Destruction of Evidence 217

This Greville Janner interview has simply disappeared from the website of the Holocaust Educational Trust, “founding patron” Greville Janner, and from other such websites which used to host it. I can only now find it on my own blog and on a few places which copied it from my blog. It is an important interview for reasons which are very obvious if you read it.

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

The deletion is not acknowledged – the evidence has simply been quietly expunged. The irony of the Holocaust Educational Trust, which exists to keep alive the evidence of a dreadful crime, expunging evidence of crime which it finds inconvenient, does not need to be emphasised by me.

Janner’s being Jewish was irrelevant to his being a paedophile. So was his being a Zionist. But he was not just any old Zionist. He was the acknowledged leader of Zionism in the UK. He was President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Vice President of the World Jewish Congress, he was Vice President of the Association for Jewish Youth, Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council, President of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women, on the Advisory Board of the Community Security Trust, Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust and Director of the United Jewish Israel Appeal.

These organisations were led by a man who was a predatory paedophile, yet they apparently feel no necessity to condemn his activities or to acknowledge what has happened, merely secretly deleting any particularly embarrassing references. It is like the attitude of the Catholic Church on paedophilia thirty years ago.

David Cameron, echoed by the corporate media, calls upon the millions of law-abiding Muslims in the UK to denounce and distance themselves from a few terrorist nutters with whom 99.99% of British Muslims have no connection anyway. That apparently is acceptable. But to ask that the Zionist and Jewish organisations denounce the long term criminal activities of the man who actually led those organisations, is portrayed as unacceptable racism.

This is a stinking double standard.

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>

217 thoughts on “Destruction of Evidence

1 6 7 8
  • Mary

    Ref the Marianne, the RI is incorrect yet again.

    ‘The Israeli authorities claim that their soldiers were ‘non-violent’ as they took over the Marianne, which amounted to an illegal act of piracy, as the vessel was in international waters at the time it was intercepted. The Israeli authorities claimed that there were no injuries when they seized the boat which they had no right to do, legally or morally. The illegal act has been described as ‘uneventful’.

    Unsurprisingly though, footage has emerged which shows that the opposite is true. The video shows Arab member of the Israeli Knesset (parliament) Basel Ghattas, who I had long conversations with on my trip, first addressing the Israeli Navy before the soldiers boarded the Marianne. The footage then shows Israeli Navy thugs repeatedly tasering Swedish activist and humanitarian aid worker Charlie Andreasson.


    Charlie has spent much time in Gaza. He’s a really nice guy and a genuine individual, the kind of selfless character you meet when preparing for a campaign like this. I had the pleasure of talking with him many times as we prepared for Freedom Flotilla 3, and ate dinner with him just a few days ago.

    I watched the video of Charlie being tasered and knew it was him before I even read the article.’

    Freedom Flotilla: ‘Tasering my friend Charlie was an act of terrorism’
    Richard Sudan, is a London based writer, political activist, and performance poet.
    July 01, 2015

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Must-read: Chilcot Enquiry:

    n his complaint to the commissioner, Chris Lamb suggested that the secret advice could answer a number of questions about the inquiry, which began six years ago, including why it has taken so long, why then prime minister Brown appointed members with question marks over their impartiality, why it was set up without a lawyer and why it was precluded from making judgments on the legality of the war. Brown originally tried to hold the Inquiry in secret.

    These words (in the context of Gordon Brown’s clunking measures to minimise the damage to his colleagues from the enquiry before it even started) well illustrate the death of democracy.

    Back in February, in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, Chilcot made clear that there was now a “settled body of evidence” that he could publish but will not publish, because the public cannot be trusted to make up their own minds.

    It does have to be said that if the commissioner were to understand that Chilcot is now arguing that the public cannot be given all the information and trusted to make up their own minds, he would probably agree.

  • Mary

    Yesterday in the Lords
    House of Lords

    Chilcot Inquiry
    Question Asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon
    To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made regarding the publication of the Chilcot Report.

    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con): My Lords, in his letter of 15 June to the Prime Minister, Sir John Chilcot indicated that he would only be in a position to provide a realistic timetable for publication once the inquiry had received and evaluated the remaining responses from those individuals who had been given the opportunity to respond to the inquiry’s provisional criticism. In his reply, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said,

    “I … had hoped for publication of your report by now and we are fast losing patience”.

    He also asked for an update from Sir John once the Maxwellisation process had been concluded.

    Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab): My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that people were running out of patience with the inquiry. This must be particularly true of the families who lost lives.

    Will the Minister recall that, on 4 February 2015, Sir John Chilcot told a Commons Select Committee that there was, “a settled body of evidence that may be added to, but it will not be subject to revision”.

    Is it not deplorable that there was a 13-month argument with the former Cabinet Secretary about the disclosure of notes between Mr Bush and Mr Blair which proved unsustainable? Since Parliament is the ultimate guardian of the independence of any inquiry, and since this one seems incapable of reporting, should not the Prime Minister pull the plug, discharge the committee and, on the basis of the evidence already gathered, come to Parliament for its advice as to a way forward?

    Lord Bridges of Headley: I start by saying that I entirely share the noble and learned Lord’s frustration, as I am sure do those who served and those who lost loved ones in Iraq. The general gist of his question—in fact, there were several questions rolled into one—was that we should scrap the inquiry. I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord on that. First, the inquiry is independent of government and, most importantly of all, it has taken a long time to get this far—on that we agree—but it needs to be able to complete its work as quickly as possible so we can learn the lessons. Removing its members from office or stopping the inquiry now is not in the best interests of this work. However, I am sure that those involved in the inquiry will heed the views of your Lordships, especially those of the noble and learned Lord, on how long this is all taking.

    Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD): My Lords, it is now more than 12 years since the invasion of Iraq. Does the Minister agree that, increasingly, the impression being given is that people do not want crucial facts to be subjected to public transparency, where they can be discussed and debated? Does he also accept that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said, this situation is particularly unfair to those such as my late and very outstanding friend, Charles Kennedy, who said that, in engaging with the issue of whether we should have invaded Iraq, he found that, regarding possibly one of the most distinguished commissions that has been appointed by this House and the other Chamber, we have no way of knowing what its conclusions are, no way of knowing what it believes to be the sources of the Iraq war and no way of knowing what it believes the consequences of that war were. It is profoundly unjust and unfair to allow this situation to continue. May we ask the Prime Minister to insist that, at the very least, there should now be a report, even though some parts of it may be kept secret for security reasons?

    Lord Bridges of Headley: I repeat that I obviously share, as does my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, the frustration that clearly many in this House feel about the length of time this is taking. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the letter that the Prime Minister sent to Sir John, in which he asked the Cabinet Secretary to meet Sir John “as soon as possible” to discuss progress on the completion of the report, and said that the Civil Service would continue to assist the inquiry in the “urgent completion” of its work.

    Lord King of Bridgwater (Con): My Lords, does the noble Lord recognise that there is across, I think, all corners of this House total impatience with the present situation? We recognise the difficult position the Prime Minister is in, but while it is right to allow those who may be criticised in the report to have the opportunity to make representations and for those to be considered, in any consideration now and in any future arrangements for a commission of this kind there must be a limit on the amount of time that people are allowed to hold up publication of a report. This report is meant to provide an opportunity for lessons to be learned from what happened over Iraq. No lessons have been learned, a lot of years have gone by and further mistakes have been made.

    Lord Bridges of Headley: My Lords, on the first point, I draw my noble friend’s attention to what Sir John Chilcot told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place. He said he had seen, “no evidence … that anyone is trying to delay the publication of the report by holding out from responding or entering into argument about the Maxwellisation process”.

    As regards the lessons we need to draw from this process, I am sure there will be very many indeed, but I humbly suggest that we do so once the report is completed.

    Lord Richard (Lab): My Lords, is not the real problem here that, under the present rules for inquiries, the Maxwellisation process is mandatory? It is not discretionary or left to the chairman of the inquiry to decide who ought to be given the opportunity to respond; it is mandatory and it takes an awfully long time. A committee of this House recently considered the operation of the Inquiries Act and one of its main recommendations was that a Maxwellisation process should cease to be mandatory and should be left to the discretion of the chairman. So far, the Government have refused to take that on board. In the light of what we now know about Chilcot, will the Minister undertake that the Government will look again at whether the rules of procedure for inquiries are up to it and, indeed, whether or not the Maxwellisation process should cease to be mandatory?

    Lord Bridges of Headley: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I have to refer him to the answer I have just given, which is that we will need to take account of this process and the lessons we might learn once the inquiry concludes. I note that he shakes his head, but this inquiry is independent and it needs to remain independent.

