<iframe allowtransparency="" data-is-safeframe="true" frameborder="0" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/13461183/Forum_secondpost_300x250_0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" name="1-0-0;19779;(function(){var g=this,l=function(a,b){var c=a.split(“.”),d=g;c[0]in d||!d.execScript||d.execScript(“var “+c[0]);for(var e;c.length&&(e=c.shift());)c.length||void 0===b?d=d[e]?d[e]:d[e]={}:d[e]=b},m=function(a,b,c){return a.call.apply(a.bind,arguments)},n=function(a,b,c){if(!a)throw Error();if(2<arguments.length){var d=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,2);return function(){var c=Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments);Array.prototype.unshift.apply(c,d);return a.apply(b,c)}}return function(){return a.apply(b,arguments)}},p=function(a,b,c){p=Function.prototype.bind&&-1!=Function.prototype.bind.toString().indexOf("native code")?m:n;return p.apply(null,arguments)},q=Date.now||function(){return+new Date};var r=document,s=window;var t=function(a,b){for(var c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(null,a[c],c,a)},w=function(a,b){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);var c=a.document.createElement("img");c.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(c)};var x=function(a){return{visible:1,hidden:2,prerender:3,preview:4}[a.webkitVisibilityState||a.mozVisibilityState||a.visibilityState||""]||0},y=function(a){var b;a.mozVisibilityState?b="mozvisibilitychange":a.webkitVisibilityState?b="webkitvisibilitychange":a.visibilityState&&(b="visibilitychange");return b};var C=function(){this.g=r;this.k=s;this.j=!1;this.i=null;this.h=[];this.o={};if(z)this.i=q();else if(3==x(this.g)){this.i=q();var a=p(this.q,this);A&&(a=A("di::vch",a));this.p=a;var b=this.g,c=y(this.g);b.addEventListener?b.addEventListener(c,a,!1):b.attachEvent&&b.attachEvent("on"+c,a)}else B(this)},A;C.m=function(){return C.n?C.n:C.n=new C};var D=/^([^:]+:\/\/[^/]+)/m,G=/^\d*,(.+)$/m,z=!1,B=function(a){if(!a.j){a.j=!0;for(var b=0;b<a.h.length;++b)a.l.apply(a,a.h[b]);a.h=[]}};C.prototype.s=function(a,b){var c=b.target.u();(c=G.exec(c))&&(this.o[a]=c[1])};C.prototype.l=function(a,b){this.k.rvdt=this.i?q()-this.i:0;var c;if(c=this.t)t:{try{var d=D.exec(this.k.location.href),e=D.exec(a);if(d&&e&&d[1]==e[1]&&b){var f=p(this.s,this,b);this.t(a,f);c=!0;break t}}catch(u){}c=!1}c||w(this.k,a)};C.prototype.q=function(){if(3!=x(this.g)){B(this);var a=this.g,b=y(this.g),c=this.p;a.removeEventListener?a.removeEventListener(b,c,!1):a.detachEvent&&a.detachEvent("on"+b,c)}};var H=/^true$/.test("")?!0:!1;var I={},J=function(a){var b=a.toString();a.name&&-1==b.indexOf(a.name)&&(b+=": "+a.name);a.message&&-1==b.indexOf(a.message)&&(b+=": "+a.message);if(a.stack){a=a.stack;var c=b;try{-1==a.indexOf(c)&&(a=c+"\n"+a);for(var d;a!=d;)d=a,a=a.replace(/((https?:\/..*\/)[^\/:]*:\d+(?:.|\n)*)\2/,"$1");b=a.replace(/\n */g,"\n")}catch(e){b=c}}return b},M=function(a,b,c,d){var e=K,f,u=!0;try{f=b()}catch(h){try{var N=J(h);b="";h.fileName&&(b=h.fileName);var E=-1;h.lineNumber&&(E=h.lineNumber);var v;t:{try{v=c?c():"";break t}catch(S){}v=""}u=e(a,N,b,E,v)}catch(k){try{var O=J(k);a="";k.fileName&&(a=k.fileName);c=-1;k.lineNumber&&(c=k.lineNumber);K("pAR",O,a,c,void 0,void 0)}catch(F){L({context:"mRE",msg:F.toString()+"\n"+(F.stack||"")},void 0)}}if(!u)throw h;}finally{if(d)try{d()}catch(T){}}return f},K=function(a,b,c,d,e,f){a={context:a,msg:b.substring(0,512),eid:e&&e.substring(0,40),file:c,line:d.toString(),url:r.URL.substring(0,512),ref:r.referrer.substring(0,512)};P(a);L(a,f);return!0},L=function(a,b){try{if(Math.random()<(b||.01)){var c="/pagead/gen_204?id=jserror"+Q(a),d="http"+("https:"==s.location.protocol?"s":"")+"://pagead2.googlesyndication.com"+c,d=d.substring(0,2E3);w(s,d)}}catch(e){}},P=function(a){var b=a||{};t(I,function(a,d){b[d]=s[a]})},R=function(a,b,c,d,e){return function(){var f=arguments;return M(a,function(){return b.apply(c,f)},d,e)}},Q=function(a){var b="";t(a,function(a,d){if(0===a||a)b+="&"+d+"="+("function"==typeof encodeURIComponent?encodeURIComponent(a):escape(a))});return b};A=function(a,b,c,d){return R(a,b,void 0,c,d)};z=H;l("vu",R("vu",function(a,b){var c=a.replace("&","&"),d=/(google|doubleclick).