CROSS POSTED ON BYLINE.COM
On May 3 a final decision was made by Alexis Jay, the chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse not to hold a preliminary hearing into whether there should be inquiry into Lord Janner and Leicestershire institutions of allegations of child sexual abuse.
His son and his two sisters who had already had a meeting to press the case for such a preliminary hearing were understandably unhappy. They believe their father is innocent and just the subject of an historic witch hunt and no one needs to look into it.
And it is now clear that at some suitable date there will such an inquiry so long as it does not prejudice any other investigations still under way..
Daniel Janner decided to write an article for The Times denouncing the decision and protesting again that his father was ” wholly innocent of any wrong doing ” despite up to 33 people coming award and alleging they were victims of such acts.
Thus far a perfectly understandable stance from a close relative. But then he went so far to demand that the entire inquiry should be closed down and the chair was an incompetent. He also produced one sided evidence to justify his case.
As he said: ” Professor Jay is not competent to chair the inquiry because she is not a lawyer and unqualified to make difficult complex quasi legal decisions. She is simply out of her depth.”
And on the inquiry itself : “It veers between a bloated expensive irrelevance and a vindictive witch -hunt which will be condemned by history”.
To back his case up he quoted the former judge Sir Richard Henriques in his defence : ” prominent people..are more vulnerable to false complaints than others…They are vulnerable to compensation seekers, attention seekers, and those with mental health problems.”
However he doesn’t quote what Sir Richard said about his father’s case: ” In my opinion there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in 2007, and Janner should have been arrested and interviewed and his home searched.He should have been charged with offences of indecent assault and buggery.”
So Times readers would not have known that the very judge warning of prominent people being accused of false complaints decided in his father’s case that he should be prosecuted.
My main complaint about Daniel Janner is his arrogance. Just because the inquiry chair has decided not to do what he and his family alone wanted and not investigate his father – he decides the inquiry is a sham and the chair incompetent.
It is also extremely arrogant to say that only lawyers have the intelligence to chair inquiries. On that basis the Hillsborough inquiry would never have happened – and no one denies that has been a success.
A chair will anyway be guided by counsel and I notice the counsel to the inquiry was of the same opinion.
The inquiry is not perfect and has had serious troubles and run into serious problems with survivor groups – but the idea that the whole process should be stopped because one man doesn’t like it is ridiculous. It would deny investigations and recommendations far beyond the Janner case.
I certainly will be keeping a critical look at what the inquiry does – but I am afraid abandoning it just because it won’t do what the son of VIP tells it is no go territory.
Reblogged this on HOLLIE GREIG HOAX?.
Pingback: The arrogance of Daniel Janner over the future of the Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry | HOLLIE GREIG HOAX?
I commented on the original Times article as follows
“You quote Henriques, so please tell us exactly what he said about your father and the failure to press charges. My understanding is that he was of the belief that this failure was completely illogical given the extent of allegations and the volume of evidence. Please also explain why a family friend said that your father propositioned him … is he lying?
How many different people accuse your dad? Are they all liars, or fortune hunters? Feel for you because your dad is being hung out to protect others. Unless you can discredit Jay she will get to the truth.”
Similar to your position David. I have to ask what is the Times motivation for giving this man space to air his biased views and why they seem not to have done any due diligence on the veracity of his claims. They should be ashamed. That said they and their columnists have continually protected the establishment throughout this whole episode.
Precisely Colin. I think the Times view is that there are no paedophiles among the Establishment or prominent people.
Reblogged this on Buried News and commented:
It is also extremely arrogant to say that only lawyers have the intelligence to chair inquiries. On that basis the Hillsborough inquiry would never have happened – and no one denies that has been a success. Maybe that was why it was a success not having a Judge in the chair.
Why people look up to Judges is beyond me. I give an example below:
A company director of a small flat maintenance company defrauded the company of over £30,000, of which £16,00 he admitted he had taking for personal use. Considering that the flats owners where mainly pensioners and disabled people one would expect a sentence to fit the crime. The sentencing was two years probation and a repayment of £1 as he claimed he did not have any asserts. The Judge at the ending of the sentencing made a almost flippant remark. He told the guilty man that if he won the lottery he would have to pay it back. So the victims of this crime received a £1 while the fraudster walked away with thousands. Then add the cost of police time and court costs this judgement was almost bizarre. Maybe £16,00 is nothing to the Judge considering his salary, but to a group of pensioners and disabled people it was their funds to maintain their building. JUDGES , sadly out of touch with the real world.
