t of sound mind and that the property transfer is irregular and or unlawful of course.

  9. BarrieJ

    Evan Davis would have been told in advance what questions were appropriate to ask and which not.
    I recall an Andrew Marr Show some years ago, where amongst Marr’s guests was a Tory M.P. who had a bit of history with apartheid South Africa. When another guest mugged this individual with an embarrassing question relating to this period. The M.P. blurted out to Marr, that he thought it had been agreed in the Green Room that there would be no mention made of this.
    The consistently useless Marr almost shat himself. Davis is no different, just another establishment stooge.

  10. Anonymous upon request

    A very good article, this, GoJam, asking the key questions about the decision.

    We all have to stay open-minded, of course. I’ve spoken with some extremely well-regarded (and certainly independently-minded) journalists and lawyers who believe that Saunders has, on balance, made a difficult and unpopular, but ultimately correct, decision.

    Equally, I’ve spoken to members of the same professions who believe that, on balance, she could and should at least have opted for a “trial of the facts”.

    The public interest can really only be served by continuing to ask the questions that you have. Here’s hoping that we get some answers to them soon.

  11. cowli5

    Perhaps one (or more) additional question:

    Why, if you or your family are paying for a medical opinion, do you need to pay for two (highly expensive) — unless the first opinion did not go as far as you hoped?

    I presume that legal aid rules would not have approved two defence medical opinions….So presumably, the decision to have two very expensive medical reports was made by the family, and paid for by them (might be worth checking if they paid or legal aid did…)

    The decision to pay for a second opinion might suggest that the first medical report did not provide the degree of “comfort” that the defence was looking for….

    Similarly, I cannot imagine why the CPS would spend public money on two medical opinions unless a) the first did not provide the opinion expected; b) the first was very much at odds with one of the defence reports; and/or c) the initial medical report expressed doubts about a decision the DPP had already decided to take.

    Even if several defence reports were required because of a deteriorating condition over a period of time — you would always try to get the same doctors to conduct the evaluations. If you change doctor/expert it usually means that you haven’t been happy with the initial evaluation…

    Something doesn’t feel right…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s