Lord Janner ‘abused children in Parliament’, claims Simon Danczuk MP

This is what Simon Danczuk had to say about the CPS and Lord Janner during the CPS debate in Westminster Hall at 2.42 pm on 23rd June 2015 :

“My involvement with the Crown Prosecution Service in recent years has mainly focused on the failure to prosecute child sex abusers. We know that in the 1960s, 70s and 80s people like Cyril Smith and Victor Montagu were allowed to continue to abuse children because the CPS was unable or unwilling to bring cases against them, even when it had the evidence. It is a legacy that should shame the CPS and the entire justice system, but these failures are not just a thing of the past. The case of Lord Janner is an interesting case study of the workings of the modern day CPS and its attitude towards alleged child abusers. We know that the CPS failed to press for prosecution of Lord Janner in 1991, 2002 and 2006, and the current Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders, has admitted that he should have been prosecuted. Now we hear that he cannot face justice because he is too ill…” – Simon Danczuk 23 June 2015

Labour MP Simon Danczuk said police had told him they wanted to bring 22 historical charges against Lord Janner, dating between 1969 and 1988.
The director of public prosecutions (DPP) announced in April that he would not be charged because of his dementia, although that decision is under review.
The ex-MP denies any wrongdoing.
Lord Janner’s family has said that the peer “is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing”.

BBC News

Full text @ Column 213WH 2.42 pm

Click here for the full debate

Advertisements

15 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

15 responses to “Lord Janner ‘abused children in Parliament’, claims Simon Danczuk MP

  1. steve

    Yet again all the people in UK now know that some are really ABOVE THE LAW,AND WHY BECAUSE THOSE THAT ARE IN POWER COVER UP,i mean do they really expect us to believe this alleged pedo has dementia,but is still allowed to do his job lol,i was in care system in 70/80 in leicestershire and this creeps name was known and used all over the homes i was placed in and over half the people I’ve since spoke to who live in leicester have known of his seedy dirty past,but those in power STILL STOP THE TRUT BEING SHOWN,thats why victims don’t come out and say what happened to them as we know WE ARE NOT BELIEVED,AND WE DONT MATTER?????????

  2. “The ongoing scandal further deepened this week when Labour MP Simon Danczuk used Parliamentary privilege to claim Janner had ‘violated, raped and tortured’ children inside the Houses of Parliament, molesting a nine-year-old boy, Paul Miller, at the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft in the Palace of Westminster.

    Miller, who has given a signed statement to police, believes he was targeted after Janner began visiting his school, Braunstone Frith Primary, in Leicester.

    He says he was then abused when the MP invited eight of its pupils to visit him at the Commons in 1969.

    The Janner family — who have always proclaimed the peer’s innocence — would doubtless respond to Miller’s claims by pointing out that Janner was not elected to Parliament until 1970.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3138264/Lord-Janner-paedophile-ring-son-s-elite-school-Labour-peer-s-link-institution-teachers-abused-boys.html

    • LeaveOurChildrenAlone

      When you’re a child and the offence is long ago, it’s quite normal for the victim to get the year wrong by one or so…that means nothing as far as guilt or not, especially when there’s other quality corroborating evidence : )

      • It’s hard to see what other “quality corroborating evidence” could be found in the above case. The ALLEGED victim’s story has already been shown to be incorrect, at least as far as either the date it took place or the status of Janner at the time (but WHAT time?!?), and quite possibly both.

        But let’s assume that the rest is as described by Miller & see what the actual complaint consists of:

        “Mr Miller was a pupil at the Braunstone Frith primary school in Leicester when he was one of eight children specially chosen by local MP Janner to visit London in 1969. He lived in care at the time at the Tatlow Road children’s home. Recalling the trip to Parliament, he said:

        “I was transfixed by this amazing building, which was like nothing I’d ever seen before, and so hadn’t noticed the rest of the group had moved on. That’s when Janner sidled up to me and told me to look at a dark spot on the chapel floor which he said was a bloodstain from years ago.

        As I was looking at it, he then quickly came up behind and hugged me for about 10 seconds before lowering his hand to touch my buttocks.
        I said nothing because I was stunned and wondered what was happening.

        He let go and just said, ‘Right, let’s find the others’ and that was it.
        It was as though nothing had happened, which to him it probably was. He’d probably done that countless times before.””

        We can see that the rest of the group had ‘moved on’ – there are, therefore, no witnesses who could verify the claim. And the claim itself? Well, it’s very difficult to know where to start: a ten-second hug that led to a hand touching the buttocks? At worst – if the recollection of an event which took place in a young boy’s life (9 years old) a long, long time ago (46 years ago) was accepted as being 100% accurate – it would still be of such a minor nature that I doubt it would be classed as ‘indecent’, let alone a ‘sexual assault’.

        If the alleged ‘touch of the buttocks’ had led to something else then, of course, this would not be the case. But, in the words of Miller, “…that was it.” And it really was. That. Was. It.

