Lord Janner in Parliament visit after police told he was too ill for child abuse probe
Official records show that Lord Janner. who will be 87 next month, made his final 12 appearances in the chamber of the House of Lords in December 2013 – as police began to search his properties.
He voted for the last time in November that year. New evidence show the disgraced Labour peer appeared well enough to go to Westminster at least a few more times in May and June 2014.
On May 27, he used the Abingdon Green car park close to Parliament, entering with his personal pass, and paid £32.40 as he was not there on official business on that occasion.
The following week his car was left at the car park on consecutive days – June 2 and 3 – when Parliament was not sitting.
The head of property and office services sent Lord Janner a letter asking him personally about the stays, as he would have been charged £64.80 had he not been there to work.
A spokesman for the Lords confirmed that the peer replied that he had been there on official business in June, and so did not have to pay for parking.
Lord Janner had used his official parliamentary car park pass to enter the facility. Rules state that they can only be used by the
peer to whom they are issued.
The Lords said he had not given any details of what work he was doing.
The House of Lords confirmed Lord Janner signed the cheque to cover the May visit, and that it had been cleared by the bank as genuine.
The revelations heap pressure on Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders, who said that Lord Janner would have been charged with 22 counts of indecent assault and buggery against nine boys, but that his dementia made him unfit to stand trial.
Lord Janner’s home in Hampstead, North London, was raided in December 2013, and his Millbank office was searched in March 2014 by officers investigating claims he had abused boys in care when he was an MP in the 1970s and 1980s.
SO the Crown Prosecution Service say they would not charge Lord Janner with multiple child sexual abuse charges owing to his poor health for Alzheimer’s & dementia
On Twitter this morning, we decided to challenge the CPS, and researched our own database where offenders with dementia have been taken to court – Remarkable response with many journalists already sharing our findings
Here is a number of cases where other paedophiles with dementia have been found GUILTY in court
Swindon paedophile systematically sexually abused a young girl in the 1970s – Had dementia & found Guiltyhttp://wp.me/p2gE9F-iOG
Huddersfield paedophile unfit to plead to charges against him cause of dementia BUT was tried & found guilty by jury http://wp.me/p2gE9F-jhB
Paedophile who abused two boys over 30 years ago detained indefinitely under hospital order – Had dementia – GUILTY http://wp.me/p2gE9F-gf8
Janner not too ill to claim expenses
Westminster attendance records show Janner attended the House of Lords almost daily and claimed more than £100,000 in expenses in the four years after he was diagnosed with the disease.
He only stopped attending Parliament – and claiming up to £300 a day for doing so – when child abuse police raided his house on December 2013. Even in that month he attended the Lords 12 times.
Analysis of records shows Janner continued speaking fluently for years after his diagnosis and was also alert enough to claim expenses among the highest in the Lords.
In the 12 months up to April 2009, the year of his diagnosis, he attended the Lords 143 times – only just shy of the 147 maximum possible. And he managed to fill in forms procuring himself £12,075 in subsistence payments and £13,468 in ‘office costs’ – with another £691 in mileage claims for his car.
In the following year, up to April 2010, he attended 136 days at the Lords out of a maximum 142 and claimed £10,986 subsistence, £11,625 office costs and £589 mileage.
In the year to April 2011 he turned up 126 days out of 137, and claimed expenses totalling £34,014. In the year to April 2012, Janner attended 143 days out of a maximum of 156. He also managed to claim a hefty £28,800 in expenses.
In the following year, up to April 2013, he turned up 136 days out of 144, and claimed expenses totalling £24,600.
In April, May and June 2013 he attended every one of the 30 days the Lords sat, claiming a total of £6,450 in expenses. In July he was absent just one out of 20 days, claiming £2,850 for the remaining 19.
And in August, September, October and November, he did not miss a single sitting out of 32 days, and claimed £4,800 in expenses.
Janner’s history and the child sex abuse case he avoided
In 1991, after accusing LORD/MP Greville Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.
At his trial Beck stated that: – “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner“.
