The Public Interest to Protect Powerful Paedophiles 62

The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute serial paedophile Greville Janner, for many years the leader of the Zionist lobby in the UK. I presume that his convenient senility is the reason for non-prosecution.

But the facts of Janner’s activities in Leicester care homes have been known for decades, and there was overwhelming evidence in one particular case. The failure of the state to act against Janner when he was a Labour MP and Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, is another example of the disgraceful impunity of the powerful in this country. In a pattern that has become familiar to us, police investigating the case were in 1989 warned off by their superiors.

Given Janner’s later preying on boys from care homes, I cannot read this without a shudder. In publishing it, I in no way intend to demean the dreadful suffering of the child survivors of the Holocaust. It appears that Janner may have been preying on the most vulnerable of children for his own purposes, and there could have been a sick motive to his concern:

I was taken up to the Kinderheim, to the Children’s Home, where there were some sixty orphan children, most of whose lives had been saved by monasteries, by being out in the woods or by miracles in each case and they all spoke Yiddish and I didn’t speak Yiddish and it was very difficult to talk to them but we knew some of the same songs so we sang together in Hebrew they knew and I knew the songs and then one of them said to me the first Yiddish words I’ve ever learnt , he said “Gavreal”, which is Greville in Hebrew and (he) called me “Gavreal spishtie ping pong, ping pong” and he pushed back and forwards as though he was holding a ping pong bat so my first words in Yiddish were “ping pong” and I played Ping Pong with them and they taught me a few words of Yiddish and I found it such a moving experience that for the next eighteen months I went back to them every weekend.

My emphasis. Indeed I wonder if this is where it all started for Janner?

Janner is on “leave of absence” from the House of Lords. But according to the parliamentary website, he still retains the following positions, and it appears that not one of these organisations has repudiated him:

Vice President – The Association for Jewish Youth
Vice President – The Jewish Leadership Council
President – The Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women
Advisory Board – Community Security Trust
Vice President – The World Jewish Congress
Chairman – The Holocaust Educational Trust
Director – The United Jewish Israel Appeal

It is wildly inappropriate, in particular, for the Association for Jewish Youth and the Community Security Trust not to formally dissociate themselves from Janner, and I call on all these organisations to make a statement. The silence is deafening.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

62 thoughts on “The Public Interest to Protect Powerful Paedophiles

1 2 3
  • John Spencer-Davis

    Craig Murray
    16/04/2015 9:32 am

    If Lord Janner is suffering from dementia, presumably he has had a formal diagnosis from a consultant psychiatrist.

    I doubt that his family are the only people who believe he is suffering from dementia, and if they are then he should be tested by a qualified psychiatrist forthwith. The DPP could require that to be done. I assume that that has been done, in which case it is not proper to describe it as “convenient senility”. Dementia is a physical disease with physical symptoms, not a chimerical mental illness.

    The fact that someone has a diagnosis of dementia does not necessarily mean that they do not have the legal capacity to present a defence at a trial. That is a medical opinion. Again, possibly a court should be the proper place to decide that, by appointing suitable medical personnel.

    Kind regards,


  • Mary

    Another shocking cover up of a alleged paedophile’s activities. It’s not so much whether there is a diagnosis or not, it’s the length of time that the ‘investigation’ has taken. Years in fact.

    Do not expect too much either from the Goddard enquiry presently ongoing.

  • craig Post author


    Remember Ernest Saunders?

    I find it strange that they are saying “not in the public interest”. If it were that clear-cut, would they not say “medically unfit to stand trial”?.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    I do indeed remember Ernest Saunders very well – a medical miracle, the only person in history to make a recovery from pre-senile dementia.

    Saunders should have been prosecuted on his “recovery”.

    Yes, that is what I would have expected, which is why I would very much like to know if he has been tested and received a diagnosis. Also if he has been tested privately, by a consultant psychiatrist who has been paid by the family, or by an independent psychiatrist appointed by the DPP or by a judge, who could review test results, for example, or test again.

