The reptilian Janner protected by the 'establishment' is still spouting his anti white poison please circulate text  below by Dr Van Helsing on this  alien vampire as widely as possible to all your lists.

Monday, April 28, 2008

"About two weeks ago, I spoke at a unique and remarkable political meeting in south London. Other speakers included the candidates from the major parties, each battling to become London's new mayor. On the wall behind us was a huge poster, portraying and attacking the British National party (BNP). Yes, we have major political differences on many issues, but against the far right, we were and remain united and ready to speak out, with one voice.

Of course, Britain has a long history of fighting fascism and racism. We remember the Battle of Cable Street in 1936. Anti-fascists - from ardent socialists to Irish Catholic dockers, from honourable freedom fighters to the local Jewish population - all joined forces to erect roadblocks and defy Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts, preventing them from marching through east London.

My late father, Barnett Janner, had been MP for Whitechapel and St George's from 1931-1935, and I still remember my family's disgust and hatred at the racist evils of the Blackshirts. Happily, they were roundly beaten and had little political impact.

Then came the war - this time, an international battle against nazism, fascism and racism, in all its forms. We won - and we believed that the evils of Hitler's philosophies were buried for ever.

So today, Britain is a bustling, multicultural, multiracial nation - with churches and temples, mosques and synagogues. We are proud of our democracy, in all its forms. And recent immigrants have made their valuable contribution to our national culture.

All four of my grandparents migrated to Britain from eastern Europe in the 1880s. They saw Britain as land that offered peace, tranquillity and respect for minorities - in their case, for their Jewish beliefs and standards. So how sad it is that we are seeing attacks on our British diversity of cultures, especially from the far right. The BNP, among their policies and ideologies, seek the repatriation of immigrants to their countries of origin. The BNP is not prepared to accept the diversity of our races and colours, our religions and our origins.

Today, we do not need to build roadblocks on the streets to combat the threat from the BNP. Instead, on May 1, we all have the chance to ensure that the threat from the far right is minimised, at the ballot box. Of course, we shall each choose our own mainstream party - and we should not forget that south London political gathering, where the democratic voice was clearly heard - which I was proud and happy to echo.

Britain has a fine tradition of fighting fascism. Next Thursday, every Londoner's vote counts. Please use yours, for decency, democracy, coexistence and goodwill. Please join with those candidates, who differ greatly on many policies, but spoke out with one voice against today's dangers from the far right."



Dear Friends:

My thanks to all of you who sent kind messages of support and encouragement in response to the publication of my manifesto in the Times in October, which called for a restoration of decency in our national life. I have now set about engaging in practical work to further these ideals.

As a result of representations from the Leicester-based organization "Parents Against Paedophilia", I have decided to lend my support to the campaign for a Paedophile Register. How can we expect young boys to behave decently if adult sexual perverts are allowed to abuse them? How can we expect the young top respect the law if such perverts are able to escape punishment simply because they hold powerful positions in society? It is in this connection that I nominate GREVILLE JANNER, QC [Queen's Counsel], M.P. [Member of Parliament] as candidate No. 1 for inclusion in the Register.

JANNER is a child molester well known to the police. An active file on his activities has been maintained at Scotland Yard since even before the eruption of the Leicester Children's Home scandal of 1991, which led to the jailing of the notorious paedophile Frank Beck. Damning evidence concerning JANNER's sustained sexual abuse of a 13 year-old boy in care emerged during Beck's trial, but JANNER was shielded by the then Director of Public Proescutions, Sir Alan Green---who resigned shortly after as the result of a "kerb-crawling" incident.

JANNER used the device of a 'Personal Statement' to deny all the accusations against him. Statements to the House of Commons of this kind, apart from being covered by Parliamentary privilege, are exempt from the usual interjections *and questions* from other MPs. After making his statement JANNER was invited by the prtess to answer their questions *outside* the privileged confines of the House. He refused to do so, and refused to explain why.

Thus it may be seen that his subsequent claims to have been "cleared by Parliament of all accusations" is utterly untrue. JANNER ducked a genuine opportunity to clear his name by taking legal action against his former victim who, as a grown man, has re-iterated his evidence outside the protection of the witness box.

Instead of quitting public life, JANNER simply kept his head down for a while. Now, in the mistaken belief that the dust from the Frank Beck affair has settled, JANNER has had the impudence to take a leading role in the crusade to recover "Holocaust Loot" allegedly held in Swiss banks.