Immediately after this, Janner who just happens to be, ironically, a long time member of the boy scouts association, and Sir David Napley, his solicitor, went to Police headquarters in Leicester. Whereupon, the following statement was issued:
“We have advised Mr. Janner that he is prevented from making any statement at this stage”.
Shortly afterwards, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alan Green, let it be known that “for lack of evidence”, Janner would not be prosecuted, even though Paul Winston, who was just thirteen when he and Janner first met, was able to describe Janner‘s home, the hotel rooms they had shared, and Janner’s habits and person in detail.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, himself, was arrested for kerb-crawling in Kings Cross a little while later.
Green had come to the attention of the police previously for this same misdemeanour and was quietly given a formal warning. The scandal prompted his resignation from public office
Lord Janner (left) with Uri Gellor (good friend of the late Michael Jackson)
Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone (born 11 July 1928) is a British Labour politician, lawyer and author. A QC since 1971, he was a Labour MP from 1970 to 1997
JANNER is a alleged child molester and that information is well known to the police. An active file on his activities has been maintained at Scotland Yard since even before the eruption of the Leicester Children’s Home scandal of 1991, which led to the jailing of the notorious paedophile Frank Beck. Damning evidence concerning JANNER’s sustained sexual abuse of a 13 year-old boy in care emerged during Beck’s trial, but JANNER was shielded by the then Director of Public Proescutions, Sir Alan Green—who resigned shortly after as the result of a “kerb-crawling” incident.
JANNER used the device of a ‘Personal Statement’ to deny all the accusations against him. Statements to the House of Commons of this kind, apart from being covered by Parliamentary privilege, are exempt from the usual interjections *and questions* from other MPs. After making his statement JANNER was invited by the press to answer their questions *outside* the privileged confines of the House. He refused to do so, and refused to explain why.
Thus it may be seen that his subsequent claims to have been “cleared by Parliament of all accusations” is utterly untrue. JANNER ducked a genuine opportunity to clear his name by taking legal action against his former victim who, as a grown man, has re-iterated his evidence outside the protection of the witness box.
Let’s take a closer look at Greville Janner:
In court, Paul Winston, who was, at the time of Beck’s trial, a married man with children, stood up for him, as did several other witnesses, paying credit to his achievements and behaviour and confirming his anti-Janner testimony.
He said Beck had counselled him over his relationship with the MP, and had brought the affair to an end. He also stated that he had had a beneficial effect on his life. According to Winston’s evidence, he was invited to Janner’s home near Golders Green, whilst Janner’s wife was away, and this led to his sharing Janner’s bed where they “cuddled and fondled each other”. Thereafter Winston testified that, over the next two years, he was regularly sodomised by Janner.
Beck discovered what had been going on after Winston was put into his care, at which point, he informed his superiors at Leicester Social Services. At one point, Janner visited the care home with a new bicycle for Paul but Beck denied him entry and would not allow the gift to be passed on. This was confirmed by another witness at the trial.
Nevertheless, Beck was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison, with five life sentences to run concurrently for his “crimes”.
Janner was never brought to court, nor was he ever called upon to testify.
Janner was Member of Parliament for Leicester West and was Succeeded by Patricia Hewitt (see P.I.E)
Frank Beck died on 31 May 1994, two and a half years after his imprisonment, apparently as a result of a heart attack whilst playing badminton at Whitemoor Prison in Cambridgeshire. He was aged fifty two. Beck’s body was cremated on 9 June 1994, at a private ceremony at the Gilroes Crematorium in Leicester, attended by a small number of family members. The then eighty-eight year old Labour peer, Lord Longford, (pic below) caused great controversy by sending flowers to the funeral. Longford had befriended Beck in prison and was convinced of his innocence.
Unsurprisingly, his sudden death after such a relatively short period of incarceration led to speculation that he had been murdered. D’Arcy and Gosling, in their book, ‘Abuse of Trust”, claim that fellow prisoners (some of whom had allegedly been his victims) attributed his death to speed, which had supposedly been surreptitiously added to his food over a period of months.
He was, by all accounts, a fit man at the time of his death. He never stopped protesting his innocence and Janner’s guilt. His two main solicitors, who admitted to being sceptical in the first instance, believed him at the time that he was found guilty. One of these solicitors has since been killed in a road accident, and the other has been subjected to police harassment on a major scale.
