Greville ‘Grovel’ Janner – Protected by his LFI, CST & Zionist Colleagues
I have no way of knowing whether 'Grovel' Janner is guilty of the accusations of child abuse, including child rape. What I do know is that these are extremely serious allegations and merit imprisonment for life if the person is found guilty.
|Accused of 22 offences against children - protected by DPP Alison Saunders & the Establishment|
What I also know is that prominent members of the Establishment - such as Ed Balls MP and John Mann MP - chose to work with him in Labour Friends of Israel and the so-called Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism, despite knowing of the accusations and that Keith Vaz MP, Chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, sought to change the laws on contempt so that 'honourable' rapists and child abusers could no longer be outed.
|Janner was a right-wing Labour MP and kept the company of Tories|
I also know that it is perfectly possible for someone accused of serious offences to be prosecuted. Someone accused of unlawfully killing another person can be tried and found guilty but with a partial defence of diminished responsibility. Of course, at the time Grovel was alleged to have perpetrated these offences there was no suggestion he was suffering from dementia. But he now is and that is preventing his prosecution rather than being taken into account at the sentencing state (if found guilty).
|Former Chief of Staff, Field Marshall Lord Bramall (left) is the only person to come out of this with credit. He thwacked 'Grovel' round the head for his defence of Israel's invasion of Lebanon|
Clearly with 22 alleged offences committed against 9 separate children there is a huge amount of evidence that Grovel committed the offences. But that should be for a Judge and Jury to decide, not for Alison Saunders, the DPP, who should be dismissed for perpetuating the cover-up of Janner's alleged offences.
Greville Janner is known to readers of Private Eye as Grovel Janner, a suitable epithet for a man who I only encountered on two occasions. Oily and slimy, he entirely merited comparison with Uriah Heep.
|'Grovel' in more confident times|
|The hypocrite uses the Holocaust to hide behind|
|'Grovel' Janner was ably supported by other MPs like Keith Vaz|
|Grovel's dementia didn't prevent him staying on at the Lords|
|Grovel as an MP delivering petition with child|
The first occasion I met him was when giving evidence to the Parliamentary Committee on Employment of which he was Chairman from 1992-96. I had been asked to give evidence as Secretary of Brighton Unemployed Centre. He told me, after having ascertained I held an MA in Imperial History. that I was the best qualified unemployed person he had met, which probably showed the limits of his engagement with the real world. The other time we met was leafleting a Labour Party/Labour Friends of Israel meeting when he considered a minor offence of shoplifting of great import. I guess that offences against property were considered more heinous to this son of the British establishment than offences against children.
Apart from being Chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews (1978-84), a thoroughly pro-Zionist organisation which did its best to undermine the fight against fascism in the ‘30’s in the Jewish community. It represents the Jewish petit-bourgeoisie and a section of the Jewish establishment.
Janner also founded the Holocaust Educational Trust. The Holocaust is a good excuse to demonise the Palestinians whilst making yourself feel good. A QC since 1971, he was a Labour MP from 1970 to 1997; since then he has been a member of the House of Lords.
Grovel was made a life peer as Baron Janner of Braunstone in 1997. He is President of John Mann MP and Dennis MacShane’s All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and chairs the All-Party Britain-Israel Parliamentary Group. It’s not surprising that these parliamentary cretins didn’t notice his dementia but then again, since his diagnosis is rather convenient, perhaps that is understandable.
A man who worked in Janner’s office during 1991, soon after graduating from university, said: “It was a matter of office gossip that he liked boys, or young men in their mid-20s. He would have friendships with bright young men, and would go swimming with them in his club. He would go for a swim, then have breakfast, then work. Then after lunch he would lie out on the sofa in his constituency office.”
He was still an active peer for several years after his ‘Alzheimer’ was first diagnosed in 2009. He made his last speech – fittingly on Israel and Palestine – in February 2013. The register shows that he was a regular attender in the Lords until the end of December 2013.
