Establishment Cracks Widen In Janner Case

Untitled

Much has been whispered about the timing of the CPS announcement regarding Lord Janner. The police had begun their exhaustive investigation almost two years ago and the CPS had the criminal file for nine months before they announced that they would not be prosecuting Lord Janner. The DPP chose to make the announcement after Parliament had been prorogued.

Nine months seems like a great deal of time for CPS consideration given that they were presented with “credible evidence” and nine months seems like a very long time to consider medical evidence.

The upshot of this fortuitous delay is that by the time the announcement was made there were officially no members of parliament, only candidates and no forum for elected representatives to raise their concerns and ask questions.

Nevertheless, regardless of this happy timing and despite the  natural interest in one of the closest general election campaigns ever, this scandal has refused to be buried. The press have continued to ask extremely awkward and embarrassing questions, PPCs (prospective parliamentary candidates) have added their own names to calls for a review of the DPP’s Janner decision. In other words societies natural checks and balances have continued to act even at a time when some might have hoped they’d be temporarily redundant or focused elsewhere.

The intervention of the NSPCC’s chief Peter Wanless is another significant blow for Alison Saunders because Peter Wanless is establishment through and through. As a former senior civil servant he was trusted enough to investigate the Home Office’s missing child abuse files. His intervention carries a great deal of weight.

Wanless wrote to Alison Saunders:

‘Given the exceptional historical mistakes in this matter, I would like to understand why you did not deem it in the public interest to have a trial of facts, given this legal mechanism exists to enable the alleged victims to present their evidence in court and have a decision made as to whether Lord Janner carried out the alleged acts.

‘The decision by the CPS enables the disparity in the public arena between the position of the alleged victims and those of Lord Janner’s family to exist in perpetuity.’

He went on: ‘With victims of child sexual abuse, it is the very fact of being able to give evidence in court and have a decision made on the allegations which is so crucial.

‘The courage required to come forward when you are or have been a victim of child sexual abuse should not be underestimated.

‘We are concerned as to the unintentional consequences the situation could have on encouraging other victims of child sexual abuse to come forward, particularly if the accused sits in a position of influence or power.’

Public interest is not an easy thing to calculate but surely it can not be in the public interest to have the entire justice system thought of by the the public at large and victims of crime in particular as dealing with establishment figures differently from everyone else. Lord Janner may not pose a risk of re-offending  but a failure to have a ‘trial of the facts’ might cause even more damage.

Public Interest is served by a ‘trial of the facts’ 

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

30 responses to “Establishment Cracks Widen In Janner Case

  1. 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.

    • Many thanks AUR.

      It is always good to hear from you.

      I’m inclined to agree with you. Although suggestions that those that disagree are being disingenuous serves to pile on pressure, the reality is that this is a very finely balanced argument about what is ‘public interest’ and how it is best served.

      Alison Saunders has decided to interpret ‘public interest’ narrowly taking into account only the specific individual facts regarding Janner before her. If failure to prosecute due to ‘public interest’ was a legal right that had to be taken on individual circumstances then I’d have to agree with her but I don’t see how the ‘public interest’ stage is an individuals legal right for it to be considered the evidential stage must already have been passed. The public interest stage only decides if on balance it is better for the state to proceed.

      Plainly, given the potential consequences of not having the evidence heard in a court it must be on balance better for justice to be seen to be done. Such a decision may be made on broader ‘public interest’ issues.

      I guess I’m trying to say that ‘public interest’ is not a suspects legal defence right and I actually think that the DPP might effectively make it so if her decision stands.

      • Anonymous upon request

        I agree with your conclusion, too, btw. That final point you make is where I got to in thinking about this. I’ve heard a strong argument against a “trial of facts” – but ultimately I disagreed with the points made by the person who talked me through that argument.

      • I think we’re on the same page because we can both see the potential negative consequences of this.

        Another interesting point is this notion that there is equality under the law. That establishment figures are treated no different to everyone else.

        Lord MacDonald said on R4 Today that as the case involved a “prominent person,” the local CPS had broken protocols by not referring it to him.

        So if you are prominent, i.e. ‘establishment’, your case is referred to CPS HQ and the DPP. Therefore historically the police have been more cautious in such cases and the CPS case takes longer.

        Lord MacDonald effectively admitted that we have in the UK two distinctly different CPS procedures depending on whether a person is a member of the establishment or not.

      • C HAYCOCK

        THEN WHY DO WE HAVE ANY INVESTIGATIONS ….ISN’T  IT THE VICTIMS WHO ARE THE PUBLIC ,,WHO ARE APART OF MAKING WHAT OUR  SOCIETY IS.WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS… IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME YOU MUST DO THE TIME,,,JENNER SHOULDN’T BE ANY DIFFERENT,AS HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN SICK TO DO THE CRIMES HE DID.HE USED AND ABUSED THE PLACE OF POWER AND TRUST AND IN THE PUBLIC EYE MAKING DECISIONS …..WRONG  

      • Anonymous upon request

        I absolutely agree. The McDonald comments gave that away.

