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.
Heiland
As far as I am aware, they are not publicly available.
They will of course be subject to medical privilege of confidentiality. I suspect that what the DPP has seen fit to disclose will be all we ever see of them, unless there is a public trial of the fact, in which case the doctors would presumably testify regarding their conclusions.
Kind regards, John
People with dementia are very useful. Senile FBI agent Feld was declared to be “Deep Throat,” the source of the Watergate allegations. He was nothing of the sort. (There was no Deep Throat. Deep Throat was a composite of CIA sources and methods including the White House tapes.)
Once the rapist Savile died, he promptly became an insatiable sexual predator, a freak coddled by ususpecting naifs. If Janner’s lost his marbles, he will keep his mouth shut just like Savile. Why not sacrifice him as a lone perv too? There’s ample precedent, as Rob G points out. They would both seem to be ideal scapegoats, since neither can shed any light on the two central questions: (1) Who was sitting on the adverse information? (2) With whom were you sharing your child victims?
The questions of blackmail and of trafficking are as important as the interests of justice. The usual suspects are MI5, Mossad, CIA and the multinational City banks. A defenseless Janner’s escape points strongly toward one particular possibility when you consider the impunity milieu at the time Janner’s crimes were nearly aired. Just as NSA contact chaining could immediately associate Penn State with the Finders and the Franklin scandal, contact chaining would point up Janner’s obvious links with other child pandering operations. Lawyers beavering away at trials will trace the contact chains quite thoroughly. Civil suits will do the same.
This serves the cause of Scottish independence because full exposure of the child trade will blow the UK apart. My highest compliments to Mr. Murray for narrating this as a mystery because it really isn’t, Is it?
Lysias and John, interesting points, and of course the main one is that you can’t find ‘someone’ guilty unless they actually stand trial.
I can’t now remember the legal term for it, but both paedo cases I linked to gave a guilty verdict under English law, and both defendents, although absent from their trial, were sentenced under English law.
In the meantime Lord-whatis-name gets off scot free, no doubt because the Establishment were terrified about what other names would come up in the trial.
I know, let’s do some more high profile paedo convictions against 1970s tv stars, just so that the plebs don’t realise how utterly corrupt every government since Thatcher has been.
This is such a serious subject with nobody going off-topic, and a distinct absence of trolls, who may be reading of course, and I do not wish to change the subject. But if I do not post this link now I might forget about it and I would not wish for you to miss it. Apols in advance.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/video/cambridge-oxford-boat-race-election-15?utm_source=vicefbuk
Weren’t you at Oxford Lysias? Was it like that then? It is an interest of mine which I covered when I was writing my blog and Trenton Oldfield made a spectacular debut into the elites of England only to end up in prison for his efforts.
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sinking-boat-race.html
John
” unless there is a public trial of the fact, in which case the doctors would presumably testify regarding their conclusions.”
You seem to have a good understanding of the legal process. So I am curious as to whether prosecutors in this case would be able to ask for examination by independent experts in dementia? Or would the reports of these, no doubt esteemed, practitioners be deemed sufficient?
It is I think a crucial point. Would be interested to hear your opinion especially as you have some experience of the sad condition.
Thanks
John Goss, can you please stop taking advantage of Craig and posting links to your petty blog on here?
Btw, has it been mentioned earlier that ‘Lord’ Carlisle ” married his second wife, Alison Levitt, QC, in December 2007. She is the Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales. (Wiki)
@Heiland
19 Apr, 2015 – 11:26 pm
Whether or not Greville Janner does have dementia is beside the point at this moment.
The Crown Prosecution Service dismissed the case on grounds of dementia, despite it going against recent prosecutions (see my post above). The Leicester Police, who are conducting this particular enquiry against Janner, are threatening to take the Crown Prosecution Service to court for dropping the case. This has never happened before, and it’s a bit of a milestone. It’ll be interesting to see how the media spin it over the coming days.
Heiland
Lol that’s very kind of you, but I didn’t even know there was such a thing as a trial of the fact until about two days ago.
If you read the DPP statement on the blog of the Crown Prosecution Service, you will see that Janner has been examined by four doctors, two appointed by his own legal counsel and two appointed by the Crown Prosecution Service. Apparently all four doctors have reached the same broad conclusion – that Janner is unit to plead and cannot cooperate with legal counsel.
The snag is, of course, that the defence – his counsel – can be said to have a vested interest in the medical evidence turning out that way, and for different reasons – to avoid scandal about a prominent supporter of the Israeli state, to avoid more names coming out, to protect the establishment, whatever it might be, so can the prosecution. That’s the problem.
Kind regards,
John
That’s “unfit”, not “unit”. J
I guessed they were tuning in the Toytown Idiot (and no doubt others).
