Greville Janner Child Abuser - Helsing Documents

In the last few days the UK’s Child Abuse Inquiry, IICSA has issued their report of one of the strands Greville Janner…

The whole blog does not fit on substack so go to

[111] 2021 Oct 23 cathyfoxblog Greville Janner Child Abuser https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2021/10/23/greville-janner-child-abuser/

I had nothing to do with IICSA from soon after the start, as they were clearly wasting my time, after the communications boss would not answer my questions. After my official complaints were ignored / lied about, eventually the IICSA solicitor on third level appeal found in my favour. I chose to carry on with what I did rather than be sidelined onto the inevitable sham on high level abuse/ monarch mind control etc. But that is a story for another time.

However the inquiry has castigated Leicestershire Police for their pathetic investigations of the paedophile Janner and who was made a Lord, with I seem to remember with the involvement of Rothschild puppet Peter Mandelson.

Fortunately David Hencke has written about the IICSA strand, 2021 Oct 22 David Hencke The cheapskate botched and useless investigations into child sexual abuse by Leicestershire Police that led to no timely prosecution of Greville Janner [2]

Police corruption is endemic – read the shocking extent in the Met Police’s suppressed report on Operation Tiberius [3] The police at high ranks are involved in child abuse either via freemasonry or other avenues, is to me quite obvious. 

I have written extensively on various aspect of Janner see cathyfoxblog Janner [4] and Frank Beck [do search]. It is perhaps a good time to blog the Helsing documents. They were asking all the right questions way back 1990s. Here they are with an introduction by Jill Havern.

High-ranking MP from Leicester in paedophile allegations

  Get ’em Gonçalo on Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:00 am

Thirteen years before the Madeleine McCann story, Leicestershire Constabulary found itself in the middle of another controversial story. Greville Janner QC MP was accused of sodomising PW. The story came out during the trial of Frank Beck in Leicester in 1994. Beck died under suspicious circumstances and Janner never had to take the stand. A booklet was produced and is reproduced below. It is worth repeating the text because one can see many parallels between that case and the Madeleine McCann case.

There are Freemasons involved in the cover-up. Sir David Napley of Kingsley Napley represented Janner and Michael Caplan QC of Kingsley Napley represented the McCanns soon after they fled Portugal in September 2007. Many believe that Michael Caplan QC represented the McCanns because he had successfully defended Augusto Pinochet against extradition. However, it is not widely known that Augusto Pinochet was a high-ranking Freemason. Of course, Janner is a Freemason as well.

This is a rather depressing story. It shows how the establishment work and long before the Internet was as powerful as it is today we have to ask just how many stories like this have been covered up? Former soccer star Justin Fashanu claimed to have had sex with MPs. He ended up dead, just as Stephen Milligan MP did after allegedly trying to gag Fashanu.

It seems that politicians can evade having to face the music but rich people in the music industry are not so lucky as Jonathan King, Tam Paton and Paul Gadd have found to their cost.

Is there any wonder the McCann case is treading water?

The text below is the Dr. A. Van Helsing document circulated around the early 90s.

IS GREVILLE JANNER QC, MP ABOVE THE LAW?
How people in high places covered-up for a Parliamentary paedophile.

By Dr. A. Van Helsing

MILLSTONE and DEEPSEA
LONDON
(A division of L.R.D. Publications Ltd)
78 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HE

CONTENTS
I Introduction
II An Outline of Mr Chaney’s Case
III Our Observations

APPENDIX

(Text of concerned Leicester Parents Leaflet)
(1) Janner FAILS to answer sex with boy evidence
(2) Janner’s Commons statement – a display of illusionism and chutzpah, but not substance
(3) The vital questions Janner must answer
(4) Which officials joined Help Janner plan?
(5) W deserves justice, not smears
Reproduction of the front page from the original Concerned Leicester Parents leaflet

But who so shall offend one of these
little ones which believe in me, it were
better for him that a millstone were
hanged about his neck and that he were
drowned in the depths of the sea.
-MATTHEW, Ch.18, v.6-

I. INTRODUCTION
THIS booklet deals with a scandal that makes the sex and sleaze sagas of most politicians seem trivial.

We are dealing with revelations and accusations made by a Sidney Albert Chaney of Noak Bridge, Laindon, Essex, and contained in a manuscript apparently prepared with a view to publication, photocopies of which appear to have been widely circulated. While Chaney’s text is quite unpublishable for legal reasons, we do feel that the substance of his work requires an urgent review to be followed by a full investigation by the authorities and for the sleaze-conscious government to justify to the public the previous cover-up.