Frank Beck was a resident of Braunstone in Leicester when the events described above were taking place. When Janner was ennobled in 1997, he took the title, Lord Janner of Braunstone. The man responsible for ennobling Greville Janner was Tony Blair.
Barnett Janner, Greville Janner’s father, was also an MP and, at one time, was the Chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain.
NOT ONE QUESTION ASKED
These hacks merely assisted Janners illusionism by creating the impression in their reports that he had refuted the allegations against him, cleared himself of all taint of wrongdoing and, in so doing, had won cheers, sympathy and admiration from all sides of the House . . . Of course, Janner had done no such thing. He had simply uttered a general denial, defamed his principal accuser Paul Winston (behind the protection of Parliamentary privilege) and whined about his suffering! He was not asked a single question by any of the Members who heard him, let alone did he have to endure detailed cross-examination as did those who gave evidence at Beck trial.
It is because of the inability of the House of Commons to subject Janner¹s cunning and self-pitying statement to the scrutiny of cross-examination that we draft the following list of questions which Janner – and the authorities – must be MADE to answer.
THE VITAL QUESTIONS JANNER MUST ANSWER
QUESTIONS Greville Janner must answer start with his pre-emptive visit in March 1991 to the Leicester Police. This visit would appear to have been prompted by the outburst at Leicester Magistrates Court of former childrens home warden Frank Beck after he had been remanded for trial. As he was being led below, Beck shouted out a remark which implied that Greville Janner should be facing prosecution.
Beck\’s remark was very vague. It was only briefly reported in one or two newspapers and achieved no TV or radio coverage. Greville Janner is not publicity shy. Everything from his pink carnation buttonholes to his entry in Whos Who betokens his craving for attention.
Public figures are often made the target for abuse by malignant cranks. Celebrities soon learn to ignore such irritations as an inevitable, if unwelcome, result of their high profiles.
Any public figure innocent of anything remotely like the sexual abuse of youngsters would be utterly nonplussed by Becks outburst and would shrug it off as the ravings of just another crank – and would presume that everybody else, including the police, would do likewise.
We therefore ask Janner:
1. Why did he feel it necessary to make an uninvited visit to the police to discuss the matter?
2. Why did he, a QC, think it necessary to secure the services of Sir David Napley, the most expensive lawyer in England, to accompany him on that visit?
3. Why did it take two hours to state that he was totally innocent of any crimes and utterly mystified by Becks outburst? Would not a one-paragraph letter have sufficed for this purpose?
According to evidence given by Beck at his trial, he had written to the Director of Leicester Social Services in the late 1970s complaining about Greville Janners relationship with one of the boys in his care, Paul Winston, then aged 14 or 15. As two prosecution witnesses attested, Beck took steps to terminate Janners relationship with Winston by forbidding visits and outings and intercepting letters.
Janner pressed his attentions and at one point turned up at the home unannounced with a bicycle as a present for Winston. We ask Janner:
4. Why did he not accept the judgement of Beck, who was in loco parentis (and who at that time was highly thought-of) and allow the relationship with Winston to lapse?
5. Had he been not notified at any time prior to 1991 that the Director of Social Services had received a letter of complaint about him? If so, why did he not issue a Writ for Libel against Beck?
6. Had he been interviewed by the police at any time prior to 1991 in connection with Becks letter to the Director of Social Services and/or conduct alluded to by Beck in his court outburst?
According to Janner, when Beck realised that he was to be prosecuted for child sex abuse he contacted Janner and asked for a character reference and that Janner¹s refusal to provide such had prompted Beck to engage in a vendetta. We ask Janner:
7. Why did he refuse Becks request? Was it simply an act of revenge for Becks termination of his relationship with Paul Winston, or did he have information, which reflected serious discredit on Beck? What was this information? Did he communicate this information to any appropriate authority? If so, to which and when? And if not, why not?
8. In view of the unhappy history of his contact with Beck prior to 1991, can he advance any suggestion as to why Beck might imagine that his application for a character reference to him would be successful? Could Becks request be construed as a blackmail demand?
