Lord Carlile is amazingly unobservant. An excellent article in today’s Observer by Jay Rayner gives details of the establishment cover-up of Janner’s long continued child rapes. The silence of the Vaz draws most attention. But let us think about Alex Carlile.
Rayner states “The establishment, in the shape of his fellow MPs, men such as Labour’s Keith Vaz, Tory David Ashby and the then Lib Dem MP now Lord Carlile, closed ranks.” In the 1991 House of Commons debate deploring accusations against Janner, Carlile played a prominent part, describing Janner as a man of “integrity” and “determination”. Carlile should have known Janner fairly well. They were both MPs, both QCs, both members of Friends of Israel, both patrons of UK lawyers for Israel. The appear still to both be patrons of the Friends of Israel Educational Foundation. They were regulars on the same parliamentary committees dealing with legal affairs. They were both to leave the Commons at the same time and both to join the Lords only slightly apart.
Still, Carlile’s stalwart defence of his friend is understandable. You can’t expect him to have picked up on Janner’s secret life. Nor that of Cyril Smith. Carlile shared a small Commons office with Cyril Smith for many years. Oh dear. He really isn’t good at noticing things, is he?
Carlile’s mistress and eventual wife was a senior legal adviser to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Cosy world, Westminster, it it not?
Carlile went on to be a stunningly illiberal “Independent” Reviewer of anti-terror legislation, where he demonstrated his independence by agreeing to absolutely everything the security services told him. 42 day detention with no charge? No problem. In fact there was no period of detention without charge posited so extreme that Carlile did not support it. Secret courts hearing intelligence evidence the defence were not allowed to see? Fine by Carlile. Control orders? Great. He is a fantastic bastion, protecting the public, is Carlile.
Even better, of course, at protecting his associates.
Fred, I often have difficulty getting you to answer a straight question, so please do so on this occasion.
Do you believe the SNP launching its manifesto on the anniversary of Hitler’s birth was :
(a) accidental?
(b) deliberate?
One wonders what he thinks of the rise of Ukrainian nationalism.
____________________
Indeed Lysais,one can only wonder,of the horror Fred feels for all the other nations that gained independence from the British Empire,under the flag of Nationalism.
me, 1.07 : “coincidental” rather than “accidental”
“Do you believe the SNP launching its manifesto on the anniversary of Hitler’s birth was :
(a) accidental?
(b) deliberate?”
Might have been.
“Indeed Lysais,one can only wonder,of the horror Fred feels for all the other nations that gained independence from the British Empire,under the flag of Nationalism.”
I’m not a big fan of either Ian Smith or Robert Mugabe.
In the absence of a straight answer, I shall have to use deductive reasoning.
If Fred believed he had even the slightest grounds to justify a claim that the SNP had deliberately coincided their manifesto launch with Hitler’s birthday, he would say so. He avoids answering therefore he hasn’t got such grounds, therefore he doesn’t really believe there is a connection, therefore he knowingly misleads when he infers there is.
Habbabkuk @8.41 pm on 21 April Replying to your comment will take some time as I need to address the West Lothian question in some depth. However, my immediate priority is to provide the FCO with a more enlightening interpretation of the results of today’s Anguilla General Election (polling stations still open) than is likely to come from the FCO appointed Governor. Please bear with me and look at this thread tomorrow.
Forgive my cynicism at the timely onset of Lord Janner’s ‘dementia’.
“In the absence of a straight answer, I shall have to use deductive reasoning. ”
You can deduce that I made two statements of fact beyond dispute.
I can deduce you perceive your nationalist cult as above all criticism.
Joshua Rozenberg has written an article for the Guardian examining the decision not to prosecute Lord Janner. He says that the decision is the right one. I could not more strongly disagree, and I find some of the article both startling and intensely annoying.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/22/critics-of-lord-janner-decision-misunderstand-justice-system
Let’s start with this:
“I have no independent confirmation of the doctors’ reports. All I can say is that the last time I saw Janner in public – which must have [been] two or three years ago – he could no longer remember anybody else’s name. A colleague who saw him at around the same time says he was “away with the fairies”. It would be good to see the doctors’ reports. But, whatever we are told, the conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied.”
All right. I have no problems accepting that at all. However, two years ago would take us to April 2013.
So, what was Lord Janner doing attending the House of Lords for 91 out of 92 sitting days from April to November 2013, and claiming £14,000 expenses out of public monies for doing so, if he was “away with the fairies” and couldn’t even remember anyone’s name? It doesn’t seem to occur to Rozenberg to ask this question. Who was taking him to the Lords and filling in his expenses claims? A member of his family? Who?
If it was three years ago, that’s even worse – he was in the Lords 136 days out of 144, I understand, at a cost to the public of £25,000.
If Janner’s dementia was as severe as Rozenberg says in April 2013, then someone has been misappropriating funds from the public purse since at least that time, and possibly up to a year prior to that, or even longer. Where is that money? Wouldn’t it be in the public interest to find out?
I also resent the suggestion that if someone thinks a person attending the House of Lords regularly can be presumed to be in their right mind, then they are a “conspiracy theorist”. Rozenberg should be ashamed of himself.