Chaney sustained a correspondence with the late Frank Beck who died in suspicious circumstances in Whitemoor Prison, Cambridgeshire, on 31st May 1994, before his Appeal against conviction for a number of serious offences could be heard. Beck had been sentenced to several terms of Life Imprisonment for sexual assaults upon teenage boys and girls in his care at a Leicester Social Services home where he was warden.

The prosecution of Beck at Leicester Crown Court was widely reported. The scandal encompassed not only the local social services, but also Leicester Police and, last but not least, the Labour Member of Parliament for Leicester West, Greville Janner QC.

We have had an opportunity to study Chaney’s tract on this affair and it reveals him to be a person of transparent honesty and forthright courage, but prone to excitability and exhibitionist displays which compromise the value and gravity of many of his utterances, to the extent he is dismissed as a crank. However, it is long overdue for Chaney’s case to be presented in a sober and measured way, free from excess and opinions wide of the mark and prompted by prejudice.

II. AN OUTLINE OF MR. CHANEY’S CASE:
It was Beck who first contacted Chaney by letter while Chaney was involved in a dispute with Barclays Bank. Chaney claimed that the bank had defrauded him of an inheritance, and his various stunts designed to draw public attention to his grievance came to Beck’s attention in Whitemoor Prison. A friendly correspondence ensued which resulted in Chaney receiving thirty letters embracing some 70 pages, the last one dated one day before Beck died. These letters have never been published and attempts by Chaney to reveal extracts from them have been frustrated. Here and there they are of outstanding interest, especially when they relate to discoveries said to have been made by his lawyers as they prepared his Appeal.

Chaney, rightly or wrongly, reiterates Beck’s claim that his 13 years employment in three residential care homes was of a caring nature. Beck used a controversial therapeutic technique, involving a considerable degree of intimacy between the therapist and his subject, through which the subject unloads his or her past traumatic experiences in order to gain relief. For many years Beck and his technique were highly thought of by his colleagues in the Leicester Social Services Department. Chaney also endorses Becks assertion that Janner was in some way responsible for instigating the prosecution which landed him in jail or at least, of manipulating the prosecution in such a way as to deflect attention away from his own activities with young boys.

Chaney reminds us that Janner’s parents Barnet and Elsie were pillars of the Jewish community. Barnet became MP for Leicester West and President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Greville succeeded his father in both these appointments, but he also sustained an active involvement in the Leicester Boy Scouts Association.

In the late 1970s Janner conducted a party of Leicester youngsters on a school outing around the Palace of Westminster, and he took a particular shine to one of them: 13 year-old W.

According to W sworn evidence at Leicester Crown Court 16 years later, this relationship quickly led to an invitation to visit the Janner home near Golders Green, north London (while Janner’s wife was away), and to an overnight stay in the Janner marital bed where the eminent QC and the pubescent urchin “cuddled and fondled each other”. Walso testified that after this first sexual encounter, he often – over a period of two years – shared a double bed with Janner at the Leicester Holiday Inn, where he was sodomised. During this period of W’s life he became a rent-boy – that is, a male prostitute catering to male clients and his delinquency led him to being put into the care of Leicester Social Services.

Beck elicited the above facts when W was placed into his care. He also became aware that Janner was still in pursuit of the boy. At that point Beck informed  his superiors at Leicester Social Services head office of Janner’s activities. Janner found out where W had been placed and visited the home with a present a gleaming new bicycle in the hope of resuming the relationship. On Beck’s instructions, Janner was denied entry and his gift was refused in a manner calculated to discourage further such visits. At Beck’s trial another witness mentioned an altercation she overheard between Beck and W in which W was told “he wasn’t going to see Janner any more”.

Beck informed Chaney in one of the letters that while in prison he received a visit from W and his family on very pleasant terms. During this visit W told Beck that Janner had sent two men to his home with threatening messages directed both at himself and his family. A neighbour took the men’s car number and the incident as reported to the police, who did nothing.

