Register to Comment
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 95
Like Tree27Likes
  1. #21
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,979

    Allegations of child sex abuse against the late Lord Greville Janner

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
    The investigation that is likely to create the greatest difficulty for the Inquiry is that into child abuse allegations against the late Lord Greville Janner who died in December 2015. Janner’s son Daniel is a barrister and a Queen’s Counsel, has denounced the allegations against his father as lies and is taking legal action against the Inquiry. His legal action may be one reason why the THIRD Chairwoman Lady Goddard resigned as she had already demonstrated her lack of knowledge of English law. I’m sure she would have been in no position to stand up to Daniel Janner in the witness box!

    In an article in the Sunday Times on 7 August, Dominic Lawson made some points that Daniel Janner is likely to make in court
    Months wasted hunting headlines rather than the truth about child abuse | Comment | The Times & The Sunday Times

    It has since emerged that Janner’s principal accuser, now middle-aged, in 1991 made false allegations of sexual assault against the woman running the care home he had lived in, Barbara Fitt — at the same time he first told police he had been abused by Janner. Mrs Fitt was exonerated later that year, but died suddenly at the age of 44, months after she had been formally cleared.

    In common with others who much later came forward with similar allegations against Janner, this principal accuser is making civil claims for damages against the late peer’s estate. So when their lawyer, Liz Dux of Slater and Gordon, declared that her clients (some of whom have convictions for fraud and obtaining property by deception) “are not motivated by anything other than getting to the truth,” that, itself, is not the whole truth.”


    So Lord Janner’s principal accuser made false allegations against someone else, other accusers have convictions for fraud and their lawyer claims that their SOLE motivation is getting to the truth, even though they are making claims for damages against Lord Janner’s estate! Yes I’m sure that Daniel Janner will have plenty of material to work on if and when he gets these people into the witness box.
    An article in the Daily Telegraph on 6 August supports my theory that Daniel Janner's legal action against the THIRD Chairwoman of the Inquiry was one one of the factors that caused her to resign:
    Lord Janner
    Lord Janner’s family in legal bid to exclude him from child sex abuse inquiry

    .......Daniel Janner QC sent an email informing the inquiry of his plan to take Dame Lowell to court at just after 1pm on Thursday. Her sudden resignation was announced a few hours later.

    Mr Janner told The Telegraph: “We are considering a judicial review to get my father’s strand of the inquiry removed.” Mr Janner said his legal team believed there were a number of grounds to have him excluded, including the refusal of the inquiry to allow witnesses accusing Lord Janner of abuse to be cross-examined by the family’s lawyers. “It is a manifestly unfair procedure,” said Mr Janner, adding: “It is difficult enough that he is dead.”

    The family also accuse Dame Lowell of wrongly picking out their father for investigation since the inquiry’s remit is to examine institutional treatment of abuse, while they also point out Lord Janner was never convicted of any offence. ..

    Family members have produced a dossier of evidence, which they say bolsters their claims of Lord Janner’s innocence. They say one of his most vocal alleged victims made previous, false claims of sexual abuse against a female care home worker. ....


    So apart from the issue of witness credibility, there are important issues of principle e.g. the Inquiry was supposed to examine Institutional abuse and is now attempting to try a dead man while denying his relatives the right to cross-examine the accusers!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #22
    Strawberry Strawberry is offline
    Strawberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    12,222

    Including Lord Janner in the inquiry certainly seems to have been a mistake...

    Perhaps the knottiest immediate problem that she faces will be how to deal with the proposed investigation into the alleged crimes of Lord Janner. The terms of reference for the Inquiry are:

    “To consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed; to identify further action needed to address any failings identified; to consider the steps which it is necessary for State and non-State institutions to take in order to protect children from such abuse in future; and to publish a report with recommendations.”

    There are 13 investigations (or “investigation modules” as they have been named) planned into, for example, the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church, Lambeth Council, and so on.

    Although it is not the function of the inquiry to determine criminal or civil liability, the law and the terms of reference both make it clear that

    “this should not, however, inhibit the Inquiry from reaching findings of fact relevant to its terms of reference.”

    This could mean, simply, that if while investigating the failings of institutions, where strong evidence is found against individuals the inquiry will not need to fear the making of findings of fact implicating those individuals.