Greville Janner has not denied knowing Paul Winston during the late 1970s. In his House of Commons statement Janner made a point of asserting that his wife and family were involved with him in his efforts to help the boy.
According to Winstons evidence, he caught Janners eye on a school visit to the House of Commons. Thereafter Janner sent Winston return rail tickets to visit him at Westminster on several occasions.
On the third trip to London Janner took the boy to his home to stay overnight. Janners wife and family were not present.
Winston testified that he was given his own bedroom but as he cried from homesickness Janner took him to his bed to comfort him, whereupon they cuddled and fondled each other. We ask Janner:
9. If not only he but his wife and family were involved in trying to help Winston, why did he arrange for Winstons first visit to his home – an overnight visit – to take place when his wife and family would be away?
In his House of Commons statement Janner declared that Winstons sexual assault allegations contained not a shred of truth. However, we ask Janner:
10. Did he show good judgement in inviting a young boy to stay overnight with him at his home whilst his wife and family were absent even if he did not take him to bed?
11. On how many occasions did he invite Winston to his home to stay overnight when his wife was present?
12. Did he in fact take Winston to bed to comfort him? Did this comforting involve him in cuddling or any other kind of physical contact?
13. Does he think it appropriate that a man in his position should share his bed with a teenage boy, even where no physical contact is involved?
Winston testified that he engaged in numerous sexual encounters with Janner in his suite at The Holiday Inn, Leicester. Apart from hanky-panky in the hotels swimming pool changing rooms, it was in a double bed that Janners various types of sexual assault culminated in lubricant-assisted buggery.
All these sexual assaults detailed in Winstons testimony will also have been covered by Janners all-purpose general denial. However, we ask Janner:
14. Did he ever invite Winston to visit him at The Holiday Inn? If so, on how many occasions? On how many of these occasions were his wife or any members of his family present?
15. Did he ever invite Winston to stay overnight with him at the hotel? If so, why, bearing in mind the boy resided in Leicester? Again, if so, did they at any time-share the same bed?
16. If Winston at no time stayed overnight at the hotel, did the boy ever leave the public parts of the hotel and join him in his private apartment? If so, why?
Winstons relationship with Janner was maintained during his 13th, 14th and possibly 15th year. At some stage Winston was moved to the home administered by Beck. According to the testimony of two prosecution witnesses (a girl in care at the home and one of the staff members) Winston often boasted of being a rent boy with friends in high places.
Rent boys as brazen as this, though by no means always effeminate, tend to adopt mannerisms which signal their proclivities. We ask Janner:
17. As a man of the world, did he not recognise the signs of Winstons sexual orientation – and his promiscuity? Did he show good judgement in entertaining such a youngster at his home or in hotels or having any contact with him other than in the presence of his wife and family and/or social workers?
That question also applies to the two-week holiday in Scotland (again at an expensive hotel) to which Janner treated Winston. During this holiday Winston claims he was sexually abused by Janner. Winston also volunteered in his evidence that he stole more than once from Janners wallet. We ask Janner:
18. Did his wife or any of his family accompany him on this holiday?
19. Did he and Winston share the same sleeping accommodation and/or the same bed? If so, why?
20. Why did he not terminate the holiday and return Winston to the home once he realised, as he must have done, that the boy was stealing from his wallet?
21. Why did he keep quiet about these thefts? Why did he not report them to the police – or at least to staff at the home? Why did he maintain contact with the boy after the thefts, continuing to buy him expensive presents? How could such pampering of a young thief help to reform him?
OTHER BOYS HELPED?
In view of Janners general interest in youth welfare it may be that he has directed lavish help to other wayward or troubled young lads. We ask Janner:
22. How many other boys has he helped in the way that he says he and his wife and family helped Paul Winston? If there were others, were each or any of these invited to stay overnight with him at his home or in hotels, or taken on holidays, without his wife and family being present?