Greville Janner: How MPs rallied to defence of Labour peer 'unfairly put through hell by a wicked slur' Independent 16.4.15.
Labour Friends of Israel - like most pro-Israel groups - has often tried to discredit criticism of Israel by conflating it with 'anti-Semitism'. Janner, who was an LFI vice-chair, talked of the ‘viciously and often notoriously anti-Israel" left liberal media.’ Rabbi David Goldberg, “Let's have a sense of proportion”, The Guardian, 26.1. 02
Balls & Janner
The disgusting Ed Balls who consorted with Janner now seeks to distance the Labour Party from this creature – Balls is thoroughly pro-Zionist and has never spoken out against the abuse of Palestinian children by Israel
Clegg washing his hands of his Zionist colleague. With the Lib Dems having to answer questions about Cyril Smith MP for whom they covered it must all be embarrassing
Rt Hon Anne McGuire MP, LFI chair
Michael Dugher MP
Louise Ellman MP
Michael McCann MP
Rachel Reeves MP
Jonathan Reynolds MP
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale
Janner was the son of Sir Barnett Janner, former Chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain. Another pillar of the Jewish Establishment and Liberal MP for Leicester North West which he inherited. He was a member of the notorious Blairite LFI, whose supporters include:
Ed Balls MP
Luciana Berger MP
Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP
Rt Hon David Blunkett MP
Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP
Rosie Cooper MP
Jim Fitzpatrick MP
Rt Hon Caroline Flint MP
Barry Gardiner MP
Mary Glindon MP
Andrew Gwynne MP
Fabian Hamilton MP
Tom Harris MP
Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP
Sharon Hodgson MP
Ivan Lewis MP
Rt Hon Anne McGuire MP
Meg Munn MP
Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP
Rt Hon John Spellar MP
Chuka Umunna MP
Dave Watts MP
John Woodcock MP
Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP
Rt Hon Lord Anderson of Swansea
Lord Beecham DL
Lord Clarke of Hampstead CBE
Rt Hon Lord Clinton-Davis
Lord Davies of Coity CBE
Rt Hon Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
Rt Hon Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Dr Baroness Hayter
Lord Janner of Braunstone QC
A veritable rogues gallery of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Only Dennis MacShane, the former MP for Rotherham, has been removed. No doubt on account his time spent as a guest of Her Majesty.
One of Grovel’s few subsequent forays into the public eye came in 2002, when Uri Geller, a friend, arranged for him to accompany Michael Jackson on a tour of Parliament. The trio dropped in on a party for Labour MP Paul Boateng, where Jackson agreed to sing happy birthday. Boateng himself is rumoured to have been shunted off as High Commissioner to South Africa because of child abuse allegations. See
In September, the Chief Constable of Derbyshire, Mick Creedon, was reported as saying his 1989 inquiries as a detective sergeant into ‘credible evidence’ of child abuse by Janner were blocked by superiors. see
Janner had been named in open court as an abuser during the 1991 trial of Leicester children’s home manager Frank Beck. MPs, including the current chair of the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Keith Vaz, rallied around Janner following trial reports. In December 1991 some called for a review of the law of contempt following what fellow Leicester MP Vaz called a ‘cowardly attack’ on Janner’s character. In 1991 Alex Carlisle QC, a Liberal-Democrat was one of the MPs supporting Greville Janner following the Beck trial. Hansard records him saying of Janner: ‘He is a man of determination and enthusiasm whose integrity and will power have crossed party lines.’ see and
Another defender of Janner was ex-left and New Labour Minister Chris Mullins.
Attorney General’s Office
19 April, 2015
Dear Attorney General
Reference: CPS decision on Lord Janner of Blackstone
I write in my capacity as a potential Member of Parliament to challenge the decision of the DPP, Alison Saunders, not to prosecute Lord Janner for alleged crimes, namely 16 indecent assaults between 1969 and 1988, and 6 counts of buggery on under aged boys between 1972 and 1988.