        And that’s what people will not abide – any notion of a two-tier justice system.

  2. Was a deal brokered between Cameron and Ed over Brittain and Janner

    • HEY WHAT ABOT WILAM HAUGE HE WAS IN PARLIMENT AND SEEN DOCUMENT GIVEN WITH REGARDS TO NORTH WALES ,BUT WERE DID THEY SEND HIM OF TO WHEN INVESTIGATIONS STARTED HE WAS PROMOTED TO FORIGN SECERTARY ,HE SEEN DOCUMENT BRITTAIN HAD AND THATCHER BUT NO BODY HAS CALLED HIM IN FOR QUESTIONING …WHY WHY WHY,

  3. The invoivement of NSPCC is even more significant than people appreciate given that Thatcher wanted the Children’s services to be handed to the NSPCC. It makes the second volume of her official biography even more interesting. I even se the scourge of Social Work June Lait has risen from the ashes to writ an article in Spectator

  4. PLEASE .WHY DO CPS HAVE A SAY ON CASES THAT HAVE CONNECTIONS TO LAW AND JUSTICE.???THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS THEY COVER UP THEIR OWN AND ACT THICK WHEN QUESTIONED BY JENNER NO PROCECUTION,PERHAPS TAKING NO ACTION AGAINST JENNER IS NOT GOOD FOR PUBLIC PURSE,THEN I SURGEST JENNER PAYS AS HIS VICTIMS HAPPEN TO WANT TO SEE JUSTICE ,SAVILE WAS DEAD BEFORE THEY BELIVED AND DAMAGE WAS DONE TO PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT CAPABLE OF SAYING NO ,AND IN A PLACE OF (SAFETY) JENNER,S VICTIMS NEED JUSTICE NOT VICTIMS PROBLEM HE CANT SAY NO ,WHAT GOES ROUND COMES ROUND,TRIAL SHOULD GO A HEAD.

  5. I HAVE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM CPS LOST MY STATEMENT APPARENTLY 1999,THEY TOOK STATEMENT 1997, AND 2014 NO PROCECUTION ALTHOUGH AN OFFICER TOOK MY STATEMENT TO ABUSER ,(LOST YA RITE)THIS JUST BACKS UP MY COMMENTS ON JENNER …THEY PROTECT THEIR OWN ALONG WITH IPCC SAYING IT WAS OK FOR OFFICER TO TAKE STATEMENT TO ABUSER ,I THOUGHT THAT WAS CALLED TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THAT PERSON WHO GAVE STATEMENT WILL NOT GET FAIR HEARING …BUT HEY CPS -IPCC-SAY ITS OK WHAT CHANCE DO WE HAVE HEY,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  6. Andy Barnett

    That’s all our campaign has been looking for – establishing the facts. The public needs to know the truth, case by case, of these shameful allegations, otherwise how can we be sure that widespread abuse and cover-up are not continuing today? The only people served by the truth being hidden are those that were complicit in such activities in the past, or those that continue them today.

    • sponge_mike

      If you think that there is a chance in hell that the abuse is not continuing today, I think you are deluded. Why on earth all the references to ‘historical’ child abuse ? The abusers have just got more careful and cunning.

      • Andy Barnett

        Maybe if we knew the facts Mike, we could make an informed judgement. In their absence, you, I and many others are left suspecting the very worst about the people who rule over us – a very dangerous state to be in.

  7. Pingback: Establishment Cracks Widen In Janner Case | Alternative News Network

  8. Andy Barnett

    Wanless is right to highlight Saunders’ argument that Janner does not pose a risk of re-offending. This argument against a trial only applies if we believe that Janner’s is an isolated case, such that his dementia means the threat has now gone. The difficulty however is that we don’t know that Janner’s is an isolated case unless we know the facts. And how can we know those facts without a trial? Clearly, there are many of us (the Home Secretary included) that do not believe that this is an isolated case, that Janner was just one part of a culture in which ‘establishment’ figures were protected from prosecution for crimes against children. It is clearly in the public interest to examine each case in turn to find out the how, the who and the why of the abuse and the cover-up that took place.

    The idea that a lawyer of Saunders’ position cannot see this is simply not believable. One has to question her motives for the decision taken AND, as Gojam has pointed out, the timing of that decision.

    • Jack

      Ah they now wheel out the ‘no prospect of reoffending’ excuse. Well funny that cause in many of the recent sex crime prosecutions involving elderly men with dementia there was pretty little chance of them re offending either yet the cases went ahead. There is no legal precedent for this . It is a straight forward good old fashioned cover up. Disgraceful.