Finally, of course, the management of the Beck trial by Mr. Justice Jowitt is an important issue in this whole affair. He attempted to prohibit media reporting of the trial, and then interrupted the examination of witnesses to prevent Greville Janners name being mentioned. We ask Janner:
23. Did he – or others acting in his interests – use extensive political, legal, or other more secretive contacts to see to it that the trial judge would be briefed as to his predicament and to pull every stroke to try and protect him?
There are other questions to be asked: questions which must be answered by The Lord Chancellor, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Leicester Police and the Director of Leicester Social Services.
WHICH OFFICIALS JOINED TO HELP JANNER PLAN?
A NUMBER of senior public officials have got a lot of explaining to do if the widely held belief that the authorities engaged in a cover-up to protect Greville Janner is to be dispelled.
The first candidate for questioning must be the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who as head of the Judiciary, must answer for the astounding conduct of the Judge in the trial of Frank Beck, Mr. Justice Edwin Jowitt We ask the Lord Chancellor:
1. Are there any kind of formal legal proceedings available to a person who knows he is to be mentioned in connection with criminal conduct during a forthcoming trial (in which he is not an accused or a witness) whereby he can make representations to the judge listed to try the case?
2. Are there any kind of lawful but informal means whereby a person in such a situation might make such representations to a trial judge?
3. Do exalted members of the legal profession have an exceptional right to make such representations to a trial judge?
4. If as we believe, his answers to the first three questions herein must be a definite NO, then how can he explain Judge Jowitts determination at the very outset of the trial to do all he could to shield Greville Janner?
We are unaware of any official statement issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that a formal decision had been taken not to prosecute Janner.
However, a number of newspapers reported that the DPP had ³let it be known² that Janner would not be prosecuted and suggested that the reason for this was ³lack of any evidence² to support the testimony of Janner¹s alleged victim, Paul Winston.
At a later stage we will be directing certain questions to the Chief Constable of the Leicester Police concerning his officers report to the DPP concerning the Winston/Janner relationship, but in the meanwhile, we ask the Director of Public Prosecutions:
1. Have there not been successful prosecutions for sexual assault – rape, for example – in which the sole witness was the victim, and where there was no conclusive supporting forensic evidence?
2. Have there not been successful prosecutions for incestuous child abuse long after there was any possibility of securing forensic or other evidence to support the allegations of the victim, who was often the sole witness?
3. Did not Paul Winston give the police very substantial and accurate detail in support of his allegations with regard to such things as Greville Janner¹s home bedroom and bedrooms at various hotels, Janner¹s person and myriad other relevant matters – which he could not possibly have invented?
4. Is it not often the case that men who prey on young boys deliberately seek out youngsters with insecure or non-existent family backgrounds and who are perhaps verging on delinquency or vagrancy, not only because such boys are inadequately supervised and often desperate for money (and love!) but also because the predators hope that such boys would be unlikely to voice complaints to the authorities and, if they did, their word would not be valued?
We have no reason to doubt that the Leicester Police did a thorough job of investigation. However, we would wish to be, assured on certain points. Therefore, we ask the Leicester Chief Constable:
1. Were the records of the Leicester Holiday Inn and the hotel in Scotland for the material times checked against Winstons story? Were the staff of those hotels traced and interviewed?
2. When the police interviewed Paul Winston for the first time (when they were conducting interviews with all the youngsters who had been in Frank Becks care) was not the sole objective of the interview to obtain information about Beck? If so, would this not explain why Winston did not make any complaint against Janner in that interview? 3. What were the circumstances during the second interview with Winston, which prompted either the police to solicit – or Winston to volunteer – information about other adult sexual predators? How did Janners name arise?
4. In the late 1970s did the Leicester Social Services notify the police that a letter had been received from the warden of one of its childrens homes (Frank Beck) complaining about the relationship between Paul Winston and Greville Janner? If so, did the police interview Janner at the time? If not, why not?
This topic leads us on to our final respondent. We ask the Director of Leicester Social Services:
1. Was a letter received from one of its wardens, Frank Beck, complaining of a relationship between one of the departments wards. Paul Winston, and Greville Janner?
2. What action did the department take? Was the matter notified to the police? If not, why not? Was a warning-off letter or verbal warning issued to Janner? If not, why not?