    I think that if that has not happened, the victims (and the public generally) should be outraged, and should demand that that should be done.

    Kind regards,


  • Beeston Regis

    Will it ever be “in the public interest” to prosecute any of these high level paedophiles?

  • Hieroglyph

    Is there actually a public interest test when deciding whether to prosecute alleged child abusers? I naively thought that ALL alleged child abusers were liable to be prosecuted – if there was evidence enough to do so. Never heard of a public interest test before, it sounds curious. I guess this means that there are alleged child-abusers who the public have no interest in seeing prosecuted. Coincidentally, they are all powerful men heavily linked to the establishment. Odd that.

    A prosecution can also throw light on the alleged crime, even if there isn’t a great deal to be gained in sending the senile fella to jail. Ah, I get it now …

  • Clark

    Could Janner be prosecuted by the Scottish legal system? Maybe it is in the interests of the Scottish public.

  • craig Post author


    Not, I fear, unless any were committed in Scotland. But I am not convinced the Scottish legal establishment is really less corrupt – cf Hollie Greig (sorry, may have misspelt that). The legal establishment needs to be radically addressed post independence.

  • Clark

    Craig, please look through Matt Quinn’s arguments on your recent False Flag thread; the Hollie Greig allegations may have been exaggerated as a stick to beat the SNP with – I stress that I have not looked at much of the evidence, but Matt Quinn does seem informed, and argues fairly and intelligently.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    I share Craig’s outrage and sense of disgust and agree with all of the comments made so far, in particular those concerning

    – what is “the public interest”
    – who exactly has diagnosed the senile dementia
    – the reminder of Ernest Saunders’s miraculous recovery.

    On the first point, I should have thought it would always be in the public interest to pursue paedophiles, especially when the police have actually managed to gather sufficient evidence to recommend prosecution of someone who is, by a miracle, still alive (the case of Jimmy Savile refers).

    In the same connection, I also recall that age is no barrier to the prosecution of former Nazi war criminals (about a few of whom the “senile dementia” argument was also tried – unsuccessfully).


    As a more general question: this is not the first time we have seen the DPP declining to prosecute on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest. Are the reasons and motivations for such decisions made public or are we just expected to take the DPP’s word for it?

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    A further question: is a private prosecution possible in such cases?

  • craig Post author


    On the Hollie Greig case, I am aware that there are attempts to use it to implicate senior SNP figures unfairly. But there is still something very wrong there; my comment that it casts doubt on Scotland’s legal establishment was carefully phrased, and relates to the detail of the case.

  • Mary

    Janner was still able to attend the HoL and pick up his £300 a day until fairly recent times.

    My comment on an earlier thread.

    ‘I have made a more thorough check on the HoL expenses claims.

    Janner did attend the HoL in November 2013. He claimed £2,100 for 15 days.

    Attended for 12 days in December 2013 but did not claim. Why not?

    No attendance recorded in the January 2014 and February 2014 records when the entries stop at the end of financial year! It is now July 2014 so we have no idea what went on for the last five months. Wonderful.

    What does his daughter, the rabbi think? Is she standing by him? Probably.’

    Anon was on watch on that thread plus Habbabkuk using a different avatar.

    On the same thread, Fedup catalogued all the allegations made against Janner going back to 1991.

  • Anon1

    “The Director of Public Prosecutions has decided that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute serialpaedophile Greville Janner, for many years the leader of the Zionist lobby in the UK.”

    My emphasis. And there you have Craig’s only motivation and interest in the case.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    “Anon was on watch on that thread plus Habbabkuk using a different avatar.”

    Yes, one comment from me and several from Anon (and indeed, several from you).

    Your point is…..?

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Further to my question at 11h18 : should it be the case that the DPP is not required to motivate his decision that a prosecution would not be in the public interest (I’m still awaiting an answer to that question from someone on here), one could of course hope that one or the other MP might raise the matter in the HoC.

    But of course I forget – the HoC is no longer sitting.