Rozenberg examines the procedure which I would like to see, a trial of the facts.
“This is not a trial, as such, because the defendant cannot put forward a defence. For that reason, there can be no verdict of guilty and the court cannot pass sentence. All it can do is to make a hospital order, a supervision order or an order for the defendant’s absolute discharge. The purpose of this procedure, as explained by the courts, is to ensure that a defendant’s liberty is not restricted if no crime was ever carried out.”
Well, yes, it is a trial – that’s why the legislation calls it a trial. Within this paragraph Rozenberg embeds a link purporting to show the explanation by the courts of the purpose of the procedure. His own link shows what he says is nonsense. I despair. The purpose of the procedure is NOT to “ensure that a defendant’s liberty is not restricted if no crime was ever carried out.” I am angry that he has written such a dishonest sentence in a national newspaper. Here is the purpose to which he refers and I have printed the bit he has left out in capitals.
“The balance which the legislation seeks to strike, therefore, is to protect the rights and interests of those accused of crime to ensure that their liberty is not adversely affected without the appropriate safeguards of a court having established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did the act or made the omission charged. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS ALSO PROTECTED FROM THOSE WHO ARE PROVED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE MOST SERIOUS ACTS BUT WHO CANNOT BE TRIED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THEY ARE UNFIT TO TAKE PART IN A TRIAL OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST THEM.”
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2015/2.html
Rozenberg comments further:
“Saunders, the DPP, says she considered this option and concluded that the outcome would inevitably be an absolute discharge. In those circumstances, she says, a prosecution would not be in the public interest. That must be right.”
That’s all the evidence Rozenberg gives. “That must be right”. Says who, pray?
As the legal judgement Rozenberg himself adduces affirms, there is a public interest in proving that Janner has committed the most serious acts – if he has. If he hasn’t, then it’s in his interest that a court will find that he has not. And who says that the “outcome would inevitably be an absolute discharge”? The point is that it is in the public interest that the issues are heard IN PUBLIC and that justice can therefore be seen to be done. And if the result is an absolute discharge (as it was in one of the cases that Rozenberg himself quotes), so what? Decisions such as that should not be taken out of the hands of a court by the CPS. I think that the public interest in a trial of the fact, so that the issues are examined by a judge and jury in public, could not be clearer.
Rozenberg again:
“What the DPP does not spell out in her statement – because it should hardly need saying – is that the primary purpose of a criminal trial is not to “deliver justice” to alleged victims. It is not to “find out what happened”.
That’s the role of a public inquiry. The purpose of a criminal trial is to test the evidence against a named defendant. If the defendant is dead, abroad or suffering from dementia, there can be no trial.”
The primary purpose of a criminal trial is not to deliver justice? That’s news to me. And the whole point of a trial of the fact, in any case, is that it is NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL. The statement that “if the defendant is…suffering from dementia, there can be no trial” is a downright falsehood. Several times on these threads the case of Michael Collingwood has been quoted.
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Man-guilty-abusing-age-girls/story-11746382-detail/story.html
Rozenberg titles his article “Critics of Lord Janner decision misunderstand justice system”. That’s a good one from someone who has packed his article with omissions and falsehoods. I’m just an ordinary person who has taken the trouble to look into this matter, partly due to a professional interest. I’m wondering now if every article written for every newspaper is full of such blatant bias and misrepresentation, but I can’t tell because I don’t have the time to go and find out.
By the way, here’s Allison Pearson in the Telegraph yesterday:
“Leicestershire Police has led the chorus of disbelief having handed over video evidence to the CPS apparently showing Janner taking part in ‘some of the worst crimes imaginable’”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11554636/Forgive-my-cynicism-at-the-timely-onset-of-Lord-Janners-dementia.html
Video evidence? I have not heard this before.
Kind regards,
John
I’ve always had trouble remembering people’s names, even back when I was doing my university studies. It’s never prevented me from functioning normally in all sorts of ways.
Lysias
How about your mother’s or your father’s or your siblings’?
Kind regards,
John
No, but has Janner?
Lysias
Well, that’s another evidence that Rozenberg’s article is rubbish, isn’t it. How could he possibly know that Janner couldn’t remember “anybody else’s name”?
Janner gave his children deeds to his £2m home at height of abuse probe in echo of Stuart Hall case, move could slash potential payouts:
There’s that police raid in Dec. 2013 again. (Ha’aretz has reported that Janner stopped his previously regular attendance at House of Lords meetings after that raid.) But it sure sounds as if Janner was of sound mind on March 26, 2014, when the property was transferred.
At least in the U.S., a transfer of this kind, if made for the purpose of evading civil liability, can be nullified.
Lysias
Very interesting.
If a transfer of assets is done for the purpose of avoiding care home fees a local authority can challenge it and have the person’s assets assessed as if such a transfer had never taken place.
I wonder if the transfer decision was taken by Janner himself or if a property and financial affairs power of attorney was activated at that time. (I’m still waiting for information on this from the Office of the Public Guardian). If it was taken by someone holding a power of attorney and that person was a beneficiary of the decision (such as one or more of Janner’s children), then it should (and presumably will) be challenged forthwith and the Court of Protection should disallow the transfer. In any case if the police were unable to interview Janner in late 2013 because he was unable to respond adequately to their questions then he sure as hell couldn’t make any financial decisions in March 2014 which would stand up in court.