At his trial Beck made the statement: “One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner . . . that child felt guilty and it was important it should be talked about so he did not suffer the guilt . . . ” . It was then that Janner, accompanied by Sir David Napley, perhaps England’s best-known Solicitor, rushed to Police headquarters at Charles Street, Leicester, for an interview. After this interview Napley advised his client to remain silent in the face of media questioning, and issued the following statement: “Since the trial is continuing at Leicester Crown Court the matter is sub judice. We have therefore advised Mr. Janner that he is prevented from making any statement at this stage”.

Chaney reminds us that Sir David Napley is something of a specialist in delicate cases of this kind. His previous clients included Jeremy Thorpe QC, the bi-sexual former leader of the Liberal Party, who entertained murderous thoughts about his indiscreet former lover, Norman Scott, and who employed hit-men to frighten Scott by shooting his dog; Harvey Proctor, the Gay right wing former Conservative MP who consorted with teenage rent-boys in order to live out his teacher/schoolboy caning fantasies; and an unfortunate senior police officer, Commander Trestrail, the personal bodyguard of H.M. The Queen, who was unlucky in his choice of a gay bar pick-up . . . to mention but three.

Shortly after Napley issued his statement about Janner, the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Alan Green, “let it be known” that Janner had nothing to fear as far as prosecution was concerned “for lack of evidence”. Yet, according to Chaney, W had been able to provide the Police with information about Janner’s home, hotel rooms, life, habits and person in such intimate and verifiable detail that it could not possibly have been invented and which he could only have come to know as a result of an illicit relationship.

Chaney invites us to speculate whether Greens rush to Janners aid was prompted by fellow feeling between:

two Queens Counsel;
two prominent members of the Jewish community;
two sexual perverts – not barely pubescent boys in Green’s case, but kerb-crawling in the back streets of Kings Cross in search of oral sex with down-market hags. Green came to police attention as a regular nuisance in the area and they issued him with a formal warning. This leaked to the press not long after he had intervened in the Janner affair. The scandal prompted his resignation and his wife’s suicide.
Janner’s next public statement was in the House of Commons under Parliamentary Privilege where he said, in effect: “l am innocent. I have been conspired against by liars”. He spoke surrounded by a claque of his friends using a device known as a Personal Statement. By convention, members making Personal Statements are not subject to interjections or questioning. After making this Personal Statement, Janner was invited by parliamentary lobby correspondents and other journalists to attend a press conference to answer questions arising from his statement. He refused to attend and refused to offer an explanation for his refusal. Their editors suppressed news of the journalists’ attempt to stage such a press conference, Janner’s refusal to attend it and his refusal to explain why.

Chaney reminds us of MPs support for Janner where one MP issued the invitation to ” . . .join with me in sending to the real sufferers the individuals whose lives have been wrecked at his [Becks] hand the profound sympathy of us all”. There was also the reference of the sexually ambivalent MP David Ashby, to a blackmail attempt on the Establishment. Beck remarked in one letter to Chaney: “About Ashby supporting Janner . . . it begs the question about all the others who supported him”. In the Commons the then Health Secretary, William Waldegrave, told Janner: “I am sure the House has demonstrated its feelings on this matter by the reception you have just received”.

We do not record Chaney’s sharp reaction to these glib and nauseating statements about a stage-managed parliamentary charade, which the Establishment is able to lay on for one of its own.

In a more sober and trenchant mood, Chaney points out that there has never been any enquiry into W’s allegations against Janner or to Becks complaint in writing to the Leicester Social Services concerning the charge of Janner’s sustained sexual abuse of a child-in-care. Chaney contends that Becks conviction resulted largely from the Police and/or the Crown Prosecution Service suppressing the file containing Becks complaints against Janner, which the Police had removed from the Social Services head office during the course of their investigations. It is Chaney’s central assertion that had this file been entered into evidence, Beck’s trial would have taken an entirely different turn.

With greater justification, Chaney also points to the outrageously biased conduct of the trial Judge, Mr. Justice Jowitt QC, in particular his Order prohibiting any mention by witnesses of the names of any “persons in high places” (i.e. Janner) and, further, prohibiting the media from quoting any such names in their reports of the trial in the event of a witness blurting out such a name. This fantastic and, in modern times, unprecedented attempt to gag the media’s right to report court proceedings was contested by the Press Association news agency by means of an emergency application to the High Court in London. The High Court ruled that Judge Jowitt’s Order was unlawful and void. Not long after Janner’s name was mentioned in evidence at the trial and reported by the media.