    However, one of the 13 planned investigations, and in fact the first scheduled to hear public evidence according to the decision of the little-lamented Lowell Goddard, is not into an institution at all, but directly into the allegations against Lord Janner; or rather, as Counsel to the Inquiry carefully put it last month “into allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner and the institutional responses to those allegations.” There is something awkward about this form of words, as though the round peg of an investigation into Lord Janner were being forced into the square hole of an inquiry into institutions. Investigating an individual would fall outside the Inquiry’s terms of reference, hence the reference to the “institutional responses to those allegations.” The institutions in question are presumably the Police and Crown Prosecution Service which decided against prosecution many years ago, and perhaps the Leicester children’s homes which many years ago allowed him to visit. Yet some of the allegations against Lord Janner were not made until very recently, long after he ceased to be any conceivable threat to children (if in fact he ever was).
    Professor Jay was brave but wrong to agree to chair the child abuse inquiry - BarristerBlogger
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #23
    Andrew49 Andrew49 is offline
    Andrew49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,958
    Twitter
    @

    Bishops in the Church of England were instructed to give partial apologies to victims of clergy child sex abuse to help minimise the cost of being sued, it has been disclosed. Confidential legal advice to bishops seen by The Telegraph said the furthest the bishops should go was to "express regret". It warns bishops to be careful before meeting victims, and not to do so without first talking to a lawyer. It warns of the "unintended effect of accepting legal liability" for sex abuse and the danger of "inadvertently" conceding guilt. The advice, issued in 2007 and replaced last year, indicates that any apology to a victim of clergy sex abuse should be drafted in a way that would avoid making the Church liable for compensation. LINK
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #24
    stopdoingstuff stopdoingstuff is offline
    stopdoingstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    21,481

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew49 View Post
    Bishops in the Church of England were instructed to give partial apologies to victims of clergy child sex abuse to help minimise the cost of being sued, it has been disclosed. Confidential legal advice to bishops seen by The Telegraph said the furthest the bishops should go was to "express regret". It warns bishops to be careful before meeting victims, and not to do so without first talking to a lawyer. It warns of the "unintended effect of accepting legal liability" for sex abuse and the danger of "inadvertently" conceding guilt. The advice, issued in 2007 and replaced last year, indicates that any apology to a victim of clergy sex abuse should be drafted in a way that would avoid making the Church liable for compensation. LINK
    Did you ever get the feeling that the higher up one goes in the administration of any church, the less anyone actually gives a sh1t about what they are meant to believe?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #25
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,979

    Proposed Investigation of Lord Janner

    Quote Originally Posted by Strawberry View Post
    Including Lord Janner in the inquiry certainly seems to have been a mistake...

    Perhaps the knottiest immediate problem that she faces will be how to deal with the proposed investigation into the alleged crimes of Lord Janner. The terms of reference for the Inquiry are:

    “To consider the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed; to identify further action needed to address any failings identified; to consider the steps which it is necessary for State and non-State institutions to take in order to protect children from such abuse in future; and to publish a report with recommendations.”


    There are 13 investigations (or “investigation modules” as they have been named) planned into, for example, the Anglican Church, the Catholic Church, Lambeth Council, and so on.

    Although it is not the function of the inquiry to determine criminal or civil liability, the law and the terms of reference both make it clear that

    “this should not, however, inhibit the Inquiry from reaching findings of fact relevant to its terms of reference.”

    This could mean, simply, that if while investigating the failings of institutions, where strong evidence is found against individuals the inquiry will not need to fear the making of findings of fact implicating those individuals.