    Lord Trimble (Con): My Lords, the underlying problem here is the fact that this inquiry was not constituted under the Inquiries Act 2005. If it had been set up under the Act, as it should have been, the inquiry would have been conducted more efficiently, the Minister setting it up would have had a power to call for it to be concluded and handed over to him, and this problem would not have arisen. Lessons should be learned, and they are contained in the report that the noble Lord referred to. The Government should review their response to that report.

    1 July 2015 : Column 2061

    Lord Bridges of Headley: My Lords, once again I have to say that we will have to learn these lessons. My noble friend makes a very valid point, but the inquiry is independent and it is following the process that it has set out.

    Lord Dykes (LD): My Lords—

    Lord Higgins (Con): My Lords—

    The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con): I am sorry, but the House is calling for the next question, so I think we should move on.


    Notice Lady Stowell is v good at kicking balls into the long grass.

  • Mary

    The weedy Fallon, previously the Minister for Fracking and now i/c of our defences, would like another conflagration in the ME.

    Burn baby, burn!

    ‘Consider Syria IS strikes, MPs urged

    RAF Tornado GR4 returning to RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus after an armed mission in Iraq – photo

    MPs should consider allowing Britain to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon is to say.’
    8 hours ago

  • Mary

    Qualifications needed for being The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, answering the Chilcot question above.

    James George Robert Bridges, Baron Bridges of Headley, MBE, is a British politician. He serves as Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office.]

    Bridges has also been Assistant Political Secretary to the Prime Minister John Major from 1994 to 1997. He was appointed a Member of the British Empire (MBE) in 1997. In the 2000s he served as Chairman of the Research Department and Campaign Director of the Conservative Party.

    Bridges was created a Life Peer as Baron Bridges of Headley, of Headley Heath in the County of Surrey on 28 May 2015.’,_Baron_Bridges_of_Headley

    His register of interest.

    ‘George has worked at The Times and in the commercial broadcasting sector, helping to set up the country’s digital terrestrial television network. He ran Quiller Consultants, a strategic communications consultancy between 2010 and 2013 before becoming senior advisor to Ana Botín, Group Executive Chairman of Banco Santander, until 2015.

    George is a Trustee of the Foundation Years Trust and is a Board Director of the Centre for Policy Studies.’

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    On the subject of things which are taking a long time to appear (cf Mary on Chilcot):

    any news about Mr Galloway’s crowd-funded film on Tony Blair?

  • Mary

    Ref Janner
    HoC 2.7.2015

    Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab): I thank the Attorney General for calling me last weekend to brief me on the DPP’s decision to bring criminal proceedings against Greville Janner following the review by David Perry QC. Of course, we on this side of the House welcome that decision. It allows complainants to see the allegations aired before a jury and shows that the Crown Prosecution Service’s victims’ right to review scheme, which was implemented by the former DPP, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), is working as intended. I now hope that the future focus will be on ensuring that historical sex abuse cases are properly funded, so will the Attorney General give a commitment to the £50 million extra funding that the current DPP says she desperately needs to prosecute such cases?

    The Attorney General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, but I shall start with his last point. On the upcoming spending round, he will understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General and I will do our very best to make sure that the CPS receives the funding it needs. We should pay tribute to the way in which the CPS has made necessary savings and still maintained a good service on the front line.

    On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, he knows that it would be wholly wrong for me to say anything at all about the individual case of the noble Lord Janner. In any event, it would not be right for me to do so because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the protocols for Law Officers are clear: we are not engaged in the detail of any potential prosecution against a parliamentarian.

    Let me say this as a more general point: it is vital that our system has independent prosecutors—prosecutors who are independent of us as politicians—who make these difficult judgments. We should stand behind them when they do so, and the victims’ right to review, which the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras introduced during his time as DPP, is a positive step to enable victims to challenge those decisions and, where appropriate, for those decisions to be changed. It seems to me that that system worked as it was designed to work in this case.

    Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab): The Director of Public Prosecutions has made a number of high-profile mistakes during her tenure, including on female genital mutilation and the trial of journalists. Following the decision to overturn her judgment in the Lord Janner case, may we have a statement on whether the Government continue to have full and complete confidence in the DPP?

    Chris Grayling: We have just had questions to the Attorney General and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman raised the matter then. The DPP is an independent figure, and rightly so. There have been some discussions about recent decisions, but it is important that we keep the process of deciding prosecutions independent of the political process to ensure its integrity.


    The new Attorney General is Jeremy Wright

    To Israel in 2007 with Conservative Friends of Israel

1 6 7 8

Comments are closed.