Brilliant stuff. Why hasn’t Private Eye given you a section?
“Btw, has it been mentioned earlier that ‘Lord’ Carlisle ” married his second wife, Alison Levitt, QC, in December 2007. She is the Principal Legal Advisor to the Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales. (Wiki)”
So do you think there may not be a kind of elitist aspect seeing as she did not go to Oxbridge, only St Andrews and he, Kings College, London?
There was a certain element like that at Oxford, but it was far from being everybody.
John Dross, stop disrupting and trolling.
John SD, you have either missed (we have cross-posted a number of times) or you are deliberately ignoring what I’m saying about Janner.
Under English case law, Janner should have been prosecuted, and I defy any Brit legal eagle to tell me otherwise.
The corruption in the British Establishment is beyond belief.
Yet people still vote for these feckers.
RobG
I agree with you. Lord Janner should be prosecuted.
How’s that?
Kind regards,
John
People come to me all the time with tales of injustice or cover-up. Sometimes I can do something about it – I have helped with numerous asylum applications, for example. Sometimes I can publicise it. Sometimes I don’t know what to make of it. I remember vividly that some ten years ago someone kept emailing me about the Magic Circle as a vile organisation and cover for evil practices. I had no idea what they were going on about and just thought it was a nutter with a very strange target for his obsession. The Magic Circle was just an association of party conjurors. I now wonder if I ought to have paid rather more attention, as it seems Janner was very much connected with that organisation.
“John Dross, stop disrupting and trolling.”
Villager, or Toytown idiot, I’ve known who most of the trolls are from the Anna Ardin thread. That was when I first discovered you. 🙂
Craig, I agree with you that Carlisle (aka Falik) should have, in the least, been more circumspect especially as a Silk to not have rushed to issuing a clean-chit to this scoundrel, Janner.
The whole thing stinks and one feels there is a certain momentum to this saga that is not going to let Janner go scot-free.
Vaz is another climber of a weasel. How can one trust any of these politicians.
You know nothing John Plod Dross. Now will you plod away or bugger off?!
You have been disrupting this thread since on-the-dot midnight.
I agree Janner should be prosecuted, especially after arguing against a Nazi who could not be tried for the same reason – dementia. The magic circle connection is interesting. Uri Geller’s name crops up time and again, including with Janner.
This site used to get a lot of stick from the trolls here. But now it seems like the reputable response to MSM (with the odd exception).
http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lord-janner-escapes.html
More from wiki:
“It emerged that during April, Janner had written to the House of Lords clerks indicating that he did not wish to cease being an active peer. John Mann, who was then campaigning to retain his Bassetlaw seat for Labour during the 2015 general election, told The Daily Telegraph that all the documents relating to the upper chamber’s contact with Janner should be made public. “I don’t see how you can sign a document relating to membership of the House of Lords if you have dementia”, he said.[32]”
John Goss
20/04/2015 1:16 am
As I understand it, all people are prosecuted if the Crown proceeds against them, even they are found unfit to plead.
People are still being prosecuted even if the Crown does not put on a trial of guilt, but a trial of fact.
Kind regards,
John
Craig, with reference to your regret at not paying more attention. Some years ago, a Frenchman demanded that I look at his evidence that a missile had hit the Pentagon, not a passenger plane. I dismissed him as a well intentioned lunatic.
Now, I regret doing so. Where is a single picture of an airliner hitting the Pentagon. despite it being festooned with cameras and defence capabilities? Why did Pentagon officials confiscate footage from petrol stations and hotels nearby, and no actual evidence of a plane crashing there has been released? You need to examine the official story for a little while, then look at the evidence.
What happened to all the bodies, the luggage, the likely damage to that almost pristine lawn, the failure to follow standard procedure, and how did such a feat of aeronautics get performed by a totally inexperienced, useless pilot?
I don’t know. But while we accept the official story, we’re swallowing an obvious, blatant lie.
And if _that_ part of the story is made up – you hesitate to concede what must logically follow.
*
John Goss
20/04/2015 1:16 am
Uri Geller did not present himself as a conjuror. He said his powers were real.
Kind regards,
John
Thanks John Spencer-Davis at 1.21. It has eminded me I have not been to bed. Goodnight all.
Goodnight John.
JSD, you’ve had to put up with some real ricks this evening. I admire your patience.
Btw, this article is behind a paywall for me. Would you have access to it, and if so, please copy-paste the salient extracts?
Many thanks and good luck for your procedure later.
Villager, many thanks.
Sorry, which article?
J
Ooops
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/11548510/Lord-Greville-Janner-CPS-could-face-legal-challenge.html
Thanks!