Thanks to "Parents Against Paedophilia", the Swiss media and banking community have been circulated with copies of the booklet IS GREVILLE JANNER ABOVE THE LAW? which details the evidence (much of it given on oath, by several witnesses) about his conduct. A Swiss diplomatic protest is expected soon which will bring disgrace on our Parliament and legal profession.

The Speaker of the House of Commons has said that the reputation of the whole House has been called into question over the "Cash For Questions" affair, and that the whole issue must be resolved quickly. Recently Labour leader Tony Blair spoke of his dream of a Britain built on strong family values. But is the "Cash For Questions" scandal more important than the scandal of a Member of Parliament and Queen's Counsel gratifying his lusts on a defenceless child in his care? I ask you all to write to your Member of Parliament about these issues now, and inform me of the response you receive.




Let's take a closer look at Greville Janner:

In 1991, after accusing Janner of paedophilic behaviour with a teenager, Frank Beck was arrested and charged with the sexual and physical abuse of children in his care over a thirteen-year period.

At his trial Beck stated that:

"One child has been buggered and abused for two solid years by Greville Janner".

Immediately after this, Janner who just happens to be, ironically, a long time member of the boy scouts association, and Sir David Napley, his solicitor, went to Police headquarters in Leicester. Whereupon, the following statement was issued:

"We have advised Mr. Janner that he is prevented from making any statement at this stage".

Shortly afterwards, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alan Green, let it be known that "for lack of evidence", Janner would not be prosecuted, even though Paul Winston, who was just thirteen when he and Janner first met, was able to describe Janner's home, the hotel rooms they had shared, and Janner’s habits and person in detail.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, himself, was arrested for kerb-crawling in Kings Cross a little while later.

Green had come to the attention of the police previously for this same misdemeanour and was quietly given a formal warning. The scandal prompted his resignation from public office and the suicide of his wife. Green, also, is Jewish.

In court, Paul Winston, who was, at the time of Beck’s trial, a married man with children, stood up for him, as did several other witnesses, paying credit to his achievements and behaviour and confirming his anti-Janner testimony.

He said Beck had counselled him over his relationship with the MP, and had brought the affair to an end. He also stated that he had had a beneficial effect on his life. According to Winston's evidence, he was invited to Janner’s home near Golders Green, whilst Janner's wife was away, and this led to his sharing Janner’s bed where they "cuddled and fondled each other". Thereafter Winston testified that, over the next two years, he was regularly sodomised by Janner.

Beck discovered what had been going on after Winston was put into his care, at which point, he informed his superiors at Leicester Social Services. At one point, Janner visited the care home with a new bicycle for Paul but Beck denied him entry and would not allow the gift to be passed on. This was confirmed by another witness at the trial.

Nevertheless, Beck was found guilty and sentenced to twenty-four years in prison, with five life sentences to run concurrently for his "crimes".

Janner was never brought to court, nor was he ever called upon to testify.

Frank Beck died suddenly of a "heart attack", shortly before his appeal was due to begin.

He was, by all accounts, a fit man at the time of his death. He never stopped protesting his innocence and Janner’s guilt. His two main solicitors, who admitted to being sceptical in the first instance, believed him at the time that he was found guilty. One of these solicitors has since been killed in a road accident, and the other has been subjected to police harassment on a major scale.

Frank Beck was a resident of Braunstone in Leicester when the events described above were taking place.

When Janner was ennobled in 1997, he took the title, Lord Janner of Braunstone.

The man responsible for ennobling Greville Janner was Tony Blair.

Barnett Janner, Greville Janner's father, was also an MP and, at one time, was the Chairman of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain.


Please circulate widely



CONTENTS

I Introduction

II An Outline of Mr Chaney¹s Case

III Our Observations

APPENDIX

(Text of concerned Leicester Parents Leaflet)

(1) Janner FAILS to answer sex with boy evidence

(2) Janners 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) Winston deserves justice, not smears

Reproduction of the front page from the original Concerned Leicester Parents leaflet



I. INTRODUCTION

HIS 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 Chaney¹s 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 Chaney¹s 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 Chaney¹s 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 Beck¹s 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 Beck¹s 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 Janner¹s 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 Paul Winston.

According to Winston¹s 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 Janner¹s wife was away), and to an overnight stay in the Janner marital bed where the eminent QC and the pubescent urchin ³cuddled and fondled each other². Winston also 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 Winston¹s 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 Winston 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 Janner¹s activities. Janner found out where Winston had been placed and visited the home with a present a gleaming new bicycle in the hope of resuming the relationship. On Beck¹s instructions, Janner was denied entry and his gift was refused in a manner calculated to discourage further such visits. At Beck¹s trial another witness mentioned an altercation she overheard between Beck and Winston in which Winston was told ³he wasn¹t going to see Janner any more².