*\/pagead\/adview/.test(c),e=C.m();if(d){d="&vis="+x(e.g);b&&(d+="&ve=1");var f=c.indexOf("&adurl"),c=-1==f?c+d:c.substring(0,f)+d+c.substring(f)}e.j?e.l(c,b):e.h.push([c,b])}));l("vv",R("vv",function(){z&&B(C.m())}));})();vu(“http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/adview?ai\x3dCeFtRlHZmVNuQK6Hu7QbNmoGoA5Ha9uoCwfKtml7AjbcBEAEgAGC7zsqD3AqCARdjYS1wdWItOTI0NzQ5MDA4NDA0Nzk1M8gBCeACAKgDAaoEzgFP0FbQ9rCVWjR7V8JFPTJ_HgsGJ9P4OcsDzN9QQVFrcUU8Hh9lhEFuSs8KLN0ajKEYYvRAvPcHFzYCJThXm5i0ik8-20nqm_L7wwtCgNEF0J1unKYbkAfJ7m-WuvTrriFQdO69yaZ6mfAMfsq_JNpjfWsjVwTG9qVa0dedfAvknriv0f-S4xagJCGCN405LtBPsSVT4VV-d0fAU1KtDe74GNLqrXk9RSyDPcAiPGQ_f65FCfFcZsyJE94KlnfEdTa0c86p5qvPA8_VQY19kuAEAYAG9P7knK_P3_D5AaAGIQ\x26sigh\x3dmEjGfqyy6Eg”)http://bid.g.doubleclick.net/xbbe/creative/adj?d=APEucNV1tv0tHZ-Q-QPXEWCajei0mfE_VThgg3shBYtkIQekwRJ42f0EANPT75RUrYQJyms9v0jEwZp-d5e69Uf3GCVoyvJ0e61xEx4iIkoo2Kb_1dIlh3Vu22TqmF4MyfoA5OzMcb31rxnnah5i17AgAFHMuTeRdTzdem47Dxgep-GN2CieE-esqhGX9O2Mnyh2WkVdwINGHgnMW79OhYWPSPM0ARPyHqveHuRZuHzEPxXLPj13Zrcd4zWiEFN1chK0NOm4h8DDsdtzM3d5trlSApRGFLuJr-chDtMVzgjp0Bt_9bt2z-NotEjsfqyeyinEX4dkhBo79STjxiE5qokqGnHOyMnJwD-AEyuYlIZ2Q0cUf1x1pMrcm_P7ouzaFgTZ4Yta1F0k9hQZFu0cEKlMG7J6c6WstA&pr=VGZ2lAAKyFsK23chAABNTVMgEmjF30HSHcbEfQ&c=http://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%3Fsa%3DL%26ai%3DCeFtRlHZmVNuQK6Hu7QbNmoGoA5Ha9uoCwfKtml7AjbcBEAEgAGC7zsqD3AqCARdjYS1wdWItOTI0NzQ5MDA4NDA0Nzk1M8gBCeACAKgDAaoEzgFP0FbQ9rCVWjR7V8JFPTJ_HgsGJ9P4OcsDzN9QQVFrcUU8Hh9lhEFuSs8KLN0ajKEYYvRAvPcHFzYCJThXm5i0ik8-20nqm_L7wwtCgNEF0J1unKYbkAfJ7m-WuvTrriFQdO69yaZ6mfAMfsq_JNpjfWsjVwTG9qVa0dedfAvknriv0f-S4xagJCGCN405LtBPsSVT4VV-d0fAU1KtDe74GNLqrXk9RSyDPcAiPGQ_f65FCfFcZsyJE94KlnfEdTa0c86p5qvPA8_VQY19kuAEAYAG9P7knK_P3_D5AaAGIQ%26num%3D1%26sig%3DAOD64_1Usg6ei67o6ggbpLaNLaIdgcH-YQ%26client%3Dca-pub-9247490084047953%26adurl%3D
![]() <iframe allowtransparency="" frameborder="0" height="250" id="google_ads_iframe_/13461183/Forum_firstpost_300x250_0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="javascript:"”” style=”border: 0px currentColor; vertical-align: bottom;” width=”300″>
Greville Janner Part2 “The insurance company who is responsible for any claim made against the Social Services, has been in contact with a friend in Leicester and said they are unhappy about the claims. Not because they don’t like paying out, which I’m sure they don’t, but because they say the evidence just does not add up, and they believe the claims of some of them are fraudulent”. Regarding the immediate circumstances attending Beck’s death, Chaney reports (presumably on the basis of evidence he heard given at the inquest) that on the evening of 31st May Beck attended the gymnasium. Three physical training instructors were present: Prison Officers Agnew, Ryan and Wall. Chaney maintains that Beck suffered the classic symptoms of poisoning: aching limbs, faintness and difficulty with breathing symptoms he had complained of to Chaney himself in correspondence. After Beck’s collapse, the officers repeatedly phoned the prison infirmary but obtaining no response they placed Beck on a stretcher and took him there. Health care POs Williamson and Allen then phoned the health care manager, William Woods, who arrived at 7.55pm, 40 minutes after Becks seizure. After forms were filled in, Beck was conveyed to prison cell H-108. At the time, no doctor was on duty at the prison, but eventually one was contacted at Charteris, seven miles distant. Before the doctor, Dr. Noteboon arrived, prison nurse Phillipa Stillman went to Becks cell at 8.00 pm and seeing him blue in colour, with Wood’s help, placed him on the floor of the cell. When the doctor arrived it was too late. When nurse Stillman arrived at Becks cell Woods told her: “There’s no cause for alarm. He’s strained his back”. Chaney records inconsistencies between the pathology report and the statements of health care manager Woods. According to Woods, between February 1993 and May 1994 Beck had reported sick only three times for “minor medical complaints”. On a police statement, Woods declared Beck was a fit man for his duration at Whitemoor. Furthermore, on a prison report after Beck’s death, the full medical history consisted of two lines: “Heart pain for about six to eight weeks, complaining of back pain and dizziness”. The pathology report of W. J. Blundell, dated 1st June 1994, stated death attributed to “sudden cardiac arrhythmia, ischaemic heart disease and coronary artery”. A reference was made to “unusual rhythm” of the heart a discovery presumably made while Beck was alive. Finally, Chaney draws attention to some interesting loose ends. Beck’s solicitors, Greene DSa, employed their clerk, Ian Henning, in Beck’s case. Chaney maintains the Leicester police pursued a vendetta against Henning, compiling a dossier on him and arresting him, allegedly for perverting the course of justice in another case, a charge that failed. Henning told the press: “It happened because I represented Frank Beck to the best of my ability. I don’t judge people. I represent them”. The Deputy-Chief Constable of Leicestershire, Anthony Butler, issued a circular to all sub-divisional commanders accusing Henning of acting improperly during interviews and “hindering investigations”. This led to Henning being refused access to clients. The Law Society found in Henning’s favour. However, the police response was to maintain their ban on him visiting clients held in custody on the technical