    Very convenient.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    “My emphasis. And there you have Craig’s only motivation and interest in the case.”

    I do not believe that that is the case.

  • Anon1

    Yes, Mary, I was watching that thread. The watchword on that thread appeared to be “Jewish” or – in code – “Zionist” paedophilia.

    As a tester I threw in some related points about the abuse of thousands of white children by grooming gangs. These paedophiles, who happened to be Muslim, were, perhaps unsurprisingly, of no interest to the blog cotery. Presumably because they aren’t Jewish/Zionist, and as such there are no points to be scored or scores settled. Rather gives the lie to the claims to be concerned for the victims, don’t you think?

    You’ll know all about this from your own “human rights” activism.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)


    Since you have thought it appropriate to refer to me in connection with a thread from last year, perhaps you’ll allow me to refer to a thread of a day or so agao in which you appear?

    It was when you said:

    “‘Whispering’ Nick Robinson sees Clegg back in Downing Street. LOL.”

    I replied as follows:

    “Nick Robinson is ‘whispering’ at the moment because he’s recovering from an operation.

    An operation to remove a bronchial carcinoid tumour.”

    Since then, you have tried to brush aside the matter and have even claimed that you were only saying that Nick Robinson went back to work too soon.


    Would you now have the grace toagree with me that your use of the word “whispering” was at worst malicious and at best tasteless in the extreme?

    Otherwise known as cancer.

  • John Spencer-Davis

    The blog of the Crown Prosecution Service gives a comprehensive statement regarding Lord Janner and the decision not to prosecute.

    You will see, that if he did not have a formal diagnosis of Alzheimer’s Disease, the CPS would most definitely be prosecuting him. And should have done so long ago, as they admit.

    Assuming that the blog is accurate, personally I am satisfied that Lord Janner would be unable to present a defence to the courts because he lacks mental capacity, and therefore he would be found unfit to plead. The decision by the CPS is the right one.

    Selected highlights.

    “The CPS has concluded that Lord Greville Janner should not be prosecuted because of the severity of his dementia which means he is not fit to take part in any proceedings, there is no treatment for his condition, and there is no current or future risk of offending.”

    “At the outset, it is emphasised that but for medical considerations, it would undoubtedly have been in the public interest to prosecute. Public interest factors in favour of a prosecution include that the allegations are of very serious offending; the complainants were young, vulnerable children and the allegations involve the alleged abuse of power and position. The CPS equally has no doubt that, if the correct decisions had been taken about the evidential test in relation to the previous investigations, the public interest test would have been passed and prosecution should have followed.”

    “In 2009, Lord Janner was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, which is the most common cause of dementia. Alzheimer’s disease is a physical disease affecting the brain. Alzheimer’s is a progressive disease, which means that gradually, over time, more parts of the brain are damaged. As this happens, the symptoms become more severe. There is no treatment or cure.

    Four medical experts, all experienced and highly qualified, have examined Lord Janner – two instructed by his own legal team, two by the police and prosecutors. The most recent medical report is dated 31 March 2015. The key findings are as follows:

    •Lord Janner is suffering from a degenerative dementia which is rapidly becoming more severe. He requires continuous care both day and night.
    •His evidence could not be relied upon in court and he could not have any meaningful engagement with the court process, and the court would find it impossible to proceed.
    •On the Mini Mental State examination all four doctors were in general agreement as to the level of cognitive ability.
    •The condition will only deteriorate, there is no prospect of recovery.
    •Manipulation (“putting it on”) is “out of the question”.
    •There is no risk of future offending.”

    But please read the whole report for yourselves – it is shocking.

    Kind regards,


  • John Spencer-Davis

    The only thing in the report that slightly concerns me is that there is no reference to any physical examination of Lord Janner such as a CT scan. The reference by the doctors is to the MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination), which is a verbal / written test.

    I would like to know if physical brain examinations have been performed.