Beck informed Chaney in one of the letters that while in prison he received a visit from Winston and his family on very pleasant terms. During this visit Winston 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 men¹s car number and the incident as reported to the police, who did nothing.

At his trial Beck made the statement: ³One 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 . . . ² . It was then that Janner, accompanied by Sir David Napley, perhaps England¹s 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: ³Since 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 stage².

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, ³let it be known² that Janner had nothing to fear as far as prosecution was concerned ³for lack of evidence². Yet, according to Chaney, Paul Winston had been able to provide the Police with information about Janner¹s 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:
(a) two Queens Counsel;
(b) two prominent members of the Jewish community;
(c) two sexual perverts - not barely pubescent boys in Green¹s 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 wife¹s suicide.

Janner¹s next public statement was in the House of Commons under Parliamentary Privilege where he said, in effect: ³l am innocent. I have been conspired against by liars². 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 journalists¹ attempt to stage such a press conference, Janner¹s 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 ³ . . .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 all². 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: ³About Ashby supporting Janner . . . it begs the question about all the others who supported him². In the Commons the then Health Secretary, William Waldegrave, told Janner: ³I am sure the House has demonstrated its feelings on this matter by the reception you have just received².

We do not record Chaney¹s 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 Winston¹s allegations against Janner or to Becks complaint in writing to the Leicester Social Services concerning the charge of Janners 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 Chaney¹s central assertion that had this file been entered into evidence, Beck¹s 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 ³persons in high places² (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 media¹s 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 Jowitt¹s Order was unlawful and void. Not long after Janner¹s name was mentioned in evidence at the trial and reported by the media.

In reference to Beck¹s 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 OGuildford Four¹ 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:

³I 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.²

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: ³We 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 us². Beck then wrote to Chaney in another letter: ³More 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 Janner¹s sexual activities. But I have been down encouraging paths before and come to a dead end, so l have to wait and see².

According to Chaney, Scrivener informed Beck¹s solicitor: ³This is an interesting case which does look as if something very wrong has happened². 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: ³I 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 action². 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: ³At 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 start².

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: ³Still 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 thats a great help and exercises the brain². It pleased Beck that he lost half a stone in weight.

Beck¹s 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 Beck¹s case. Beck wrote: ³We 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 encouraged². On the first page of this letter, in prescient mood, the prisoner noted: ³I 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?² 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 prison¹s 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 Chaney¹s 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 Beck¹s last words written to Chaney: ³Do take care, but fight on, Sid. If you dont I doubt if anyone else will². 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 Beck¹s funeral, Lord Longford, in the role of a prison visitor, informed the Leicester Mercury he was convinced of Becks innocence. He wrote: ³I last saw Beck about six weeks ago. He seemed to be in fine health and was optimistic. I think the evidence against him was tainted². 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 Beck¹s trial decided Beck had inflicted on them.

Beck refers to this factor in a letter dated 25th February 1994: ³The 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 don¹t like paying out, which I¹m sure they don¹t, but because they say the evidence just does not add up, and they believe the claims of some of them are fraudulent².

Regarding the immediate circumstances attending Beck¹s 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 Beck¹s 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 Wood¹s 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: ³There¹s no cause for alarm. He¹s strained his back².

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 ³minor medical complaints². On a police statement, Woods declared Beck was a fit man for his duration at Whitemoor. Furthermore, on a prison report after Beck¹s death, the full medical history consisted of two lines: ³Heart pain for about six to eight weeks, complaining of back pain and dizziness².

The pathology report of W. J. Blundell, dated 1st June 1994, stated death attributed to ³sudden cardiac arrhythmia, ischaemic heart disease and coronary artery². A reference was made to ³unusual rhythm² of the heart a discovery presumably made while Beck was alive.

Finally, Chaney draws attention to some interesting loose ends. Beck¹s solicitors, Greene DSa, employed their clerk, Ian Henning, in Beck¹s 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: ³It happened because I represented Frank Beck to the best of my ability. I dont judge people. I represent them².

