Monthly Archives: September 2016

Far Out

The Friday Night Song.

Bye, bye, Rosetta.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under FNS, Personal

Alexis Jay Needs To Draft 3 New Panel Members.

capture

There’s an old joke about an English tourist in Ireland who asks one of the locals for directions to Dublin. The Irishman unhelpfully replies: ‘Well sir, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here’, and it is tempting, looking at how the troubled child abuse inquiry can move forward, to give a similarly non-constructive reply because most of the problems facing inquiry chair Pof Alexis Jay are inherited and she’s not starting from a good place. The IICSA relationship with the media, the primary source of information for  the survivors the child abuse inquiry is attempting to help and who the inquiry needs on board if it is to be successful, is at best non-existent, at worst terrible. Sure, there may have been a few vocal survivors and influential survivor groups that have been kept in the loop but tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of survivors across the country are no less invested in the inquiry’s outcome and are no less in need of reassurance that the IICSA is progressing well and the media is the only way reach them and reassure them.

I would suggest that Prof Jay draft three new panel members. The first, an experienced and respected journalist. I’m not going to suggest a anyone in particular but such a person could bring a great deal to the IICSA. Not only a slightly different way of investigating but also an understanding of how the media work. It should be noted that the very successful Hillsborough inquiry had the former ITN and BBC journalist Peter Sissons. Not only would someone like that bring a wealth of insightful experience it would also reassure the media. Nobody would suggest that confidential information should be routinely leaked to the press but it is essential that there is a good relationship between the media and the inquiry and appointing someone like Peter Sissons is a good start.

I’d also recommend appointing a retired police officer to the panel. I’ve suggested before that former head of CEOP Jim Gamble would be an ideal choice, not only would someone like that bring valuable experience, an investigative background, it would also reassure the police who would know that someone on the panel understood what might compromise ongoing investigations. However astonishingly, the former head of  the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre hasn’t even been asked to meet the IICSA.

The third panel member I’d like to see is an archivist. The Hillsborough inquiry had two, the ICSA has none.

The panel that Dame Goddard appointed was lawyer heavy. With Emmerson always influential and powerful and Goddard the chair, four of the six main players were lawyers. I’ve nothing against lawyers, that kind of experience is very valuable but ignoring the experience and investigative skills of other occupations always left the panel unbalanced.

I hope that Prof Alexis Jay will seize this opportunity to make the IICSA inquiry her own and at the same time bring balance to the Inquiry panel . If you were a football manager you wouldn’t pick a team with 11 strikers, so why have a panel with so many lawyers ?

84 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News

Human

The Friday Night Song

14 Comments

Filed under FNS, Personal

BBC Inside Out Request: Epilepsy Drugs

Hi,

BBC Inside Out would like to speak to ex-inmates from Yorkshire and Lincolnshire who were diagnosed with epilepsy in the 70’s-90’s and were given drugs such as Haloperidol and Beclamide.

We are also interested in speaking to those inmates who were not diagnosed with epilepsy but were still given these drugs.

Please email Gaggan.Sabherwal@bbc.co.uk with your stories and experiences along with your name and contact phone number.  

 

13 Comments

Filed under Abuse

Hillary Clinton Is Obviously Very Ill

Look at Hillary Clinton’s eyes during her speech yesterday.

This is no longer a conspiracy theory and it certainly isn’t pneumonia.

This is not funny.

She obviously has a neurological disorder and should not be running for President of the USA.

If she does not withdraw then there are two possible outcomes.

  1. Trump will win.
  2. She wins and her deceit against the American electorate is revealed after her election and 50% of the US public react.

Neither of those outcomes seem ideal to me.

She needs to withdraw from the race ASAP

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Nick, Daniel Janner, And Henriques

capture1

Daniel Janner QC with his father

News yesterday that Daniel Janner QC, son of the late Lord Greville Janner, intends to take out a private prosecution against the Operation Midland witness Nick for perverting the course of justice. [link to Sunday Times story at foot of page]

The Sunday Telegraph revealed that Sir Richard Henriques, who is conducting an internal inquiry into the handling of VIP CSA investigations by the Met which is due to report on October 6th, had written to Lord Janner’s family with a summary of the allegations that Nick had made against Janner.

Sir Richard wrote to the Janner family: “Nick does not describe any specific incident involving Lord Janner. All Nick states is ‘he wasn’t the worst or one of the nice ones’.

“Nick states that he did not know who Lord Janner was at the time and that he never said what his name was.”

The evidence supplied by Sir Richard gives further credence to claims that Nick simply kept adding names of notable dignitaries to his list of alleged abusers, possibly to attract more attention to his claims.

Sunday Telegraph

Let’s get one thing straight from the start; Lord Janner was a paedophile who abused young boys. Following an investigation by Leicestershire Police the CPS originally felt that the evidential stage had been passed but that the public interest stage had not as Lord Janner had dementia. David Perry QC who following the appeal of six victims conducted an independent review and concluded that it was in the public interest that Lord Janner should be charged.

Here is a full list of the charges that were brought against Lord Janner:

Charges

1. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 16th August 1987 and 19th August 1987 committed buggery with Complainant 1, a child under the age of 16 years (namely 15 years).

2. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, between 21st June 1988 and 2nd August 1988 committed buggery with Complainant 1, a male person aged 16 years without his consent.

3. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 16th August 1987 and 2nd August 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 1, a boy aged under 16 years.

4. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st June 1988 and 2nd August 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 1, a male aged 16 years.

5. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 13th March 1984 and 27th March 1984 indecently assaulted Complainant 2, a boy under the age of 16 years.

6. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 27th March 1984 and 1st November 1984 indecently assaulted Complainant 2, a male aged 16 years.

7. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 3rd July 1981 and 15th September 1981 indecently assaulted Complainant 3, a boy under the age of 16 years.

8. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 3rd July 1981 and 15th September 1981 committed buggery with Complainant 3, a child under the age of 16 years.

9. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between the 10th October 1979 and the 7th December 1982 indecently assaulted Complainant 4, a boy under the age of 16 years.

10. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 committed buggery with Complainant 5, a child under the age of 16 years.

11. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 and on an occasion other than in charge 10 committed buggery with Complainant 5, a child under the age of 16 years.

12. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956 PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 indecently assaulted Complainant 5, a boy under the age of 16 years.

13. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 22nd August 1985 and 20th September 1987 indecently assaulted Complainant 5, a boy under the age of 16 years

14. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

15. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

16. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 indecently assaulted Complainant 6, a boy under the age of 16 years.

17. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 21st November 1972 and 22nd December 1975 committed buggery with Complainant 6, a child under the age of 16 years.

18. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 1st April 1985 and 1st April 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 7, a boy under the age of 16 years.

19. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 1st April 1985 and 1st April 1988 indecently assaulted Complainant 7, a boy under the age of 16 years.

20. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 16th June 1963 and 9th October 1969 indecently assaulted Complainant 8, a boy under the age of 16 years.

21. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Indecent Assault on a Male Person contrary to section 15(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner on a day between 10th October 1969 and 31st January 1970 indecently assaulted Complainant 8, a boy under the age of 16 years.

22. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE Buggery contrary to section 12(1) Sexual Offences Act 1956. PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE Lord Greville Janner, on a day between 24th August 1977 and 1st November 1978 committed buggery with Complainant 9.

CPS Blog

The Metropolitan Police passed Nick’s allegations against Lord Janner to Leicestershire Police who declined to include them in the charges set out above.

It seems to me that the specific case against Nick that his allegation against Lord Janner was an attempt to pervert the course of justice is very weak. Given that he didn’t originally name Lord Janner until an Exaro journalist showed him a photograph of Janner, according to Henriques, it appears that Nick could reasonably claim that his recollections had been contaminated and he had not deliberately set out to mislead the police.

That all said, other allegations that Nick made to Operation Midland against Leon Brittan, Harvey Proctor and Lord Bramall, for example, seem to be far stronger cases for perverting the course of justice than Nick’s allegations against Lord Janner. I note that in most of the stories from yesterday Harvey Proctor was quoted which may indicate that if any private prosecution did take place then it would relate to Nick’s Operation Midland allegations more broadly.

It would appear to this blogger that Daniel Janner QC is attempting to clear his father’s name by prosecuting someone who has made false allegations to the Met but whose allegations were not included in the very credible charges brought by Leicestershire Police.

I’ve been pretty blunt about what I think about Nick on The Needle, I’ve no doubt he is a fantasist who has misled the police and now, potentially, his false allegations might end up undermining the very genuine complainants against the late Lord Janner because if this does go to court then those genuine complainants will be forgotten and all everyone will remember are Nick’s false allegations.

So why hasn’t Nick been prosecuted before now ?

The first reason is that Operation Midland was a huge embarrassment to the Metropolitan Police. They’ll want to forget about this as quickly as possible and the last thing they’ll want to do is have the full details of how gullible they were revealed in open court. It’s bad enough that Sir Richard Henriques is going to report but the public won’t get to see the full cringeworthy details of the botched investigation.

The second reason is that if a police prosecution were brought then the CPS, assuming the Evidential Stage is passed, would conclude that it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute Nick. It should go without saying that anyone desperate enough to claim that Harvey Proctor attempted to cut off his penis with a penknife but was stopped from doing so by Ted Heath has some serious emotional and mental health issues but also the CPS might conclude that other genuine victims of child abuse may be put off from coming forward if such a high profile complainant as Nick were to be prosecuted.

A private prosecution takes this out of the hands of both the Met and the CPS. Generally a private prosecution costs upwards of £100,000 but given that Daniel Janner QC or a colleague in his legal chambers can process the paperwork at ‘mates rates’ the cost shouldn’t be quite so high.

As soon as the application for a private prosecution is processed then the CPS must by law look at the allegation of perverting the course of justice independently and the public interest case is not so overwhelming that the CPS might not conclude that a Crown prosecution should take place.

So, the bottom line is that just applying for a private prosecution ensures that the CPS must look at the evidence and decide if there is enough evidence to prosecute themselves.

What I would point out though is that just because Nick is a fantasist, it doesn’t follow that Lord Greville Janner wasn’t a paedophile because he was.

A man whose claims about a Westminster paedophile ring prompted a £1.8m police investigation could face prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The claimant, known only as “Nick”, made a series of lurid allegations about a number of influential figures including the former prime minister Edward Heath, Lord Bramall, the former head of the armed forces, the former home secretary Leon Brittan and the former Tory MP Harvey Proctor.

No evidence was found to back up his claims.

He also alleged that the former Labour MP Greville Janner — later Lord Janner — was part of the ring.

Janner’s family have written to an internal Metropolitan police inquiry demanding that Nick be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

“If the CPS does not take action then I will be consulting our legal team about launching a private prosecution of Nick,” said Daniel Janner QC, the son of the peer, who died in December while facing allegations of sexual assault.

Sunday Times

30 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Somewhere Only We Know

The Friday Night Song

1 Comment

Filed under FNS, Personal