grounds that only fully-qualified solicitors, and not their clerks, had right of access. Henning accused the police of harassing him with a view to suppressing incriminating evidence against Janner and he sued them. This action prompted the police to climb down and admit wrongful arrest. The above constitutes the substance of Chaney’s treatise. III. OUR OBSERVATIONS: We have rehearsed Chaney’s contention that the establishment of Greville Janner’s guilt in the matter of the sexual abuse of Paul Winston would, ipso facto, establish Beck’s innocence of the numerous charges of which he was convicted and for which he was sentenced to nine terms of Life Imprisonment. We cannot subscribe to this view because it is devoid of logic. Much is made by Chaney of the fact that a file was taken by the police from the offices of Leicester Social Services which allegedly contained letters from Beck to his superiors complaining about Janner’s past relationship with Paul Winston and of his efforts to re-establish contact with the boy at the home which Beck managed. It is asserted that the Crown Prosecutor did not make this file available during Becks Crown Court trial. Beck’s lawyers must surely have known the existence of this file. Did they apply for a Court Order for the file to be produced? If so, what was the result of that application? If they did not, why not? Accepting that the file contains what Chaney claims it contains, such material would certainly compromise Janner but would not thereby exonerate Beck. Chaney argues that Beck’s letters indicate that he had a proper professional wish to shield one of his wards from the attention of a paedophile, and that such would not have been the action of one who was himself engaged in paedophile activity. This is naive. Hypocrisy and jealousy are unfortunate aspects of human nature and have to be taken into account when considering cases such as this. Beck’s letters could, therefore, be explained in terms of Beck having taken a shine to Winston himself, of having become possessive, as people do, and of having acted against Janner out of jealousy and spite. We can only present both possible explanations and allow readers to make up their own minds. Those who campaign for a review of Beck’s conviction might do well to concentrate on the “tainted evidence” aspect referred to by Lord Longford. We have also aired Chaney’s contention that Beck’s symptoms exhibited the “classic symptoms of poisoning”. But we have to point out that Chaney has no medical qualifications. While he may be correct in so describing these symptoms, a doctor has advised us that such symptoms are certainly the symptoms of heart disease. But whether Beck was murdered or died of natural causes does not materially affect the questions Greville Janner must answer in the matter of his relationship with Paul Winston. We conclude by asking the reader to study carefully the text of a leaflet, entitled Janner Fails to Answer Sex With Boy Evidence issued after Becks trial by a Leicester parents’ organisation Concerned Leicester Parents, and which we republish as an Appendix. This leaflet was, we understand, circulated widely to the great, the good and the not-so-good of the city and the county, and to a wider audience beyond. It gives a good account of Beck’s trial and an excellent description of the legalistic and parliamentary privilege devices Janner and his lawyers deployed to shield him from questioning. The information this leaflet contains is compelling and should have prompted further investigation – yet our valiant protectors in the mass media suppressed all news of it and the questions it asks. Only Private Eye referred to it – briefly – and admitted that Greville Janner has left many important questions unanswered. We remind the reader that these questions – harbouring sleaze to an unprecedented degree – are still unanswered. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/RT…206140016/?v=1
ITN Source – 15 June 2002 UK: Michael Jackson to become honorary director of Exeter Football Club Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 10:40 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/lo…ichael-jackson
JC.com – June 26, 2009 Lord Janner: My friend Michael Jackson Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 12:02 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Sin bin – Time Out
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,359
|
![]() Greville Janner Part3