    However, one of the 13 planned investigations, and in fact the first scheduled to hear public evidence according to the decision of the little-lamented Lowell Goddard, is not into an institution at all, but directly into the allegations against Lord Janner; or rather, as Counsel to the Inquiry carefully put it last month “into allegations of child sexual abuse involving the late Lord Janner and the institutional responses to those allegations.” There is something awkward about this form of words, as though the round peg of an investigation into Lord Janner were being forced into the square hole of an inquiry into institutions. Investigating an individual would fall outside the Inquiry’s terms of reference, hence the reference to the “institutional responses to those allegations.” The institutions in question are presumably the Police and Crown Prosecution Service which decided against prosecution many years ago, and perhaps the Leicester children’s homes which many years ago allowed him to visit. Yet some of the allegations against Lord Janner were not made until very recently, long after he ceased to be any conceivable threat to children (if in fact he ever was)

    Professor Jay was brave but wrong to agree to chair the child abuse inquiry - BarristerBlogger
    Very interesting. So this in how an Inquiry into Institutional Abuse proposes to justify adding a investigation of an individual to its remit i.e. it frames it as an investigation into the "institutional response to those allegations" (of child abuse against Lord Janner. I think the courts are likely to shoot down this sleigh of hand. OTOH even if they allow the investigation to continue, they will certainly permit Daniel Janner to cross-examine his father's accusers. Since one of those accusers has already been found to have made a false allegation of child-abuse (against a female carer) and other shave convictions for fraud, this should be a highly enlightening cross-examination! (Let me guess; the accusers will get a medical report stating that they are too vulnerable to face such an ordeal.)
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #26
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,979

    Proposed Investigation of Lord Janner

    ALSO the investigation into Lord Janner was the last of 13 investigations to be added to the Inquiry's remit. Even in the unlikely event that the courts allow it to go ahead, it is obviously the LEAST important of the 13, in an Inquiry that is supposed to examine INSTITUTIONAL abuse. Yet the late unlamented third Chairwoman, Dame Goddard had scheduled the FIRST public hearings of the Inquiry to deal with the allegations against Lord Janner. Obviously the priorities of this Inquiry are NOT finding the truth and making recommendations to help children in care. The priorities are to pander to the alleged victims (hence no cross-examination) and to public opinion in the form of tabloid journalism. Publishing claims against a recently deceased Lord are much sexier than investigating the alleged misdeeds of local councils etc dating back to 1945!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #27
    Strawberry Strawberry is offline
    Strawberry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    12,222

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
    Very interesting. So this in how an Inquiry into Institutional Abuse proposes to justify adding a investigation of an individual to its remit i.e. it frames it as an investigation into the "institutional response to those allegations" (of child abuse against Lord Janner. I think the courts are likely to shoot down this sleigh of hand. OTOH even if they allow the investigation to continue, they will certainly permit Daniel Janner to cross-examine his father's accusers. Since one of those accusers has already been found to have made a false allegation of child-abuse (against a female carer) and other shave convictions for fraud, this should be a highly enlightening cross-examination! (Let me guess; the accusers will get a medical report stating that they are too vulnerable to face such an ordeal.)
    What I don't understand about that is that there has already been an inquiry into the institutional responses to the Janner allegations - the independent inquiry carried out by Sir Richard Henriques.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/r...ort_190116.pdf

    What is this inquiry supposed to find that the last one didn't?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #28
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,979

    Child Abuse Inquiry Out of Control, Warns Judge

    The THIRD Chairwoman of the UK Inquiry into historic child sex abuse resigned in August and is now probably back in New Zealand. She has just stated that the Inquiry is too big, unwieldy and under-funded to succeed, and must be overhauled.

    According to The Times today "Dame Lowell Goddard urged Amber Rudd, the home secretary, to carry out a full review of the inquiry that stretches back more than 60 years and spans institutions including the church, councils, schools and Westminster. It is expected to run for at least a decade at a cost of £100 million." The Inquiry was originally supposed to last FIVE years but I see they are now talking about TEN. Also the start date for allegations has been pushed back from 1970 to 1945 - at the insistence of "Survivors" - so I cannot see how they can even get though it in a decade, especially since it started in 2014.
    Child abuse inquiry out of control, warns judge | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

    The New Zealand judge wrote: “With the benefit of hindsight, or more realistically the benefit of experience, it is clear there is an inherent problem in the sheer scale and size of the inquiry (which its budget does not match) and therefore in its manageability.

    “Its boundless compass, including as it does every state and non-state institution as well as relevant institutional contexts, coupled with the absence of any built-in time parameters, does not fit comfortably or practically within the single inquiry model in which it currently resides.” She also criticised the inquiry’s staff for being inexperienced. .......