In reference to Beck’s pending appeal against conviction, Chaney claims he queried Becks optimism in the triumph of British justice, especially so with the appearance of Anthony Scrivener QC. Scrivener is one of the highest paid QCs in Britain earning some £400,000 annually and with a life-style to match. This QC was famous for winning the Winston Silcott appeal and also that of Gerald Conlon of the Guildford Four fame. With his own luxury villa in the Turkish sector Cyprus, Scrivener, not surprisingly, acted for the runaway businessman Asil Nadir. He is also a specialist in legal aid for asylum-seekers and immigrants. Chaney was surprised when in 1993 Beck told him that Scrivener was interested in taking over his appeal to be heard in the summer of 1994. Chaney warned Beck that Scrivener was a close friend of Janner two QCs and both with a Labour Party background. Beck wrote the following in reply in what Chaney holds to be one of the most significant passages in their correspondence and where the first whiff of foul play occurs:

I now have a new QC and although you may not like him, I believe he is one of the most able men at the Bar, Anthony Scrivener. It may be a case of get a thief to catch a thief, but what swung it was that he had supported Janner at the beginning but now no longer! I wonder if your letters helped with his change of mind? We did not actually ask him why he had changed horses, but it is significant that he told us of the change.

It is essential to note that Scrivener offered his services to Beck and that Beck did not invite them. Financial details are not divulged. The bait for Becks acceptance was access to the relevant Leicester Social Services file, in the possession of the Police.

In a letter from Beck to Chaney dated 23rd March 1993, Beck referred to a tantalising development: “We may have found a name of someone who we are told went to the Police but was told to go away. This Derek Johnson has moved, but we may lust be able to find him. Clearly the Police are not going to help us”. Beck then wrote to Chaney in another letter: “More is coming to light about Janner. The Home Office has given a mandate for a Chief Inspector to make more enquiries after a new witness (not a victim) has made a long statement which includes possible names and details about Janner’s sexual activities. But I have been down encouraging paths before and come to a dead end, so l have to wait and see”.

According to Chaney, Scrivener informed Beck’s solicitor: “This is an interesting case which does look as if something very wrong has happened”. Chaney maintains that Beck knew that Scrivener possessed or could acquire vital evidence in Leicester that would prove his innocence and, by implication, would ensnare Janner.

In due course Chaney received a significant letter from Beck: “I have been told we may have another victim of Janner. I understand we have the name of someone else he abused when a child. I almost dare not to believe it. I may have found another boy who Janner abused as well. We are looking into it. We have a name and address; all we need is for him to agree to co-operate. We also have a person who hates Janner as much as I do and she claims she has details about Janner and a councillor who set up a rent boys house. She has given a statement to the Police Complaints Authority because she told Leicester Police but they took no action”. Chaney is sure that Scrivener must have known about these developments and speculates whether they were relayed to Janner.

In the atmosphere of a recent murder in Whitemoor Prison, Beck wrote in another letter: “At the moment I would doubt if anyone is at risk but we will have to see. I am all right, that is for sure. I am hardly ever alone, for a start”.

Beck expressed to Chaney a desire to be mentally and physically fit to cope with the anticipated appeal proceedings. He did not smoke and was a frequent visitor to the gymnasium. He wrote: “Still I have been able to avoid medication despite the fact the give out valium like smarties. I find by keeping the brain active and attending the gym each week helps me far more than medication. As to prison, well I am doing full time education, so that’s a great help and exercises the brain”. It pleased Beck that he lost half a stone in weight.

Beck’s last letter to Chaney dated 30th May 1994 was a wide-ranging one of four pages including a reference to Scrivener who in a letter said he was now applying himself to Beck’s case. Beck wrote: “We have sent them a box-load of evidence, so it is going to take them a few weeks to take it all in. My solicitor keeps finding more bits which are helpful. So the time has not been wasted and I even feel encouraged”. On the first page of this letter, in prescient mood, the prisoner noted: “I am continuing to stay active although some days, normally after I have played badminton, I have my doubts as to its effectiveness. The other day I was aching just about everywhere. I did wonder if I had over done it but I recovered within an hour, so I will look for another excuse, like I am dying! Do you think it is my diet?” Beck also wrote again after complaining about a general ache, though the system returned to normal within a couple of hours.