APPENDIX The following is the complete text of a four page leaflet published on 20th January 1992 by Concerned Leicester Parents. We have not amended the text in any way. [Page1] MP deploys Parliamentary Privilege, a noisy claque and a tame press to portray himself as a ‘victim’ who has been ‘cleared’ of allegations JANNER FAILS TO ANSWER SEX WITH BOY EVIDENCE DURING October and November 1991 the trial took place in Leicester of former children’s home warden Frank Beck. Beck was found guilty of numerous charges of sexual and other assaults against children in his care from 1974 to 1986 and was sentenced to five terms of life imprisonment. At the start of the trial the Judge, Mr. Justice Edwin Jowitt, ruled that the media could not report the proceedings. This ruling was made in order to try and prevent publication of allega tions of sexual assaults on a young boy against Greville Janner QC, Labour Member of Parliament for Leicester West. The judge knew that such allegations would be made because in March 1991, at the end of the committal hearing of the case before Leicester Magistrates, Beck was led below shouting remarks about Janner. Shortly after this incident Janner, accompanied by England’s most expensive solicitor, Sir David Napley, made a pre-emptive visit to Leic ester Police HQ. Janner denied the allegations in an interview, which lasted two hours. BOY PROSTITUTE Judge Jowitts gagging order was contested by a press agency in the High Court. The order was held to be unlawful. Shortly thereafter Janner s name emerged in evidence from a prosecution witness, which linked him with a young boy prostitute. The witness, a woman now aged 31, a former inmate of the home run by Beck, and who had been raped and buggered by him, testified that another inmate at the home was 15 year old Paul Winston, who boasted of being a “rent boy with friends in high places. She stated that on one occasion she witnessed a row between Beck and Winston during which Beck shouted that Winston “wasn’t going to see Greville Janner any more”. This evidence prompted Judge Jowitt to decide that as he could not ban the reporting of evidence once it had been voiced, he would interrupt witnesses and counsel at critical moments to prevent mention of “the names of people in high places”. He did this during the evidence of another prosecution witness, former social worker Mark Salisbury. He had been Winstons care officer at the home and confirmed that Winston boasted of having “friends in high places”. Salisbury was asked: “Did he tell you who those were?” At this point the Judge intervened, preventing a reply. Salisbury was then asked whether there was one or more than one person in high places under discussion. He replied: “One. He just knew him and had contact with him”. This person turned up at the children’s home with a bicycle as a present for Winston. Nobody has suggested that either of these prosecution witnesses had any motive for helping Becks case (on the contrary in the case of the woman) or of bearing false witness against Janner. Paul Winston, now a married man of 30 with children, gave evidence at the trial as a defence witness: He first met Janner as a 13 year old when on a school outing to the House of Commons. Janner singled him out and invited him to visit the Commons again on his own, sending him the train ticket. Janner maintained regular contact with him by letter and telephone. On the occasion of a third trip to London Janner took the boy to his home whilst his wife was away. Winston stated that he was taken to bed by Janner where they “cuddled and fondled each other”. Thereafter they saw each other most weekends. He would often stay overnight in Janners suite at the Holiday Inn in Leicester, sleeping with him overnight in a double bed. SEX’ AND A 13-YEAR-OLD Various types of sexual activity took place: petting and fondling, oral sex, simulated sex and, finally, when he was aged 13 – “sex” (i.e. buggery). When he was 14 Janner took him for a fortnights holiday to Scotland where he was twice “abused” by the MP. The holiday atmosphere was soured on account of Winston stealing cash from Janner’s wallet. This dishonesty did not prevent Janner trying to keep in contact with Winston by telephone calls and letters. Once Winston was moved to the home run by Beck, these were intercepted. Beck also returned a bicycle, which Janner delivered as a Christmas present. In cross-examination Winston admitted that he made no complaint against Janner when first interviewed by the police (who interviewed all the inmates of the home run by Beck). He also admitted that in a subsequent statement to the police in which he did mention Janner he stated that he had enjoyed some of the sex sessions. JANNER’S DENIAL INADEQUATE At the conclusion of Winston’s evidence the prosecution counsel pointed out that Winston, in his second statement to the police, had specified that Janner had engaged in oral sex but had not alleged acts of buggery. This allegation was only made during his evidence at the trial. It is important to remember that the person on trial at Leicester was Frank Beck, not Greville Janner. None of the above constitutes proof that Janner committed