16 1 min 7 yrs

After all, the old boy’s really past his prime, we’re told he’s got dementia, what would the purpose be of putting ‘Lord’ Greville Janner; pride of the Labour pack in the House of Lords, on trial?


I’ll tell you why this vicious, amoral, perverted and evil man should be placed on trial, sick or not.

So that the rest of the bloody Establishment which helped cover up his paeadophile activities will be warned that there is no escape from Justice! So his victims can finally have their day in court, and because they will not have to wait another twenty years before the ludicrous Child Abuse Enquiry finally decides it cannot do anything at all!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

16 thoughts on “You must be joking; old boy!

  1. So many Establishment figures involved in what has to be one of the worst perversions one human can inflict on another, whether they took part themselves in such abuse, or only knew about it from hearsay, to not report such acts of ‘cover up’ makes them as guilty as the perpetrators.

    That there are so many instances of ‘revelation’ after the pervert is dead, as with Saville, or some other excuse, as in this case, would indicate that there are many more to be revealed, and only the fear of that there are so many more to be revealed that revelation and prosecution would be enough to destroy any confidence or faith in said ‘Establishment’.

    So he has dementia – so what? – to offer that as an excuse not to prosecute is yet another example of the gross hypocrisy that our judiciary are noted for. Prosecute him, if for no other reason than to set an example to others that there is no escape from the long arm of the Law.

  2. The same principle as going after elderly Nazi war criminals? Yes, hard to argue with that one.

  3. Couldn’t you find a bigger pic?

    It’s strange how these eastbalishment alleged-nonces are only fingered only when it’s too late to put them in the dock. Not so long ago Janner was the governmet’s chief advisor on terrorism, now his demetia is so advanced he doesn’t recognise anyone. You never know, he might even recover from it as Ernest Saunders did from Alzheimer’s, which is still incurable.

    BBC Radio told me this evening that the police and CPS investigated Janner years ago, and now admit that charges should have been brought then.

    Should have – could have – didn’t: it’s good to be part of the club.

  4. Sorry to disappoint chaps, but Janner is not going to be prosecuted it was announced this evening.
    It seems he’s not in a fit mental state.

    Strange that nobody has pointed out that the small boys he buggered 25 years ago would not have been in a fit mental state to know what was happening to them either, but that doesn’t fit the CPS narrative, apparently.

  5. His mental state is still good enough for him to collect his daily wad of cash from the House of Lords.

    Some pigs are more equal than others.

  6. I think for the sake of legal probity it should be pointed out that despite the wording of the post and the subsequent comments, there has been no convictions . Stating claims as if they were facts puts ATW at risk.

  7. Colm QC –

    I say “alleged nonces”. Since the police and CPS say that Janner “should have been prosecuted” as a result of one of the three investigations, since 1991, into his activities, they allege that he’s a nonce.

    Alas, a prosecution into another establishment man an “wouldn’t be in the public interest”.


    So many establishment alleged-nonces, so many missed opportunities to bang them up. They’re as protected as Paki nonces.

  8. Pete

    Yes there is nothing wrong with your comment , but Mike’s post and Bernard’s are not so properly cautious.

    I have little doubt that highly placed and well connected sex abusers have been protected for decades and I fear that will never really change – its the nature of politics, power and personal bonds, but whenever anyone comments about individuals who are alive whatever we might privately think, we should be careful what we express on an open blog like this.

  9. Anyone who protects one of these people to me is as bad as the one who did it – and that goes twice for popes, cardinals, rabbis, prime ministers and all the others eating off the fine china.

  10. //and the subsequent comments, there has been no convictions .//

    This is the weird bit:

    “The police made the decision not to pursue Greville Janner in 2002, which again we have looked at and in our view it was wrong,”
    (Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders)

    Last year a former detective sergeant with Leicestershire Police, Mick Creedon – now chief constable of Derbyshire Police – told a national newspaper that in 1989 he was ordered not to arrest Lord Janner and not to search his home.

  11. Noel

    Well given Lord Janner’s religious identity we know exactly what a certain ATW regular will make of it all 🙂

  12. Cunning Noel –

    Last year a former detective sergeant with Leicestershire Police, Mick Creedon – now chief constable of Derbyshire Police – told a national newspaper that in 1989 he was ordered not to arrest Lord Janner and not to search his home.

    What’s weird about it? This is politics, which pollutes everything it touches and which allows the power elite to get away with it.

    As a wise man once said, and for the umpteenth time in here, the very worst people get to the top of politics. Its the natural arena of psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, of people who get off on abusing other people.

    What’s weird is that people keep on voting.

  13. Pete, the passage I quoted (from the BBC) says it was “The police that made the decision not to pursue Greville Janner in 2002”, and I presume that investigating detective got his order to leave Janner alone also from his superiors in the police force.

  14. Cunning Noel –

    Just as with all the other cases of alleged establishment kiddie fiddling. In all of them, coppers are now coming out of the woodwork to say they were ordered to not pursue the investigation.

  15. So much for the integrity of those that are supposed to uphold the values of law and order in the best interests of the community. Is there any branch of the public sector that has even a vestige of honest responsibility in its code of conduct?

    Every one of them is quite willing to apologise for the fact that a mistake has been discovered, but never do they apologise for making the mistake in the first place, a subtle difference which seems to be enough to ease their remaining minimal levels of conscience – all a part of the ‘lessons learned’ doctrine.

    Have they never heard of ‘responsibility’, probably too difficult for them to spell, let alone understand!

Comments are closed.