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.
Craig
“A moment ago they weren’t friends, just acquaintances, so Carlile couldn’t be expected to know about Janner.”
_________________
Sorry, I can see the word “friend” but did I use the word “acquaintance” anywhere?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Perhaps you are too grand ever o have shared an office. I did for much of my career, and in all of those cases, where they lasted over years as did Janner and Cyril Smith, you end up knowing a very great deal about each others’ personal lives.”
_________________
I’m sure you do – provided your personal lives don’t include highly illegal activities such as paedophilia. I suggest to you that any paedophile you might have shared an office with even for a long time would have taken considerable pains to avoid letting the fact slip out or become apparent.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don’t want to be a wet blanket. I am sounding a note of caution, because I think there is a danger that people are going to get carried away with the idea that Lord Janner was, and is, perfectly all right, and is trying to use dementia as an excuse. That may be true, and it may not be true. We don’t know yet.
When someone has dementia, their family can put all kinds of compensating mechanisms in place. It’s quite usual to try to get the person to carry on as normal a life as they can. Just because Lord Janner signed a letter doesn’t mean he wrote it. Someone else may have written it for him and said: “Dad, sign this” (for example). Signatures are a lot easier than letters because it’s a mechanical action that has been performed throughout the person’s life.
I am jumping to no conclusions.
Kind regards,
John
RobG
“I am sick of these vermin.
I want to take my country back from them.”
____________________
Well, you could make a start by abandoning your Burgindy retreat and returning to the UK, couldn’t you.
You big jester.
John,
I do understand, but the vast majority of people aren’t directors of companies and trustees of various stuff and their affairs are much less complex. There is something to be learnt. I agree it may not give firm conclusions, but if he signed over powers of attorney a good while ago, that would tend to make it all seem more genuine. If he did it last week that would tend to the opposite effect.
I don’t think I accept your thesis, in that if he is well enough to understand and sign legal docs, he is well enough to stand trial, IMHO.
And, by the way, Craig
I did not say – or did not mean to say – that Carlile had a “duty” to defend his friend.
I was trying to say that people would usually defend their friends, the motivation being called friendship, not duty.
Delete the word “should” from my previous post if it was that which misled you.
Craig’s main motivation here appears to be Janner’s support for Israel. You simply can’t imagine him getting anything like as exercised over the targeted rapes of thousands of white children by Muslim grooming gangs, each one of which covered up by the authorities for political expediency. I fully believe this man should be banged up if what is alleged against him is true. But what you cannot get away from is the fact that Craig shoehorns Israel, Zionism and Jews into his every post on this subject, whilst completely ignoring more widespread paedophilia scandals over which he has no political axe to grind. I maintain my earlier position, that Craig’s only interest in this case derives from his opposition to the policies of the state of Israel.
It’s just breathtaking, how the government agents come on here and defend the sexual abuse and murder of children!
Our society is now run by total psychos and total vermin.
And you folks have allowed it to happen.
@Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)
19 Apr, 2015 – 9:29 pm
The likes of you will be the first to be put on trial for crimes against humanity; although I doubt if you understand what I’m talking about.
But make no mistake: we are coming for you.
I understand your position too. I can see that evidence is emerging which may start to form a suspicious pattern, and if it does, then, well and good, it does. But I have not seen enough evidence yet to persuade me that Lord Janner is malingering. I’m kind of concerned that, because this is obviously the conclusion that most people want, and will be most satisfied with, because they want to see a child abuser in the dock, as do we all, the information that emerges will be shaped by that predetermined conclusion.
I suppose it is evident that I have experience of dementia, because I work with it. Therefore I also have to discount for my own prejudices, and I realise that. As well, I don’t presume to know everything about it because I have some experience. So I’ll say what I think I should say, and then I’ll withdraw – I won’t be able to participate much after tonight anyway.
Dementia is not a respecter of persons – it can hit the most celebrated and busy person in the world as well as the least active. It can also afflict the wicked and criminal, as easily as the decent and good.
Because it is a physical affliction that affects mental processes, and it’s incurable and progressive, it still bears an enormous stigma and shame. It disrupts and confuses family dynamics in substantial ways. The person with dementia may not understand that he or she has it, or may forget that he or she has it, or may be in total denial about it. Some members of the family may be in denial as well, while others recognize it and try to accommodate it. So the person’s behaviour and the family’s behaviour may be inconsistent and confusing. If the person has a powerful personality then he or she may try to carry on as normal and the family may try to oppose that, or take the path of least resistance. They may try to cover up the problem in all kinds of ways.
People with dementia can also be highly suggestible. Just because Lord Janner has signed a document does not mean he understood it. The family may have in effect taken over his life, but have still been trying to allow him to continue to think he is still in charge. We don’t know. No matter how wicked he may have been, I am sure that his family still love and care for him – that’s what families do, like it or lump it, and so they will be trying to maintain as even a keel as they can, with the added difficulty that they have all the publicity to cope with. No doubt he has brought it all on himself, and on his family too. That won’t be making things any easier for them.
None of this may be accurate. Perhaps he is laughing in his sleeve all the time. But I do ask you to bear these considerations in mind.
Kind regards,
John
Jay Rayner, at The Guardian:
“I saw up close how an establishment closed ranks over the Janner affair”
Interesting background.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/19/establishment-stopped-me-exposing-greville-janner-25-years-ago
ERNEST SAUNDERS
AUGUSTO PINOCHET
Precedent enough for the situation to be put before a court?