grave sex crimes against a child, nor is it our intention to assert that he is guilty of such offences. It is, however, our purpose: – To demonstrate that Greville Janner’s statements on these matters in the privileged environment of the House of Commons did not constitute a full answer to the allegations against him; they were merely a cunningly-scripted general denial presented as part of a carefully stage-managed public relations exercise in which a small but noisy claque of friends on the floor of the House and other friends looking on from the Press Gallery played their pre arranged parts. – To assert that Greville Janner has a lot of explaining to do before he can resume his careers as a Member of Parliament and a Queens Counsel, in both of which roles he seeks the power to regulate all our lives. JANNER’S COMMONS STATEMENT A DISPLAY OF ILLUSIONISM AND CHUTZPAH BUT NOT SUBSTANCE MAKING an audience believe it has seen something when it has not illusionism – is a magicians trick which most politicians seek to emulate. We may expect that any Member of Parliament who has been admitted to the club for top magicians, The Magic Circle, be particularly well equipped to pursue a career in politics. Just such a politician is Greville Janner, MP for Leicester West. Mr. Janner gave a bravura performance of his skills in the House of Commons on Monday 2nd November 1991 when he was able to create the illusion (in the minds of the credulous) that he had fully answered and cleared himself of allegations of sexual assaults against a 13 year-old boy. The allegations emerged in evidence given during the trial at Leicester Crown Court of former Leicestershire children’s home warden Frank Beck that ended in October 1991 with the conviction of Beck on numerous charges of sexual and other assaults against children in his care. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 |
Sin bin – Time Out
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,359
|
![]() Greville Janner Part4
DETAILED EVIDENCE Though Janner was not a defendant at this trial, evidence concerning him [see page 1 of this leaflet] came from two prosecution witnesses as well as from his alleged victim, Paul Winston, a defence witness now a 31 year old married man with children. This evidence was not of a vague character: it was detailed as to date, location, circumstances and happenings. Such evidence, having been given upon oath and subjected to cross-examination in a court of law, requires a specific and detailed refutation. This becomes utterly essential in the case of somebody like Janner who: – Helps create new laws as an MP; – Assists the courts to impose the law as a barrister with the rank of Queens Counsel; – Uses his status as an MP and a QC to lobby law enforcement agencies on behalf of Zionist Jewry to secure the prosecution of political opponents; and, last but not least… – Actively involves himself with youth organizations, particularly the Boy Scouts. Yet instantly the Leicester trial concluded, the Director of Public Prosecutions “let it be known” that there would be no prosecution against Janner. In view of the efforts of the trial Judge to suppress evidence about Janner, this decision by the DPP stinks. SINISTER ALLIANCE Even more sinister was the cross-party alliance of the high and mighty, generally referred to as “The Establishment”, to assist Janner to present himself as the long-suffering victim of a conspiracy who finally achieves vindication. How this was accomplished was really quite simple: At the end of the Beck trial journalists were naturally anxious to question and, in the way that journalists do, cross-question Janner about the allegations made about him during the trial. Janner – no doubt on the advice of his solicitor Sir David Napley – would have none of it. Napley had acted for the former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe in similar circumstances in the late 1970s and had learned many valuable lessons from that affair. THE JEREMY THORPE LESSON Thorpe, it will be remembered, tried to brazen his way out of trouble by calling a press conference to refute allegations made against him by his former male sex partner Norman Scott. This press conference was a disaster for Thorpe. Relentless cross-questioning by journalists on sensitive topics caused Thorpe’s presentation – and composure – to crumple. Prosecution followed shortly after. So Janner said nothing to the press, save to issue an announcement via Napley’s office that he would “make a full statement at the earliest opportunity in the proper place: the House of Commons”. To the minds of many ordinary people, the House of Commons is a mixture of the government and the highest court in the land. A statement made by a Member involved in a controversy or scandal is thus perceived as some kind of legal