At 7.15 pm on 31st May 1994, Beck collapsed and died in the prison’s crowded gymnasium. His death was later diagnosed as from a heart attack. Chaney maintains that Beck was systematically poisoned at the instigation of those who feared that some revealing evidence would surface at the appeal, only a short time away. Chaney has no doubt that Beck was murdered. We have heard from several people who had been following the case that this thought had crossed their mind upon hearing the news of Becks death.

Beck was hurriedly cremated on 9th June in Gilroes in Leicester. By a cruel coincidence, 9th June was also the date of his Open University examination results. In early July the police visited Chaney’s home to confirm his status as a regular correspondent of Beck and to inform him of the inquest to take place on 21st July. Chaney was instructed to phone the Coroner, a Mr. Morris, to get an invitation to attend, which he did. At the same time Chaney expressed grave doubts about the alleged heart attack. Morris replied that Chaney was not needed at the inquest. Bearing in mind some of Beck’s last words written to Chaney: “Do take care, but fight on, Sid. If you don’t I doubt if anyone else will”. Chaney wrote twice to the Coroner about his suspicions about the death, but the letters were ignored. However, Chaney did attend the inquest and from the gallery expressed his views so forcibly that the police ejected him. At the same time Chaney wrote a furious and accusatory letter to Scrivener regarding a Janner cover-up, to which there was, not surprisingly, no reply.

After Beck’s funeral, Lord Longford, in the role of a prison visitor, informed the Leicester Mercury he was convinced of Becks innocence. He wrote: “I last saw Beck about six weeks ago. He seemed to be in fine health and was optimistic. I think the evidence against him was tainted”. We are not sure to which evidence against Beck Lord Longford was referring. Chaney suggests it may be the evidence of some or all of the victims of the physical and sexual assaults he was convicted of inflicting on inmates and staff of the home he managed. Here it must be remembered that each of these persons who gave evidence against Beck at his trial now seek – or have already been awarded – substantial sums by way of compensation for the assaults, injuries and traumas which the Jury at Beck’s trial decided Beck had inflicted on them.

Beck refers to this factor in a letter dated 25th February 1994:

“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 not found it right to reiterate verbatim all of his points in particular, an accusation of murder against one particular individual – since this was unsupported by any evidence and was phrased in a way designed to provoke legal action – possibly of criminal (as distinct from civil) libel which would present the person concerned with an easy victory and, hence, undeserved legal protection from more pertinent and substantiated accusations which might emerge at a later date.

We have rehearsed Chaney’s contention that the establishment of Greville Janner’s guilt in the matter of the sexual abuse of W 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 W 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 W 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 W.

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.

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 allega­tions 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 Leic­ester 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 W, 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 W during which Beck shouted that W “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 Wcare officer at the home and confirmed that W 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 W.

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. W, now a married man of xx 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. W 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 W stealing cash from Janner’s wallet. This dishonesty did not prevent Janner trying to keep in contact with W by telephone calls and letters.

Once W 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 W 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 W’s evidence the prosecution counsel pointed out that W, 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 pre­arranged 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.

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, W, 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 W 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 W to the police before the trial and his sworn testimony at the trial,

. . . then W 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.
The journalists who covered Janner’s statement were not the same reporters who had covered the Beck trial at Leicester – and who therefore knew the detail of the allegations against Janner – but were Establishment political toadies known as Lobby Correspondents. Lobby Correspondents thrive on unattributable briefings and other tit-bits of insider information from their politician chums in the club-like bars at the Palace of Westminster.
NOT ONE QUESTION ASKED

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 W (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, W, then aged 14 or 15. As two prosecution witnesses attested, Beck took steps to terminate Janner’s relationship with W 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 W. 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 W 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 conn­ection 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 W, or did he have infor­mation, 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 W 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 W’s evidence, he caught Janner’s eye on a school visit to the House of Commons. Thereafter Janner sent W 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.

W 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 W, why did he arrange for W first visit to his home – an over­night visit – to take place when his wife and family would be away?

In his House of Commons statement Janner declared that W’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 W to his home to stay over­night when his wife was present?

12. Did he in fact take W to bed to comfort him? Did this comfort­ing 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?

[111] 2021 Oct 23 cathyfoxblog Greville Janner Child Abuser https://cathyfox.wordpress.com/2021/10/23/greville-janner-child-abuser/