The Deputy-Chief Constable of Leicestershire, Anthony Butler, issued a circular to all sub-divisional commanders accusing Henning of acting improperly during interviews and ³hindering investigations². This led to Henning being refused access to clients. The Law Society found in Hennings 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 Chaneys 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 Chaney¹s contention that the establishment of Greville Janner¹s guilt in the matter of the sexual abuse of Paul Winston would, ipso facto, establish Beck¹s 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 Janner¹s past relationship with Paul Winston 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. Beck¹s 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 Beck¹s 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. Beck¹s letters could, therefore, be explained in terms of Beck having taken a shine to Winston 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 Beck¹s conviction might do well to concentrate on the ³tainted evidence² aspect referred to by Lord Longford.

We have also aired Chaney¹s contention that Beck¹s symptoms exhibited the ³classic symptoms of poisoning². 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 Winston.

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 parents¹ 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 Beck¹s 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 Ovictim¹ who has been Ocleared¹ of allegations
JANNER FAILS TO ANSWER SEX WITH BOY EVIDENCE

DURING October and November 1991 the trial took place in Leicester of former children¹s 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 Englands 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 Paul Winston, who boasted of being a ³rent boy with friends in high places.

She stated that on one occasion she witnessed a row between Beck and Winston during which Beck shouted that Winston ³wasn¹t going to see Greville Janner any more².

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 ³the names of people in high places².

He did this during the evidence of another prosecution witness, former social worker Mark Salisbury. He had been Winstons care officer at the home and confirmed that Winston boasted of having ³friends in high places². Salisbury was asked: ³Did he tell you who those were?² 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: ³One. He just knew him and had contact with him². This person turned up at the childrens home with a bicycle as a present for Winston.

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. Paul Winston, now a married man of 30 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. Winston stated that he was taken to bed by Janner where they ³cuddled and fondled each other².

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.

OSEX¹ 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 - ³sex² (i.e. buggery).

When he was 14 Janner took him for a fortnights holiday to Scotland where he was twice ³abused² by the MP. The holiday atmosphere was soured on account of Winston stealing cash from Janner¹s wallet. This dishonesty did not prevent Janner trying to keep in contact with Winston by telephone calls and letters.

Once Winston 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 Winston 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.

JANNER¹S DENIAL INADEQUATE

At the conclusion of Winston¹s evidence the prosecution counsel pointed out that Winston, 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 Janner¹s 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.


JANNER¹S 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 childrens 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, Paul Winston, 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 ³let it be known² 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 ³The Establishment², 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 Thorpe¹s presentation - and composure - to crumple. Prosecution followed shortly after. So Janner said nothing to the press, save to issue an announcement via Napley¹s office that he would ³make a full statement at the earliest opportunity in the proper place: the House of Commons².

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 publics ignorance of the way the House of Commons operates. For one thing he knew unlike your average OJoe Public¹ - 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 ³Honourable Members² 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 ³privileged². 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.

Janner¹s 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 Paul Winston 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 Winston to the police before the trial and his sworn testimony at the trial,

. . . then Winston was therefore ³an accomplice² of Beck, a perjurer, whose evidence contained ³not a shred of truth².

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:

1. 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.

2. The journalists who covered Janner¹s 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 Janner¹s 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 ³cheers, sympathy and admiration from all sides of the House . . . ²

Of course, Janner had done no such thing. He had simply uttered a general denial, defamed his principal accuser Paul Winston (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 Janner¹s 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 childrens 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 Whos 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 Beck¹s 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 Janners relationship with one of the boys in his care, Paul Winston, then aged 14 or 15. As two prosecution witnesses attested, Beck took steps to terminate Janners relationship with Winston 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 Winston. 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 Winston 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 Janner¹s 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 Paul Winston, 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 Paul Winston during the late 1970s. In his House of Commons statement Janner made a point of asserting that his ³wife and family² were involved with him in his efforts to ³help² the boy.

According to Winston¹s evidence, he caught Janner¹s eye on a school visit to the House of Commons. Thereafter Janner sent Winston 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. Janner¹s wife and family were not present.

Winston testified that he was given his own bedroom but as he cried from homesickness Janner took him to his bed to ³comfort² him, whereupon they ³cuddled and fondled² each other. We ask Janner:

9. If not only he but his wife and family were involved in trying to help Winston, why did he arrange for Winstons 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 Winstons sexual assault allegations contained ³not a shred of truth². 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 Winston to his home to stay over­night when his wife was present?

12. Did he in fact take Winston 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?

Winston testified that he engaged in numerous sexual encounters with Janner in his suite at The Holiday Inn, Leicester. Apart from hanky-panky in the hotels swimming pool changing rooms, it was in a double bed that Janners various types of sexual assault culminated in lubricant-assisted buggery.