As a senior MPS officer said to me 4 years ago about CSA offences ‘Let the Jury decide’. In this case it will be the IICSA, providing their case is in the public interest and they have all the facts at their disposal to make assured findings. What I cannot understand is any reluctance to use all opportunities to clear or find against against a person, even one who is deceased.
^ Insider, this inquiry cannot either clear or find against a person, whether deceased or still alive. It is not a criminal court.
Just on a commonsense level, the ‘Janner strand’ seems to be focused on just one (deceased) politician. I am not surprised that his family have raised objections. Quite frankly, who wouldn’t?
The alleged Victims?
Lets hope the IICSA call Newsnight
tdf, try to read what David Hencke wrote. The Janner strand of the IICSA isn’t about one deceased politician, it’s about the failure of institutions, multiple institutions whose cumulative inaction led to the failure to prosecute the politician when there was evidence against him that offered a reasonable prospect of conviction.
David, arrogance is there aplenty, but surely this is about more than arrogance.
A new and witness @ EGH identified and located last week. Plod arrested him but let him go in 1982. Door knock required I think.
PS: He was charged him as well.
Not clear what you are saying “insider” can you clarify please.
This Adult was charged with serious offences @ EGH but did not see the inside of the Old Bailey. He has given information to an independent journalist and as far as I am aware he has not spoken to the Police since 1982.
David hope you got the document attachment this morning re. EGH 1982.
Also worth pasting the part of a 2013 CPS press release:
“John Stingemore, who was in a day-to-day management position at the children’s home, has been charged with eight counts of indecent assault, two counts of taking an indecent image of a child, AND ONE COUNT OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BUGGERY. The charges date between 1980 and 1981 and relate to six boys who were aged between 11 and 15 at the time of the alleged offending.”
Remember your colleague Mark Conrad at Westminster Magistrates trying to read the court papers held upside down by a junior court clerk which named the third man who with Stingemore (the manager of Grafton and two other boys homes in Richmond – yes another TWO, they have kept that quiet as well) was on the conspiracy to commit buggery CHARGE that was never heard in open court.
Conspiracy… with whom…guess whom…wonder why he was not publicly named? Explains why the junior clerk had the indictment papers snatched away from him and our gaze with the riposte ‘they cannot see that’. Sorry mate we saw it.
Janner spoke at length with King? It took Susanne Cameron-Blackie a very long time for the penny to drop about King but she was too busy with her own agenda to look critically at people she believed were kindred spirits. According to Jon Ronson’s experience, King has a knack for sucking people into seeing things th way he does, but Janner’s a barrister – spottihg when someone’s pulling a fast one is supposed to be his field of professional expertise. What was he hoping to gain from chatting away at length with King?
Sorry this is not about Greville Janner but this site is visited by people interested in uncovering CSA cover ups. Well just when you thought Yewtree had run its course another comes along. Savile & the BBC was bad but had anybody bothered to look at Thames TV and the collective within? What does one do with evidence. Give it to the Met? I do not think so. The IICSA? You are having a laugh. Ben Emmerson QC? People have done that and look what was done to him. Let’s wait until after the election when the whole issue of the great and the good enters a new era of expose.
Apologies to Hatch and Reed.
‘When the weather is fine you know it’s the time
For messin’ about on the river
If you allow them the space there’s nothing so foul
As messin’ about on a river
There’s big men and wee lads and all kinds of pervs
Famous and Back staff and some with no fear
With a nod and neglect there’s no finer place
Than messin’ about on the river.’
Charles Napier’s canal boat?
Heard about that one but I am dealing in much more than one boat. That aside the linked photographs are much more interesting.
I am surprised Janner junior did not stick it to Alison Saunders, who stated that windows existed when Janner could and should have been prosecuted.
Either Janner is the poster child for right wingers/MI5 slinging mud at Labour or evidence worthy of investigation is fairly abundant. Only Leon Brittan has had similar levels of mud thrown at his reputation on the Conservative side.