process, and that if the House gives – or is reported as having given – the Member its support, then he is in the clear. There is, of course, a certain degree of validity in this perception to the extent that the facility to make a statement to the House is available to Members involved in a political controversy or scandal. But it has not been, hitherto, a device to enable Members to evade proper examination in connection with allegations of alleged criminal conduct. PUBLIC IGNORANCE EXPLOITED Janner exploited to the full the general public’s ignorance of the way the House of Commons operates. For one thing he knew unlike your average ‘Joe Public’ – that personal statements of the kind he proposed to make are not normally made the subject of questioning – let alone protracted cross-examination by other Members. The Speaker would not tolerate such a procedure not only because Standing Orders have it that all Members are “Honourable Members” but also because while time can be found for brief personal statements, subsequent cross-examination would dislocate the scheduled business of the House. Janner also knew that statements made by members within the House are “privileged”. That is to say, Members can defame and slander any non-member they choose without fear of legal action being instituted against them which would result in them having to face cross examination outside the House. Janner’s statement was not a detailed answer to any of the detailed allegations against him. It was simply a general denial. This is a standard defensive mode for the legally trained. The less you say, the fewer openings for difficult questions. Beyond the flat denial, Janner merely advanced the suggestion that . . . (a) Because Paul Winston gave evidence as a defence witness in the trail at which Beck was convicted; and (b) Because there were certain differences between statements made by Winston to the police before the trial and his sworn testimony at the trial, . . . then Winston was therefore “an accomplice” of Beck, a perjurer, whose evidence contained “not a shred of truth”. CHEERED BY A CLAQUE Having uttered these insubstantial sound-bites, Janner sat down to the organised cheering of a claque of his friends (mostly Labour but some noted pro-Zionist Tories like Sir Michael Latham). House rules forbid TV cameras to pan around the chamber and so did not show that the relatively small number of members in attendance was grouped immediately around Janner. Furthermore, the microphones used in the House are location specific. The careful grouping of the claque around Janner, in conjunction with the restriction on TV camera movement and the distortions of the microphone system, served to create the impression that he addressed a packed and enthusiastic House! And that is what illusionism is all about: creating a false impression! Journalists in the Press Gallery of course, observed this carefully stage-managed charade. But the public could not look to them for enlightenment because: Journalists in the Press Gallery are not entitled to shout questions down to – let alone cross-question – Members in the House. They would be evicted and lose their press passes (and their jobs) if they attempted any such thing. These hacks merely assisted Janner’s 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 Janner’s 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 children’s 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 Who’s 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 Beck’s 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. AN INNOCENT REACTION? 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 Janner’s 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 Janner’s 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 conn ection 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 Janner’s 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 infor mation, 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 Winston’s evidence, he caught Janner’s 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. Janner’s 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 over night visit – to take place when his wife and family would be away? In his House of Commons statement Janner declared that Winston’s 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 over night when his wife was present? 12. Did he in fact take Winston to bed to comfort him? Did this comfort ing 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 Janner’s various types of sexual assault culminated in lubricant-assisted buggery. All these sexual assaults detailed in Winston’s testimony will also have been covered by Janner’s 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? Winston’s 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 Winston’s 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 Janner’s 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 Janner’s 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 Janner’s 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. 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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti…eer-Lords.html