    The difficulty facing the inquiry is the “huge multiplicity” of elements within its remit, according to Dame Lowell. “Issues and events often relate to very different institutions and have arisen from situations that occurred during very different time periods,” she wrote. It has been divided into 13 strands examining different institutions, which will enable interim reports to be published, but “the inherent difficulty of overall size and multiplicity of issues remains”, Dame Lowell said. She added: “That means that, in reality, the terms of reference in their totality cannot be met.”


    This is a fiasco that will consume huge resources that could otherwise be spent on caring for children at risk today. Remember "Operational Midland" where the British police spent ONLY 18 months in investigating historic claims that children were raped and murdered by Establishment figures like former PM Ted Heath. The Chairman of the Police Federation complained that detectives were withdrawn from current MURDER inquiries to deal with those fantasy claims!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #29
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,979

    Child Abuse Campaigner Simon Danchuk MP accused of "historical" Rape

    Interesting comment on the above Times article.

    Hawthorn
    Nobody can do this job, it was obvious from the start that its remit was vast, going back many decades, and that it would inevitably get hopelessly bogged down.

    It owes its misbegotten existence to discredited politicians like [prominent Labour MPs] Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk who pumped up a witch-hunt of positively McCarthyite proportions for their own ends, supported by the highly dubious and now deservedly defunct Exaro web-site. [My Emphasis]

    It looks like this monster of an enquiry was designed to fail - and it certainly reflects badly on May who authorized an exercise in pure obfuscation.

    There are certainly current matters which require the closest attention - most notably the "Rotherham Model" of "localised grooming", an epidemic of targeted grooming, rape and sexual slavery.

    One wonders whether the aim here has not been to kick such awkward matters firmly into the long grass.
    [ENDOFQUOTE]


    I see that Simon Danczuk himself, has recently been the target of a "historical" rape allegation dating back to 2006. I would definitely give him the presumption of innocence but maybe he will NOW consider how people who are suddenly accused of rape dating back DECADES, are supposed to defend themselves.

    From Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Danczuk

    Rape allegation
    In January 2016, Lancashire Constabulary confirmed that it was investigating an allegation of rape, dated back to 2006, made against a 49-year-old male. Danczuk confirmed that he was the subject of the allegation, which he denied and described as "malicious".[56]
    Last edited by Kilbarry1; 7th September 2016 at 02:00 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #30
    Kilbarry1 Kilbarry1 is offline

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,979

    New FOURTH Abuse Inquiry Head Faces Anger From Victims

    The first TWO Chairwomen of the UK Child Abuse Inquiry resigned in 2014 because they were criticised by alleged "Victims" as being part of the Establishment (see opening post). The THIRD Judge Goddard (from New Zealand) resigned of her own accord a month ago - apparently because she felt that the Inquiry is "out of control" i.e. impossible to manage due to its huge scale. Note that the scale comprising 13 different "strands" - most of them vast in themselves - was set due to the demands of Victims and the cowardise of politicians who were afraid of being accused of a "cover-up"if they omitted anything.

    The FOURTH Chairwoman (men are not acceptable apparently) Alexis Jay was speedily chosen from the panel of experts who are supposed to advise the Chairwoman. Now it appears that SHE is facing a legal challenge from the same Victims who scuppered the first two Chairwomen and who feel that Professor Jay's career as a Social Worker means that she may not be capable of investigating the past failings of that profession. According to The Times
    New abuse inquiry head faces anger from victims | News | The Times & The Sunday Times

    ...Professor Jay was already a member of the expert panel of the inquiry and her appointment was widely seen as ensuring that its work could continue without significant disruption. Her 30-year background in social work has, however, angered some abuse survivor groups, who say that they were not consulted and are concerned about her ability to investigate the past failures of her own profession.

    Imran Khan, solicitor for a group of survivors that has been granted core participant status at the inquiry, said that his clients wanted an urgent meeting with Ms Rudd to discuss the appointment. “We have asked for a meeting because my clients want some reassurance and if that is not forthcoming there may have to be a challenge,” Mr Khan said.

    “We are seriously considering seeking a judicial review of the appointment — it is a real possibility. If you do not involve people in the process then they are bound to feel suspicious and circumspect.”...


    Once a Victim, always a Victim!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment