Sunday, 20 July 2014

Janner failed to answer - then and now

Since Jimmy Savile’s predatory behaviours became widely known, proof of paedophilia at the highest levels has emerged from the media cesspit. 

Stuart Hall, Rolf Harris and publicist, Max Clifford, are all now in jail. Latterly rumours of even more outrageous and long-standing perversion have been echoing around the corridors of power.

I wonder, when did you become aware of all this? Wikipedia says:
“In October 2012, almost a year after his death, an ITV documentary examined claims of sexual abuse by Savile and led to extensive media coverage and a substantial and rapidly growing body of witness statements and sexual abuse claims, including accusations against public bodies for covering up or failure of duty.”
Unless, you were directly affected by Savile and co., or you were a part of a small body of whistleblowers intent on having the truth told, most of you will have been oblivious to the sordid nature of some of the most powerful celebrities in the land until then.

Wikipedia also says this about former Lib Dem MP, Cyril Smith:
“In May 1979, a local underground magazine, the Rochdale Alternative Press, alleged that in the 1960s Smith had spanked and sexually abused teenage boys in a hostel he co-founded. The matter was investigated by the police but Smith was not prosecuted. 
The story was repeated in the same month by the satirical magazine Private Eye… 

The Press Office of the then leader of the Liberal Party, Sir David Steel, at the time (1979) in a 'Lib–Lab pact' with James Callaghan, commented: ‘All he seems to have done is spanked a few bare bottoms.’ 
In November 2012, speaking in the House of Commons, Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, Smith's old seat, called for an inquiry into the alleged abuse.”
It is interesting and perhaps instructive to note that, despite Simon and the ITV documentary getting stuck into the bad guys less than a month apart, attention has been focused four square upon media celebrity and the corridors of parliamentary power have been left relatively unexposed to the glare of intrusive publicity.

Indeed, Sir Greville Janner, at the pinnacle of Jewish affairs and politics for many years in this country, was recently allowed to claim dementia as a defence against prosection! On 9 July 2014, The Daily Mirror told us this:
"A Labour peer facing more than 20 allegations of historical child abuse looks set to avoid prosecution after doctors said he was unfit to be quizzed because he has dementia. The member of the House of Lords will not be interviewed or arrested by police investigating the alleged sexual assaults, which include claims of rape, on vulnerable boys in children’s homes.”
No doubt the parliamentary brotherhood will be playing a whole host of similar get out of jail free cards in the future when called upon to explain historical deviance. Anyway, the ‘underground’ whistleblowers didn’t whistle loud enough back in 1979 because, as Wikipedia tells us, Cyril Smith was not prosecuted.

In 1991, Janner was interviewed by the police after he was named as an abuser in court.

The Ian Katz (himself Jewish) article opposite appeared in The Evening Standard shortly afterwards. Then, as now, Janner was left unmolested by prosecution. Any investigation into his behaviours was also terminated back then. But, though this was the end of the matter as far as officialdom was concerned, others were not so prepared to be fobbed off.

Just as British Nationalists were warning the rest of us about paedophilic criminality within the Muslim community decades before anyone else, they also saw to it that Janner’s activities did not pass into history unscrutinised.

The 4-page leaflet ‘Janner FAILS to answer ‘Sex With Boy’ Evidence’ was published on 20 January 1992. 

The first page may be seen below.

"Greville Janner's statements on these matters in the privileged environs 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 pre-arranged parts...  
Greville Janner has a lot of explaining to do..."
22 years later, a cynical dementia defence saw to it that explanations would not be forthcoming from a suspected paedophile with 'the power to regulate all our lives.'

Nationalism kept up the pressure and, in July 1995, the 24 page booklet 'Is Greville Janner QC, MP ABOVE THE LAW?' was published.

Pressure, alas, was not forthcoming from the establishment and Janner remained, until recently, entirely free of mainstream scrutiny.