Daily Mail – Aug 27, 2006 War hero, 82, hits fellow peer in Lords Quote:
… |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() No mention of dementia 2 months ago.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/10/17…ook-to-israel/
Quote:
… |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://www.pattiboulaye.com/bio.htm
Patti Boulaye Quote:
… |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://archive.totallyjewish.com/new…ner-s-tv-fame/
Totally Jewish Archives – 15 January 2007 Lord Janner’s TV Fame Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 11:01 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131701851
The Canberra Times – 4 May 1986 Appeal to Australian to ‘expose’ Waldheim Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 11:14 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#51 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/132153876
The Canberra Times (AUSTARLIA) – Wednesday 19 August 1987 VICE-REGAL Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 11:14 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#52 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() Knowing Janner’s comments about Geoffrey Dickens, this is the strangest article of the night.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/118132394 Quote:
… |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#53 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/126940172
The Canberra Times – Wednesday 2 September 1992 Male au pair stays; call for law change Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 11:26 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#54 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/110614454
The Canberra Times – Thursday 17 November 1988 Elite Nazis given jobs in Britain after war: MP Quote:
Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 12:14 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#55 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://www.maccabigb.org/news/israel…of-parliament/
Maccabi GB – 12 Dec 2012 ISRAELI TORCH DELEGATION AND JEWISH SCHOOL CHILDREN VISIT HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT Quote:
… http://www.sinaischool.com/latest_news.php Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 11:51 AM. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#56 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://establishmentwatch.wordpress….ng-you-decide/
establishmentwatch – 30 March 2013 Greville Janner, a zionist paedophile who has “gotten away with it for far too long” ? YOU DECIDE. Quote:
… |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#57 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() http://gibraltar.24-news.in/2012/lor…-of-gibraltar/
24News – 23/03/12 Lord Janner awarded the freedom of the City of Gibraltar This Thursday in a ceremony at John Mackintosh Square Lord Greville Janner was awarded the freedom of the City of Gibraltar. The ceremony lasted 30 minutes. It started and ended with an abridged National Anthem. Shamus Byrne was compère and Yvette Zarb acted as as Usher. The mayor gave a speech describing Lord Greville Janner’s history. Lord Janner thanked the Mayor for his very kind words and was visibly moved, mentioned Momy Levy and thanked all his family and friends for being there. Finally he extended his offer of help to all Gibraltarians. The following is the text of the address given by the Mayor of Gibraltar Julio J Alcantara M.B.E. Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 12:08 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#58 |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#59 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() https://twitter.com/UKPaedos_Named
Children have rights @UKPaedos_Named 2h Children have rights @UKPaedos_Named 2h Children have rights @UKPaedos_Named 2h Children have rights @UKPaedos_Named 2h Andreas Baader @stop1984 1h Children have rights@UKPaedos_Named Children have rights @UKPaedos_Named 2h Andreas Baader @stop1984 2h Children have rights@UKPaedos_Named 2h … http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.c…1_archive.html Quote:
… Last edited by troyhand; 20-12-2013 at 12:31 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#60 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 3,511
|
![]() Pro Frank Beck Abuser site about Beeches
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt…age=3766#75305 http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articl…ndrew-Kirkwood Quote:
… |