        Despite the fact that Miller was already “in care” at the time of the alleged incident the implication seems to be that this ‘incident’ has marked him for life but Janner’s money might be able to help:

        “Father-of-one Mr Miller, who has battled alcohol addiction and depression, has now given a signed statement to Leicestershire Police and is seeking a civil claim.”

        With all due respect to the many, many victims of abuse who have led traumatic lifes as a result of said abuse, the above alleged victim/claimant is not deserving of compensation, and the alleged incident is unworthy of being considered as an ‘attack’ by Janner.

        But the serial-liar Danczuk gets his “inside the Houses of Parliament” bullshit ‘validated’, and so on rolls the circus… because there’s no smoke without fire, right?

      • Jack

        The problem with your argument Bandini is that we have the CPS themselves telling us that they are in possession of evidence of serious sexual abuse , including child rape, which in their opinion is robust enough to provide a reasonable chance of conviction. A court is the place to hear it.

      • And the problem with YOUR argument, Jack, is that you’ve failed completely to grasp my own!
        I made no mention of the CPS being (or not being) “in possession of evidence of serious sexual abuse”. I limited myself to this one example as it highlights two points which interest me:

        – the generally poor-quality evidence resulting from trawling operations which set out with a fixed idea which the authorities then seek to ‘reverse engineeer’ by cobbling-together rubbish such as a 46-year old 10-second hug ‘crime’.

        – the basis on which the appalling Simon Danczuk will make his ludicrous but lucrative assertions in the press.

        As Janner will now face a trial-of-sorts, a trial in which he can play no role & doubtless will not even appear, we can expect Danczuk’s rubbish – which has been stupidly pasted all over the media – to be used as proof as to the impossibility of receiving a fair trial. And rightly so, although how much this even matters is moot, given that the end result will be an ‘absolute discharge’ with no conviction & no punishment.

        Incredibly, the CPS seem to have been infected by this madness; in today’s statement they say that:

        “In April this year the DPP decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, meaning that, in her view, if there could be a full criminal trial a jury would be LIKELY to convict Lord Janner.”

        This is astonishing, given that:
        “The CPS’s function is not to decide whether a person is guilty of a criminal offence, but to make fair, independent and objective assessments about whether it is appropriate to present charges for the criminal court to consider. The CPS assessment of any case is thus not in any sense a finding of, or implication of, any guilt or criminal conduct. It is not a finding of fact, which can only be made by a court, but rather an assessment of what it might be possible to prove to a court…”

        The day that the CPS state publicly that prosecution success is ‘likely’ is the day we can wave goodbye to an impartial CPS carrying out its role in a responsible manner. A day for the history books, then: 29th of June 2015.

    • Jack

      I understand your position very well Bandini. The case against Janner is now to be heard in open Court , THAT is the place to test the veracity of witness testimony. On another note, has Keith Vaz. Made any comment on this ?

      • Okay, Jack, I’m pleased to have been able to clear up your confusion.

        Regarding testing the ‘veracity’ of witness testimony, mightn’t one wonder how on earth this will occur? As the CPS have stated:

        “The core allegation was that Lord Janner, in a position of authority and trust as the local MP for Leicester West at the time, befriended the manager of a children’s care home to allow him access to children in order to allow him to perpetrate serious sexual offences on children.”

        And the manager was, of course, Beck, who first introduced the name of Janner as part of his own defence against charges of which he was found guilty. From this point – 1991 – Janner’s name has been ‘out there’.

        The Beck trial was dealing with historical allegations, even back in 1991. I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the confusion of competing theories are going to be untangled by the ‘trial of facts’, which as Joshua Rosenberg pointed out in The Guardian “… is not a trial, as such, because the defendant cannot put forward a defence. ”

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/29/lord-janner-cps-child-sex-offences

        What should Janner do when asked if in 1969 he did or did not do something or other? Dribble down the right-side of his chin to signify ‘yes’ & the left-hand side for ‘no’? (Maybe they could play The Beatles’ “Abbey Road” in ‘open court’ to remind him of what was going on in the world at around this time!). Well, he won’t even be there to do that, so, really, what is this except a ceremonial abomination, a trial-that-is-not-a-trial, a Kafkaesque perversion.

        Of far more interest to me will be the review into what the CPS now states were previous failures to prosecute Janner, specifically in 1991.
        It wasn’t until 2013 that any of the previous investigations managed to turn up more than a single accuser (1991 -1, 2002 -1, 2006 -1) when, as they write:

        “Evidence relating to ten individuals was developed by the police and CPS to the fullest extent possible.”

        Given that the rules in 1991 were significantly different, it is hard to see how they have retrospectively decided that the 1991 case really should have proceeded:

        “The CPS say there was sufficient evidence to prosecute in 1991.

        But is that the case? The only complainant then was Winston. His evidence at Beck’s trial was inconsistent. He may have had a criminal record. At that time, there was a mandatory corroboration warning given to juries and other safeguards which have since fallen by the wayside.

        A single complainant case in a non-domestic historical case in such circumstances would have had scant chance of success.

        And there was another problem. As Winston had given evidence for Beck, his evidence at a Janner trial, if accepted, could undermine the safety of the Beck conviction, forming a ground of appeal.

        Meanwhile the defence might claim, in the light of the Beck conviction, that Winston was a Beck stooge, undermining his credibility.

        It’s easy to see how the odds on conviction might be calculated without any need for a high-ranking cover-up.

        It is of course true that other complainants have since emerged. But then the Janner story has had a long period of gestation in the public domain.

        Interestingly the latest crop of complainants are all said to be from care homes in Leicester, yet none other than Winston made any allegations against Janner at the time of the Beck trawl.”

        http://chrissaltrese.blogspot.com.es/2015/04/janner-v-beck-and-conspiracy-cloud-atlas.html

        The above article goes on to consider some of the competing theories relating to Beck’s/Janner’s guilt (or innocence) – it’s a minefield & I doubt we’ll ever find out what really went on. But if we do, it will more likely come from sources other than a demented old man.

      • Jack

        As I say Bandini, let’s hear it in court.

      • But why wait for the (show) trial-that-isn’t-a-trial when the actors are already piping up?

        Here we have someone who seems to share my bemusement at the CPS’ statement that the 1991 investigation should have led to a prosecution: Tom Butler, the former Assistant Chief Constable. It was he, it would seem, who actually made the decision to NOT arrest Janner:
        http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-33321017
        “”However, Mr Butler insisted he would have needed to have legal justification to make an arrest, “and from what I can recall of the evidence, and from looking at papers now, I don’t see there was a justification to arrest Greville Janner.”

        “But it certainly wasn’t a cover-up. I was certainly not leaned on not to arrest him, and there was no influence brought to bear from outside the force that influenced that decision.””

        [Crikey, I can already imagine what the pitchforkers are saying:: “Well, he WOULD say that, wouldn’t he!” and “Me thinks he doth… blah blah blah”. They’ll be ‘joining dots’, no doubt… another cog in the giant judeo-masonic machine, with a berobed Jimmy Savile at the helm, chanting “Now then now then now then” in Latin!]

        He goes on to mention the different evidential benchmark of the epoch:

        “Mr Butler later became the most senior policeman in England and Wales overseeing the investigation of child abuse. In his BBC interview he described the evidence against Lord Janner in 1991 as “quite slim”, especially given the prevailing legal culture.”

        Who knows?

        “Kelvyn Ashby, the officer who ran the investigation, said he was not “warned off” investigating Lord Janner but was told not to arrest him.”

        Ashby does, however, disagee with Butler: “I would have preferred to arrest him because I felt we had enough evidence…”

        No doubt the truth will out in ‘open court’, eh?!? Then again…

  3. isn’t he just a gem!!! XD (and John Mann… Tom Watson to a lesser extent… not too sure about Hemming!)

    Is anyone going to discuss the NCA?
    well… the NCA led the way with Operation Pallial (highest number of convictions and exposed the role Masonic lodges where in being intimately linked to the networks), NCA searched No.10 regarding Cameron’s advisor and child abuse images, NCA came into the Rotherham abuse investigation and wiped the floor with South Yorkshire Police! ;) … with 300 suspects, NCA released the staggering statistics regarding national child abuse and called for a new way of investigating child sexual abuse.

    The NCA was Theresa May’s little darling agency… but she refuses to allow it to investigate top level child abuse in and around Westminster and ‘The Establishment’? WHY? Why not allow the NCA to take the helm and work in conjunction with Operation Hydrant and ACPO? Why not allow a new ‘National Child Abuse Unit’ to be formed, to be properly trained, resourced and staffed, drawing on a range of experts and law enforcement experience?
    When it comes to policing online child abuse images… why not allow NCA to work with GCHQ? And use the digital and computer resources to combat online paedophilia (grooming or images)…

    Come on now ya Tory bastards! It’s not difficult!

  4. Dave Allen

    Who’s the very fidgety guy on the right?

  5. Emm Jay

    None of what the admirable Simon Danczuk has said has been given the light of day on the news channels. They couldn’t make it more obvious why they haven’t if they tried. Their silence is deafening. Their silence speaks volumes.

  6. truthseeker

    Its the old story if your rich beyond imagination in this country you are above the law,on the other hand if your poor and working class then your life is meaningless,you are basically shit on the elites shoes ,its like in days of old and if workers saw landed gentry then you touched your forlock as they passed by,the elite think we are useless lazy good for nothing scum,and our children are there for them to abuse and murder as they wish,come the day the downtrodden wake up and see the filth who rule over us with an iron rod