All these sexual assaults detailed in Winstons testimony will also have been covered by Janner¹s all-purpose general denial. However, we ask Janner:

14. Did he ever invite Winston to visit him at The Holiday Inn? If so, on how many occasions? On how many of these occasions were his wife or any members of his family present?

15. Did he ever invite Winston to stay overnight with him at the hotel? If so, why, bearing in mind the boy resided in Leicester? Again, if so, did they at any time-share the same bed?

16. If Winston at no time stayed overnight at the hotel, did the boy ever leave the public parts of the hotel and join him in his private apartment? If so, why?

Winston¹s relationship with Janner was maintained during his 13th, 14th and possibly 15th year. At some stage Winston was moved to the home administered by Beck. According to the testimony of two prosecution witnesses (a girl in care at the home and one of the staff members) Winston often boasted of being ³a rent boy with friends in high places².

Rent boys as brazen as this, though by no means always effeminate, tend to adopt mannerisms which signal their proclivities. We ask Janner:

17. As a man of the world, did he not recognise the signs of Winston¹s sexual orientation - and his promiscuity? Did he show good judgement in entertaining such a youngster at his home or in hotels or having any contact with him other than in the presence of his wife and family and/or social workers?

That question also applies to the two-week holiday in Scotland (again at an expensive hotel) to which Janner treated Winston. During this holiday Winston claims he was ³sexually abused² by Janner. Winston also volunteered in his evidence that he stole more than once from Janners wallet. We ask Janner:

18. Did his wife or any of his family accompany him on this holiday?

19. Did he and Winston share the same sleeping accommodation and/or the same bed? If so, why?

20. Why did he not terminate the holiday and return Winston to the home once he realised, as he must have done, that the boy was stealing from his wallet?

21. Why did he keep quiet about these thefts? Why did he not report them to the police - or at least to staff at the home? Why did he maintain contact with the boy after the thefts, continuing to buy him expensive presents? How could such pampering of a young thief help to reform him?

OTHER BOYS ³HELPED²?

In view of Janner¹s general interest in youth welfare it may be that he has directed lavish help to other wayward or troubled young lads. We ask Janner:

22. How many other boys has he helped in the way that he says he and his wife and family helped Paul Winston? If there were others, were each or any of these invited to stay overnight with him at his home or in hotels, or taken on holidays, without his wife and family being present?

Finally, of course, the management of the Beck trial by Mr. Justice Jowitt is an important issue in this whole affair. He attempted to prohibit media reporting of the trial, and then interrupted the examination of witnesses to prevent Greville Janners name being mentioned. We ask Janner:

23. Did he - or others acting in his interests - use extensive political, legal, or other more secretive contacts to see to it that the trial judge would be briefed as to his predicament and to pull every stroke to try and protect him?

There are other questions to be asked: questions which must be answered by The Lord Chancellor, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Leicester Police and the Director of Leicester Social Services.

WHICH OFFICIALS JOINED OHELP JANNER¹ PLAN?

A NUMBER of senior public officials have got a lot of explaining to do if the widely held belief that the authorities engaged in a cover-up to protect Greville Janner is to be dispelled.

The first candidate for questioning must be the Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who as head of the Judiciary, must answer for the astounding conduct of the Judge in the trial of Frank Beck, Mr. Justice Edwin Jowitt [which we detail on page 1.] We ask the Lord Chancellor:

1. Are there any kind of formal legal proceedings available to a person who knows he is to be mentioned in connection with criminal conduct during a forthcoming trial (in which he is not an accused or a witness) whereby he can make representations to the judge listed to try the case?

2. Are there any kind of lawful but informal means whereby a person in such a situation might make such representations to a trial judge?

3. Do exalted members of the legal profession have an exceptional right to make such representations to a trial judge?

4. If as we believe, his answers to the first three questions herein must be a definite NO, then how can he explain Judge Jowitts determination at the very outset of the trial to do all he could to shield Greville Janner?

We are unaware of any official statement issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the effect that a formal decision had been taken not to prosecute Janner.

However, a number of newspapers reported that the DPP had ³let it be known² that Janner would not be prosecuted and suggested that the reason for this was ³lack of any evidence² to support the testimony of Janner¹s alleged victim, Paul Winston.