Kind regards,
John
UK’s top prosecutor ‘ignored advice of two QCs who told her to charge Janner because of overwhelming evidence and accounts of victims’:
Perhaps Lord Carlile is feeling something of a chump for uttering these words and others like them in the House of Commons on 3rd December 1991.
“Several hon. and hon. and learned Members who are present, some of whom have already spoken, have, like me, had the opportunity over the years in their professional lives to meet corrupt and evil people and to examine and sometimes cross-examine them in court. I am sure that those who share my professional experience will agree that those who have trodden in the mire of corruption all too easily become corrupt to the core. They cease to recognise the difference between what is good and what is bad and between what is honourable and what is corrupt.
They turn, like Mr. Beck, easily to more corruption and try to wheedle their way out of their own previous corruption—and that is what has happened in this case. That is why my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West was slandered with dreadful calumny by Mr. Beck.”
Maybe he thinks he was taken for a bit of a mug by his then friend Greville Janner.
Kind regards,
John
And guess who else has changed his mind now? Vaz!
Vaz urges review over Janner prosecution decision:
Vaz attended the House of Commons at the personal invitation of Greville Janner. Given the alleged experiences of young males who have done the same thing Vaz may consider himself to have had a fortunate escape.
Kind regards,
John
Lord Janner still being protected, alleged victim claims
3 hours ago
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32432171
‘Aged nine or ten at the time, he said he was told to obey the “very important man”.
“I believe he used his position in society to do what he did,” he said.
“I believe deep down in my heart that he was protected by others and he’s still being protected by others.”
In the years following the alleged abuse, he said he was left “angry that there was nobody there to protect me”.
“I can’t form relationships. I can’t form trust with anybody. I can’t be in a room alone with anybody unless I’ve got an escape route,” he said.
“I did turn to drink to try and forget it, which has caused me some health problems, but now I’m over that and I’m thinking extremely clearly, and I just want to get justice for the victims.”
He said his marriage broke down and his relationship with his sons was damaged “because you don’t want to be tagged as an abuse victim”.’
Terrible.
If Janner were in fact non compos mentis, it would be surprising if someone – a member of the family perhaps – had not obtained power of attorney. The Lords letter suggests that this had not been done by then. Legal types – is it possible for someone whose incompetence has been officially acknowledged by assigning PoA elsewhere, legally to make any requests or undertakings?
Sorry – see JSD was ahead of me there. Still, would welcome clarification of the point.
Ba’al Zevul
24/04/2014 14:03pm
There are two kinds of lasting power of attorney and the rules about them differ.
The two kinds are a Health and Welfare POA and a Property and Financial Affairs POA. The donor (Janner in this case) can set up none, or one, or both, as he/she pleases.
A power of attorney cannot be used until it is registered with the Office of the Public Guardian.
Just because a power of attorney has been registered, does not mean that the donor (eg Janner) lacks mental capacity.
However, a property and financial affairs power of attorney can begin to be used as soon as it is registered, whether the donor retains mental capacity or not. So, theoretically, two people (donor and attorney) can be taking decisions about the donor’s life, both of whom have mental capacity. If the attorney wanted to oppose, say, irrational decisions by the donor, he or she would have to have an expert declare the donor as lacking mental capacity.
But a health and welfare power of attorney cannot be used until the donor lacks mental capacity (which in practice means assessd by a doctor as lacking mental capacity).
So, in this case, IF a power of attorney for property and financial affairs had been drawn up and registered with the Office of the Public Guardian, that in no way means Janner could not legally take decisions for himself. To get to that stage, a statement from a consultant psychiatrist, for example, would be required to say that he lacked mental capacity.
Kind regards,
John
“I’ve always had trouble remembering people’s names, even back when I was doing my university studies.”
_________________
And also remembering the name of the Oxford college he allegedly went to.
Lord Janner: More alleged victims come forward following decision not to prosecute: Leicestershire police confirm that “a number” of people have approached them this week:
Oh, bloody hell…
Lord Greville Janner child sex abuse file ‘lost’ by Home Office
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-greville-janner-child-sex-5571744
J
The 1980’s movie The Whistle Blower (which I just rewatched) was already about NSA/GCHQ coverup of misdeeds by members of the Establishment. Pedophilia and treason are involved. And murder is committed for the sake of the coverup.
Lord Janner could face dementia test, child abuse lawyer says.
Lord Janner detective: We had proof to charge child sex politician 20 years ago… But top brass told us to stop
Investigator breaks 24-year silence to reveal new evidence of child abuse
Kelvyn Ashby ‘found vital clues that Lord Janner molested teenage boy’
Former Detective Inspector told not to arrest him because he was an MP
Janner sent officer ‘sickening’ invite to Commons after inquiry was ended
26 April 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3055680/Lord-Janner-detective-proof-charge-child-sex-politician-20-years-ago-brass-told-stop.html
The invite? Pure chutzpah.