I suppose it had to be dementia.
They could hardly have had two suspected establishment paedophiles dying themselves away to unmarked graves, in quick succession, just as they were facing the beak.
John, you appear to be peddling us more Establishment bullshit.
Two recent cases of paedos with dementia who were prosecuted:
http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Man-guilty-abusing-age-girls/story-11746382-detail/story.html
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/11334114.Hospital_order_for_dementia_pensioner_convicted_of_child_sex_abuse_30_years_ago/
What with all the government agents commenting on this blog, the UK seems to have become a banana republic.
Too bad, RobG. I’m speaking my mind and nobody is telling me what to say.
I have already said I think a trial should take place. But if you think Lord Janner is going to be criminally prosecuted when four doctors have said he will not be mentally fit to plead, you are dreaming.
Kind regards,
John
If there is a Grand Coalition, it will be a coalition of the same parties that allowed Janner and others to escape justice.
I do wonder if these scandals will end up discrediting the establishment parties right before the election.
Habbabkuk’s keenness to defend Janner is disturbing to say the least. Who would defend even an acquaintance who was a paedophile rapist? A Habbabkuk?
Janner ‘too powerful to prosecute over child sex’: LABOUR peer Greville Janner was protected from child sex charges by an establishment cover-up to prevent other high-profile paedophiles being exposed, one of Britain’s top abuse campaigners claims today.:
It’s always possible Craig. He was still attending the Lords in 2013.
As noticed earlier, he was reappointed to a Lords committee as recently as June 2014.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/dpp-labour-lord-janner-should-have-been-prosecuted-on-22-counts/comment-page-1/#comment-520613
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/04/werrittys-chum-matthew-gould-takes-janner-to-kindergarten/comment-page-1/#comment-520370
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/consolidation-committee/membership/
Was he unaware of this, perhaps?
The same kind of person who would defend Israel and Netanyahu despite their crimes.
John,
I suspect that he really does have dementia. But given what it’s sheltering him from, I think no stone should be left unturned to find out. Saunders proved you can fool the system on exactly this point.
According to Ha’aretz, Janner regularly attended meetings of the Lords through 2013, well into December, until there was a raid on his house on Dec. 22, 2013, whereupon he suddenly stopped attending.
Craig
I quite agree.
Also, even if he does, a trial of the fact should be held, for the sake of the victims and their families – they should be the first priority.
Kind regards,
John
John, the CPS, although dropping the case, have taken the unprecedented step of naming the detailed allegations (this has never happened before).
Further, Leicester Police, who are conducting this particular inquiry (although it also comes under operation Midland, conducted by the Met), are threatening to sue the Crown Prosecution Service for dropping the case against Janner.
This, also, has never happened before.
Cue the trolls…
RobG
So what? That has no bearing on whether or not Lord Janner is fit to plead.
What the police forces want is a trial of Lord Janner even though he is not fit to plead. They want a public trial of Janner in order that the victims can give testimony and a jury can decide whether or not Janner did the acts which are alleged.
And so do I. That is exactly what should happen. You aren’t listening to me.
Kind regards,
John
RobG
By the way, take a look at the first link that you posted regarding a child abuser with dementia who was prosecuted.
The headline says the offender was found guilty. No, he wasn’t. The body of the report says the exact opposite – the forewoman of the jury was explicitly directed NOT to find the abuser guilty but to find that he committed the acts alleged. That is what happens when you have a trial of someone unfit to plead. And that is the legal process that Janner should now face. And I am as angry as you are that the CPS is not doing this.
Kind regards,
John
John, both of the recent examples I gave of paedo cases, one in the west of England and one in the north of England, were about suspects suffering from dementia whose cases were put before a court in their absence. Both were found guilty. It’s called case law. It sets a precedent. For some reason our leaping Lords are above this precedent, as are just about all other Establishment figures.
You do realise that the UK has become the laughing stock of the world with regard to paedophilia?
And you lot are going to be voting for these feckers in a matter of weeks!
RobG
Did you read what I just said? Your own report, that you yourself posted, states that the offender was NOT FOUND GUILTY.
This is copied and pasted from the link you yourself provided.
“The jury forewoman, giving her verdicts, was required to say she found Collingwood “did the act charged” rather than being “guilty”, due to him not standing trial.”
He was therefore NOT FOUND GUILTY. Can you see that?
Kind regards,
John
That doesn’t mean the jury was obliged to find the accused not guilty, merely to act as if he had entered not guilty pleas.
They also didn’t find him guilty, because the judge instructed them not to, but that is not the same as finding him not guilty. They found that he had committed the acts, and they rendered no verdict as to whether he was guilty or not.
Not being found guilty is not the same thing as being found not guilty.
Lysias
You’re quite right.
Kind regards,
John
To John Spencer-Davis;
I agree with your conclusions re Janner and any trial prospects.
However I would be interested to know whether the reports of “the four doctors” are in the public domain. Because it is rather a crucial question. Dementia is not a simple condition and its diagnosis depends on a wide variety of factors, evaluated over time. Without knowing the contents of these reports and being able to verify them, it is hard to avoid wondering whether Janner is doing a Saunders.
Do you know if these reports are available? I would be grateful for a link if you do.
Thanks