At a later stage we will be directing certain questions to the Chief Constable of the Leicester Police concerning his officers report to the DPP concerning the Winston/Janner relationship, but in the meanwhile, we ask the Director of Public Prosecutions:

1. Have there not been successful prosecutions for sexual assault - rape, for example - in which the sole witness was the victim, and where there was no conclusive supporting forensic evidence?

2. Have there not been successful prosecutions for incestuous child abuse long after there was any possibility of securing forensic or other evidence to support the allegations of the victim, who was often the sole witness?

3. Did not Paul Winston give the police very substantial and accurate detail in support of his allegations with regard to such things as Greville Janner¹s home bedroom and bedrooms at various hotels, Janner¹s person and myriad other relevant matters - which he could not possibly have invented?

4. Is it not often the case that men who prey on young boys deliberately seek out youngsters with insecure or non-existent family backgrounds and who are perhaps verging on delinquency or vagrancy, not only because such boys are inadequately supervised and often desperate for money (and love!) but also because the predators hope that such boys would be unlikely to voice complaints to the authorities and, if they did, their word would not be valued?

We have no reason to doubt that the Leicester Police did a thorough job of investigation. However, we would wish to be, assured on certain points. Therefore, we ask the Leicester Chief Constable:

1. Were the records of the Leicester Holiday Inn and the hotel in Scotland for the material times checked against Winstons story? Were the staff of those hotels traced and interviewed?

2. When the police interviewed Paul Winston for the first time (when they were conducting interviews with all the youngsters who had been in Frank Becks care) was not the sole objective of the interview to obtain informa­tion about Beck? If so, would this not explain why Winston did not make any complaint against Janner in that interview?

3. What were the circumstances during the second interview with Winston, which prompted either the police to solicit - or Winston to volunteer - inform­ation about other adult sexual predators? How did Janners name arise?

4. In the late 1970s did the Leicester Social Services notify the police that a letter had been received from the warden of one of its childrens homes (Frank Beck) complaining about the relationship between Paul Winston and Greville Janner? If so, did the police interview Janner at the time? If not, why not?

This topic leads us on to our final respondent. We ask the Director of Leicester Social Services:

1. Was a letter received from one of its wardens, Frank Beck, complaining of a relationship between one of the departments wards. Paul Winston, and Greville Janner?

2. What action did the department take? Was the matter notified to the police? If not, why not? Was a warning-off letter or verbal warning issued to Janner? If not, why not?

WINSTON DESERVES JUSTICE NOT SMEARS

GREVILLE Janner told the House of Commons that Paul Winstons court evidence was perjured and that Winston was ³an accomplice² in a conspiracy to defame him hatched by Frank Beck.

Janner felt safe in making such a claim behind the protection of parliamentary privilege. If there were the slightest evidence to support this claim, Janner would have made it outside the House.

There has not been any suggestion that Winston be prosecuted for perjury. Further, he has repeated his evidence outside the court but Janner refuses the opportunity to prove his innocence by suing Winston for slander.

Janner called Winston a liar simply because he gave evidence for Beck. But while it was part of the Crown case that Beck assaulted many of the children in his care, it did not suggest that he had assaulted them all!

Furthermore, apart from Winston there were two other witnesses whose testimony indicated an improper relationship between Winston and Janner - and they were both prosecution witnesses.

So there is no reason to believe that Winston did not give truthful evidence at the trial, speaking as he found about both the men who loomed large during his adolescent years.

Janner played on differences between statements Winston made to the police before the Beck trial, and his testimony at the trial. It is obvious that Winston made no mention of Janner in his first statement because the police were interviewing him about Becks activities, not Janners.

His second statement did make reference to sexual encounters with Janner but he made no mention of being buggered. This accusation, it is true, was only made at the trial. This difference is not hard to understand.

By the time the police came to ask him about the events of 15 years ago, he was a 31 year old married man with children of his own. One can imagine him being embarrassed about discussing being buggered. Perhaps he sought to blot out this memory. No doubt as the date of the trial drew nearer he came to accept that he would have to tell the whole truth, as he would be on oath.

And he - unlike Janner - has told his story in open court on oath and has faced up to the ordeal of cross-examination. This is the test Janner has ducked. Why should we believe him?

EDITORIAL POLICY

THE publication of this leaflet has not been prompted by homophobia. The lawful conduct of consenting adults is not our concern. We do, however, believe that young people (of either sex) in their early teens, must not be sexually exploited by adults. Further, we believe that Britain will only be a decent place in which to grow up if the authorities adhere to Lord Dennings great dictum:

Be you ever so high, the Law is above you!