  • Mary

    The Telegraph version

    Lord Greville Janner will not face child sex abuse trial after Crown Prosecution Service ‘mistakes’

    CPS admits Lord Janner should have been prosecuted over string of ‘extremely serious’ claims as police explore possible legal challenge and Labour suspend him

    Labour Lord Greville Janner’s home ‘raided as part of child sex allegations’

    By Martin Evans, Crime Correspondent
    11:02AM BST 16 Apr 2015

    A veteran Labour peer who will not stand trial for historic sex abuse allegations because of the “severity” of his dementia would have been charged with a string of offences against children, it has been confirmed.

    The Crown Prosecution Service admitted it made “mistakes” and Lord Janner should have been prosecuted earlier as Labour suspended him from the party.

    Leicestershire Police said they are “exploring what possible legal avenues there may be to challenge” the decision by the CPS not to prosecute.

    It said allegations against Lord Janner are “extremely serious” and the evidence against him would have warranted a criminal trial.

    But the 86-year-old’s poor health means prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case in the courts.



    How are his victims feeling right now?

  • Macky

    Habbabkuk; “Would you now have the grace toagree with me that your use of the word “whispering” was at worst malicious and at best tasteless in the extreme?”

    Mary use of the adjective was innocent, unlike your malicious & cruel ploy of making a bogus issue about cancer against somebody just about to enter a cruel stage of cancer treatment; you are beyond disgusting.

  • Googler

    I think there is a bigger story here, which has to do with the hypocrisy of the state in all things relating to children. We are told that children are top priority, but this is voted one of the worst places in the world to raise a child. We are told that the family law courts put the wishes and needs of children first, and yet millions of children are prevented from having a loving relationship with their father. Many more are living in poverty and go hungry. Nobody is interested in the figures of dads who are in despair because the court regards them merely as people who need to be in full-time employment so as to offset the benefits that are paid to mothers, who are reduced to being domestic slaves so that we can protect the privilege of men in the public sphere. Nobody talks about the 100 males over the age of 16 who commit suicide every week, many of which are related to not being able to see their children. The family courts are not independent, as we are told, but completely in cahoots with the DWP, and surrounded by people who have to profit in a very big way from maximizing the misery of children and fathers. Whenever I hear the word paedophilia, I generally regard it as more scare-mongering, and more abuse heaped on the male gender; but what disgusts me most is when those who are really guilty of it beyond a doubt (rather than simply having it alleged for political reasons) escape punitive measures simply because of who they are. It appears that the more scandalous government behaves, the easier it is for it to get away with what it does. It’s genius.

  • Macky

    Re “Mary use of the adjective was innocent, unlike your malicious & cruel ploy of making a bogus issue about cancer against somebody just about to enter a cruel stage of cancer treatment; you are beyond disgusting.”

    Typo corrections;

    ” use of the adjective was innocent, unlike your malicious & cruel ploy of making a bogus issue about cancer against somebody just about to enter a stage of cancer treatment; you are beyond disgusting.

  • Macky

    Forget clever formatting ! typos = Mary s/be Mary’s cruel stage s/be crucial stage

  • Mary

    9.Sir Thomas Hetherington QC (1977–1987; first head of CPS)
    10.Sir Allan Green QC (1987–1992)
    11.Dame Barbara Mills DBE QC (1992–1998)
    12.Sir David Calvert-Smith QC (1998–2003)
    13.Sir Ken Macdonald QC (2003–2008)
    14.Sir Keir Starmer KCB QC (2008–2013)
    15.Alison Saunders CB (2013–present)

    Shame on them.

    Starmer was knighted and is standing for Labour in Holborn and St Pancras.

    Macdonald is now Lord Macdonald of River Glaven. LD and one time crony of the BLiars. Co-founder of Matrix Chambers with Cherie Booth.

    Calvert-Smith became a High Court judge.

    Mills has died. Her brother in law was David Mills, husband of Tessa Jowell ex Labour minister and soon to stand for London mayor. She is back with Mills from whom she seperated following the scandal about cash bribes from Berlusconi.

    Allan Green. Oops. Caught kerb crawling, allegedly.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.