I have read the CPS’ justification for their decision here http://cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/lord_janner/
Please do not refer this letter downwards to the CPS, and please do not treat it as a complaint against the CPS. I have been in lengthy correspondence with the CPS and have used their complaint service already, and I have no confidence in their decisions and processes, for the reasons set out below. I wish to challenge the judgment of the DPP directly. This is now a matter for the Chief Law Officer.
Alison Saunders in her justification document accepts that the evidential basis for a criminal prosecution of Janner is sound. However, she argues that there is no public interest in prosecuting him because he is unfit to plead.
She bases this argument on the evidence of four medical experts who agree that he has dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, and that they have “general agreement” as to the level of cognitive ability on a Mini Mental State examination.
However, there is no reference to any brain scan having been carried our. If scans were performed but reports on the scans were left out of the CPS justification document, there has been a failure of due diligence in reporting, and Saunders should be rebuked.
If on the other hand brain scans on Janner were not performed, there has been serious negligence. In my extensive correspondence with the CPS on this case I explicitly requested several times that brain scans should be carried out, because they give objective evidence that goes far beyond medical history taking and examination. If they were not carried out Saunders should be invited to consider her position.
If we accept for the sake of argument that Janner is indeed suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, there are three precedents where paedophiles have been tried and convicted of sexual crimes against children. The names are David Massingham, John Hayford and Michael Collingwood. I can supply references if requested, but the CPS should be able to find them.
Either Alison Saunders knew of these cases and negligently failed to deal with them in her report, or she did not know of them, in which case there was a failure of due diligence as a lawyer.
There is no provision in the CPS Code of Practice to exempt people with dementia from facing trial. In the absence of such provision, but in the presence of sufficient evidential basis to proceed, Alison Saunders has used the public interest test.
Now clearly there is a major public interest in bringing to court people who are abused of serious sexual crimes against children, especially children who for one reason or another were in the care of public organisations.
First, sexual abuse has a devastating effect on the subsequent lives of survivors of abuse, and there is a need to demonstrate that society will not tolerate child abuse, even if carried out by VIPs.
Second, the Law itself comes into disrepute if there is a public perception that VIP status confers immunity against justice. You must be aware that already there exists a common perception that this is the case. This view is particularly prevalent in the community of survivors of sexual abuse. If Janner escapes trial, this perception will increase, both among survivors and among the general public. It is not in the public interest for there to be a perception that there is one law for the rich, another for the poor.
Against these two major public interest arguments, the CPS advances the minor public interest argument that money spent in bringing Janner to court could be wasted as he is likely to be judged unfit to plead. This argument is extremely weak. The expenditure would be trivial in comparison with other cases that have failed.
The precedents referred to above are worthy of being considered in court.
Most importantly, a major legal argument needs to be entertained, namely whether a person who passes the evidential test but who might not be fit to plead for reasons of dementia should be tried as if in absentia.
The defence could test the evidence given by Janner’s alleged victims. His accusers could be invited to ask if they can positively identify him, possibly by reference to body characteristics such as moles.
It should be noted also that in coming to her conclusion, Saunders rejected advice of one of UK’s principal authorities on sex offences. Eleanor Laws QC, leading counsel to Leicestershire police’s investigation into Janner, recommended that he be put on trial despite his age and dementia.
In the light of this, the DPP must have consulted with other people in coming to her decision. The names of these people, the advice they gave, and the degree of pressure that they put on the DPP should be made clear to the public.
In conclusion, let me summarise the questions I am raising:
1. The question of whether or not scans have been carried out must be settled.
2. The question of precedents must be considered.
3. The question of public interest, major and minor, needs to be reviewed.
4. Who gave advice to the DPP to persuade her to come to her conclusion?
I look forward to a timely response to all the points made in this letter.
Dr Richard Lawson
MB BS, MRCPsych
Parliamentary Candidate, Weston Constituency, Green Party
Perhaps the person who comes out best in all of this is one Field Marshal Lord Bramall. After an argument over the Lebanon conflict, he thwacked his fellow peer, the 78-year-old Lord Janner!