  9. Guy Ropes

    “No prospect of him re-offending?” How short our memories are. Who could forget (although many seem to choose to do so) a certain member of the Establishment who ‘recovered’ from Alzheimer’s to enjoy the fruits of his criminality. That single case alone demands that Janner be prosecuted. “How can we be sure that widespread abuse and cover-ups are not continuing today?” This would appear to be selective musing of the very highest order. How much more evidence do you need? It may be uncomfortable reading but there are – how shall we say? – “main movers” in this campaign who have been furnished with incontestable evidence of other current cover-ups (not child abuse but extreme racism and conspiracy/perjury) yet appear unable to realise that if they were to lend their support in numbers to such allegations then the prospect of (any) other cover ups in future cases would markedly diminish. Their behaviour has been selfish and unapologetic.

    • Andy Barnett

      For point – the cover up of “historical” abuse (hate that word) would appear to continue, given the lack of prosecutions against ‘establishment’ figures. What is not clear is whether such people remain free to abuse kids, safe in the knowledge that they won’t be prosecuted. Given the seriousness of this charge, I suggest the state has a duty to provide whatever factual information is needed to provide assurance that this is NOT the case. The fact that they are currently unable to do this is of course worrying.

  10. Andy Barnett

    (I know this is my 3rd post but this situation makes me so angry. For anyone that still thinks this all happened in the past, wake up! There is nothing historical about this particular cover up)

    I want to question the motives of our esteemed politicians in this case. Both Cameron and Clegg have said ‘This is a matter for the DPP’, as if questions of what is in the public interest are not for the democratically elected representatives of the public! Both men have shown their reluctance to look under the stone of establishment CSA, knowing the difficulties it would cause for them if they did. How can anyone – Saunders included – act to protect a culture that allows innocent children to be raped and worse? Whatever self-preserving concerns we have about standing up to such organised evil, it surely must be time to set those aside and just do the right thing.

  11. Gary

    A ‘trial of the facts’ was recently carried out in Scotland. An accused murderer was unfit to plead and was detained under the Mental Health Act. I appreciate that this is Scots Law but it certainly shows that this has its place in a modern justice system. Examining these facts, although not leading to convicting anyone, could lead to opening up the conspiracy of silence that allowed him to carry on without being brought to justice. This may turn out to be of even greater significance.

  12. Sabre

    If Janner really is mentally incompetent, given that he is an ex-MP, a member of the House of Lords, he is said to have a long record of public service and he is a leading member of the Jewish community and the DPP has gone on record saying that no less than 22 charges could be preferred but for his condition surely he deserves a trial of the facts, it would be a great pity if such a man died with his life’s work and reputation in shreds if he is as is claimed innocent.

    • dpack

      if we do not give the devil due defense under the law we might as well just go for the torch and pitchfork method which although potentially lots of fun can be a bit less than accurate in matters of truth and justice.

      janner (or his reputation) deserve to have opportunity to defend themselves through due process.
      the only reason i can think of to deny him/it that protection is that he/it would be found to be indefensible and that much information might be revealed as to why he was protected(used) whilst allowing him to continue his “alleged”activities.

    • Mudplugger

      It probably wouldn’t go down too well with his pals in the Freemasons either…..

  13. dpack

    this threw me a little
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3057471/Retired-British-Army-General-80s-sued-death-Catholic-man-killed-loyalist-paramilitaries-Northern-Ireland-40-years-ago.html#newcomment

    but my comment regarding the necessity of gangs and countergangs being a vital part of low intensity operations is still awaiting moderation .
    if the dm go with my comment i will be very happy and quite amazed that joined up thinking is allowed .

    • dpack

      my second comment was

      the strategy of tension required gangs and counter gangs to kill folk in order to fulfill the gladio b brief and ensure the population would accept a strong government who would protect them.

      “required” indicates the past tense but actually it is still the tactic of default as any sensible examination of current affairs will demonstrate

      i dought they will publish my comments ,never mind ,we know that they didn’t.

  14. dpack

    (they didnt) but apparently the times has mentioned that “ex special branch officers”have confirmed that all mps (including janner)are “vetted” upon election and as a continuing process to assess the risks of them being blackmailed,being a spy ,being unstable or criminal etc etc .the report also stated that files on such things are collected and written and should still exist.

    the implications of this is that the dishonourable members are very vulnerable to blackmail by those who “own”those files or even those who know they exist.
    these files should be in the registry (or perhaps the dg5’s office safe)and it would explain the mechanism responsible for absence of the home office/moj files on janner and others.
    imho this is as wide a crack in the establishment as ive seen so far which perhaps indicates how murdoch is seeking to point out he is capable of revenge.

  15. “The intervention of the NSPCC’s chief Peter Wanless is another significant blow for Alison Saunders because Peter Wanless is establishment through and through. As a former senior civil servant he was trusted enough to investigate the Home Office’s missing child abuse files. His intervention carries a great deal of weight.”

    No it is all making it look like exactly what it is: a staged little roadshow.

    I meant the Janner decision business, not this blog… but then again…

    lol !

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