On 3 December 1991, after Frank Beck had accused him of paedophilia during his trial, Janner, who was then MP for Leicester West, said this in the House of Commons:
"Anyone involved in a trial can make any allegations they wish about anyone else, provided that the judge cannot disallow them as irrelevant, however harmful, horrendous and vile the lies may be. Those whose representations are attacked are forbidden even to deny the allegations. To do so would be a criminal offence, contempt of court. 
As the House knows, Frank Beck of Leicester was convicted of a series of filthy and most serious crimes... He called Paul Winston as a witness. Long ago, when Winston was a deprived youngster living in a Leicestershire children's home, my family and I tried, unsuccessfully, to help him... 
After I had refused to provide Beck with references and shortly before Beck's trial was due to begin, they combined to make disgraceful, contemptible and totally untrue allegations of criminal conduct against me. Their motive was made blazingly clear by a letter that I received only yesterday from a former cellmate of Beck's... He writes that Beck told him that he, Beck, was going to frame me... To that end, Beck had enlisted the help of Winston...
The allegations against me were precisely as the prosecution alleged in Beck's trial, an attempted diversion from the reality of Beck's guilt... Is it not horrendous that Beck and Winston were able to make such terrible and lying accusations against me in court and that the media could, and with honourable exceptions did, report these falsehoods, all under the cloak of absolute privilege?  
I had effectively no legal rights in the matter, and I was not allowed even to nail the lies. No wonder many people were mystified by my uncharacteristic silence, it was imposed by the cruel operation of the rules on contempt... As a Member of Parliament, I am now well placed to fight back... 
We ourselves have received nothing but kindness, confidence and concern. We are very grateful. We are deeply blessed with our friends, not least those on both sides of the House and our friends in Leicester West. 
Surely there should now be a swift review of these injustices in our law and its practice. Surely it must be wrong for people who have no part in a trial to be open to venomous, preposterous attacks, with no remedy, no recompense and, above all, no right of reply. Surely others should not be forced to suffer as we have done. If such a review does lead to a just and useful alteration in the operation of the law of contempt, we shall not have suffered in vain."
Here, then, Janner calls for a change in 'our law and its practice.' As regards 'the right of reply,' other than in the privileged confines of Westminster surrounded by his cronies, I am not aware of such a 'reply.' Janner kept schtum. Wouldn't you have thought, if he had nothing to hide, that he might have tried to 'nail the lies' in a national newspaper? Certainly, any one of them would have been keen to offer him the opportunity.

Janner's 'cronies' were out in force during the debate. All were full of sympathy and praise and all echoed his call for a change in the law. Thankfully, Nicholas Lyell, the Solicitor General, wasn't as keen on such a change as the rest of the chamber.

Those who spoke up forcibly for Janner were, his fellow Jews, Ivan  Lawrence and Alex Carlile; Keith Vaz; David Ashby; Michael Latham; Sir John Farr, Simon Burns; Patrick Cormack; John Marshall;  Merlyn Rees; Gwynneth Dunwoody; Roland Boye and Derek Foster.

The British people voted for these. They voted for them because they did not know what manner of people they were. What manner of company they kept, what they really stood for and who they would defend without question.

Do we think that none of the above were aware of Janner's sexual preferences and predilections? Perhaps, when the whole truth is known, one or two of the MPs that spoke out in that 3 December 1991 debate might turn out to be as debauched as the former MP for Leicester West?

We shall see.

The comments of the above may be viewed in Hansard here.

Nationalism is still speaking out powerfully against the elite paedophile.

On 15 July 2014, Nick Griffin said this at the BNP web site:

"The unexpected resignation of the warmongering Foreign Secretary William Hague is of course welcome. But does the timing of Hague’s departure hold clues as to why he’s gone?
This website has previously highlighted the facts of Hague’s close connection with his former flatmate, Alan Duncan, the openly gay Tory MP who Hague used to run the secret Foreign Office team that worked with oil-trading giant Vitol to help fund the jihadist rebels who overthrew Libya’s President Gadhafi and plunged his once stable country in chaos. 
Hague was introduced to Tory politics as a precocious 16 year-old. He was groomed for high office early on and was a long-term associate of Leon Brittan, even ‘inheriting’ his seat in the Commons, Richmond in North Yorkshire. 
Rumours have swirled around Brittan for decades, as is shown by this old cover of Private Eye. 
More recently, of course, it is Brittan who is now exposed as having ‘forgotten’ about the VIP paedophile dossier handed to him by campaigning Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens. 
Young William went on to share a flat with Alan Duncan, not just once but actually moving with him several times. One of the flats later used by Hague was in the notorious Dolphin Square complex, where residents have spoken of finding young rent boys wandering around lost and asking for the addresses of one or other of the number of MPs who live there. 
In the 1990's the now-defunct Scallywag journal, published details of a vile boy brothel being used there by politicians and other VIPs. Details are, fortunately, still easily found online. 
In early September 2010, a number of newspapers including The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and Daily Mail published stories about the fallout from allegations surrounding Hague's friendship with 25-year-old Christopher Myers, a history graduate from Durham University whom he employed as a parliamentary special adviser. 
A spokesperson stated that "Any suggestion that the Foreign Secretary's relationship with Chris Myers is anything other than a purely professional one is wholly inaccurate and unfounded."
The rest of Griffin's extensive and revelatory article may be seen here.

Anyway, ladies and gents, You may rest assured that, no matter how desperate the powers-that-be are to kick these matters into the long grass, the many stalwart Scallywag types, the victims themselves and British Nationalism will NEVER let the subject rest until the full horror is exposed and the guilty parties who still survive are punished. 


  1. Is this booklet available in PDF anywhere?

  2. I don't think so. The relevant bits were emailed to me.