Friday, 15 January 2016


The "trial of the facts" in the case of Jenner and a multitude of people who claim that he molested them when they were children, was not destined to be a trial where punishment was meted out. 

Jenner's alleged dementia, the judge ruled, meant that that he was unfit to be tried or to take punishment should he be found guilty.

The trial was, rather, designed to give some sort of closure to his accusers and to highlight their cases against him. The state acknowledging their suffering as it were.

It was all quite proper under English law.

But it has been announced that, following his death, the trial will not go ahead.

I wonder why.
With George Thomas...and a party of children.
The judge had ruled that he would play no part in the trial; that it would be a trial, not of Janner, but of the facts in the cases. 

Whether he is alive or dead doesn't affect the capacity of the judge to hear that trial and to pronounce on it. He was incapable of giving evidence himself. Whether he was sitting at home alive, or not, and dead, makes no difference to that situation.

However, it seems the establishment will do whatever it takes to keep these matters under wraps and save "those and such as those" embarrassment, while people who allegedly suffered at Janner's hands are paid scant attention.

Whatever would have been the outcome, what an absolutely stinking rotten system.


  1. Hate to say this but not every accuser of being abused actually
    tells the truth and standing in court without cross examination
    will not expose them as compensation seeking liars .

    Sometimes tris your rule of law is positively medieval what next
    throw the accused in a river to see if he sinks and thus is found innocent.

    too many ambulance chasing lawyers involved in these historical abuse cases carried out allegedly by wealthy and dead people with
    assets to put a compensation claim on .

    1. Justice still needs to be, seen to be done. Not all accusers are liars either.

    2. You have a point Niko. There was the case of William Roach where the girls concerned lied through their teeth; likewise Michael Le Vel, who turned out to be innocent.

      Girls thought that they could make come money, and become celebrities by trumping up charges against these actors.

      These were pretty recent cases, but Janner's, like many others, go back a long way, with multiple accusations made, on at least two occasions by police offers who witnessed disturbing scenes, which were never investigated.

      However, if this was someone close to me, I'd want to have the trial and clear his name. His family maintain his innocence, but he was hardly likely to have told them about it.

      MI5 will know...

      But I will say à propos people who claim sexual molestation when it is not true, they deserve the book thrown at them. They can ruin people's lives, destroy relationships and marriages and in Le Vel's case, as I understand it, drive a man to drink.

      Please note I didn;t say Janner was guilty. I just said he should ahve been tried.

      I might add that I heard on the news tonight that his dementia was diagnosed in 2009, and he went on claiming £300 a day for attendance at the HoL until 2013. No bloody wonder the country is in a mess.

  2. Having heard the voices of people who have suffered from the predation of this person allegedly or not, if this is as Niko says then I would say if this was my Father I would prefer that both his accusers and his reputation had their day in court.
    It has to be said that the Establishment obviously thought he was guilty or there would have been a day in court a lot sooner than was proposed.
    If Niko does not agree I feel he really needs to go and have a good lie down, because how would he feel for his grandsons going through life with this hanging round them had it been him.

    1. Yes, as I said, if I believed that my relation or friend was innocent I would be welcoming a trail, rather than welcoming the fact that it has been shelved.

      I understand that his case will now come into the remit of the judge who is looking at cases, but it is not quite the same thing as a trial.

      What I find hard to understand is that the politicians and other top people who should be investigated, must all have been vetted by MI5.

      You don't hobnob with royalty and prime ministers without your background being gone into in every little detail.

      Prime Ministers and senior royals must have been made aware that they were surrounding themselves with criminals... Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and the queen and prince of Wales and duke of Edinburgh must have know... and said nothing.

  3. I think there should be a proper inquiry. Anyone holding political office has access to vulnerable people. If he did no wrong then fair enough, but dropping the case gives the impression of a cover up of sorts.

    I know there is a major investigation under way. Anyone heard any news of progress? I would say that following some of the cock ups with Freddie Starr etc, I can understand why those under investigation must remain anonymous, as just being investigated is enough to ruin a career, whoever you are.


    1. The judge looking into the historic abuse is going to include Janner in her inquiry, Zog.

      I agree about the innocent. As i said it has put huge strain on, in soem cases, elderly people, but at the same time accusations have to be taken seriously.

      It seems that when things were kept quiet, that folders and files were lost, and people were told to stop investigating. The accused were people of quality, and the accusers orphans from boys' homes.

      Says all you need to know.

  4. It looks like another *cough* newspaper may be in a wee teeny weent itsy bitsy little bit of trouble Tris.

    In recognition of this incredible news I think I'll just leave this here.

    1. Awww... poor Rupert and Rebekah...

      Wouldn't it be a shame if the Sun had to shut down?

    2. If the Sun is in for a major scandal, a whole shitload of politicians will be worried - not only unionist ones I bet - since Rupert knows a helluva lot about them all and will have in hand some juicy information. Likely to be on the lines of who was buttering up Rupert in return for good press coverage. But he always, always turns on you eventually.

      But just how many people have lost their jobs, even been jailed, in return for what appeared at the time a hefty fee for information? That does not excuse or condone people who leak confidential information, but they are always the collateral damage.


    3. True that most political leaders have courted Rupert Murdoch at one time or another. Let's be honest, it might not have been the Sun "what done it" in entirety but the Sun probably persuaded quite a few people.

      It's those who bribed him that will have to worry.

      To be fair I don't recall hearing about the Liberals being involved in any way with them... but Labour and the Tories and to a much lesser degree, the SNP and Ukip.