[Closed] How long before the miraculous recovery?

Why did Special Branch have files on Lord Janner?

So Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children?

What did they know of politicians involved in child abuse associating with members of the Paedophile Information Exchange?

Yep, that's EXACTLY what I said.

A quick google suggests the accusation that kicked all this off was made by a convicted child abuser. We keep hearing how the victims must be 'beleived', now the perps must also be beleived, but only if they say something happened, not if they say they're innocent.

It really is a witch hunt.

hmmm 4 more accusers had come forward since the trial was announced

the saville effect justifies publishing names of the accused? or just made up?

the telegraph seem keen to keep it in the news, in contrast to Leon Briton, though thats undoubtedly for partisan political reasions

hmmm 4 more accusers had come forward since the trial was announced
the saville effect justifies publishing names of the accused? or just made up?

Who knows. We hear a lot about allegations, and silence about the evidence. For all we know they could all have gone to the police, told people at the time and kept a diary. But maybe its just their word.

I read a lot of the hospital reports on Saville. It's shocking how weak the evidence is. The evidence for necrophillia for instance - it's total nonsense. Third hand hearsay. Some of the "accusations" are for things that aren't even illegal.

I challenge anyone to find a single example from the Saville hospital reports of an assault with convincing evidence. I read a large number and came up blank, but I didn't read them all so could easily have missed some.

Yes, I accept there usually isn't evidence in these cases but 3000, without anyone going to the police, without anyone getting pregnant without anyone writing in a contemporary diary or telling someone at the time?

As I say I may have missed a good example. I'd only need to see one, then I could cheerfully join in with the national outrage.

I read a lot of the hospital reports on Saville.

What "hospital reports" and why did you read them?

Yes, I accept there usually isn't evidence in these cases but 3000, without anyone going to the police, without anyone getting pregnant without anyone writing in a contemporary diary or telling someone at the time?

there were plenty of reports at the time
thatchers own advisors warned her that he had a reputaion as a pervert,
even johnny rotten repeats rumours

there were 9 complaints made (only 1 formal) at stoke mandeville about him b4 1985 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jimmy-savile-scandal-stoke-mandeville-nurses-ignored-complaints-sex-abuse-victims-1489539

as for now prgnancies, maybe hes firing blanks?

What "hospital reports" and why did you read them?

Every hospital he was involved in wrote a report detailing every accusation, all published online.

I read them because I read about the Necrophilia "glass eye stealing" accusation and it seemed a bit dubious to me so I read it in the report first hand for myself.

One report lead to another and before I knew it I was half way through the reports without finding anything vaguely compelling. (...and a raft of stuff that was 3rd hand gossip or obviously bollocks.)

That's why.

there were 9 complaints made (only 1 formal) at stoke mandeville about him b4 1985

Great, which one of the 9 do you consider the most "cut and dried"?

no idea, I have no intention of reading them

i was merely responding to your claim

without anyone going to the police

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/12/sussex-police-missed-chance-jimmy-savile-ipcc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-33428170

One report lead to another and before I knew it I was half way through the reports

Just compulsive reading eh, I thought it might have been part of your job somehow.

Just compulsive reading eh

Yup. You'd think the press fact check - seemingly they don't they just write out a headline 'accusation' as fact even if the source is "a bloke remembers another bloke telling him something on a nightshift in 1983, but he doesn't remember the name of the bloke who told him." Once you start spotting the differences between reality and the press version it becomes addictive.

no idea

Thanks anyway.

Edited.

So Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children?

Sorry, I didn't realise that article was the crux of the issue at this point in time; I'd been basing my argument on the vast body of evidence which suggests

Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children

Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children

Maybe that's what 'they' want you to think?

[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Sorry, I didn't realise that article was the crux of the issue at this point in time; I'd been basing my argument on the vast body of evidence which suggests

Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children

Do we have to do our own research?

Probably not a bad idea... do an advanced search for Janner on here and you'll see I mentioned it long before any of the media ever publicized the allegations.

Daresay you'll also find plenty to bolster my argument...

You mentioned it on here before the allegation was made public by convicted abuser Beck in 1991?

If they wanted to cover it all up, why prosecute Beck thus creating a disgruntled loose cannon with nothing to lose?

Now you're being silly (not that you weren't being silly before... you seem to think Jimmy Savile is an innocent victim of false accusations)

If Beck's allegations had been followed up, there wouldn't be such suspicion now about the multiple occasions when investigations into Janner were shut down, or the fact that the Home Office lost files on his abuse.

Of course, if as the Times article above suggests, Special Branch were aware of Janner's abuse in the 60s, 70s and 80s, Beck's publicizing the issue would likely have brought the full force of the establishment on him.

Sorry, I didn't realise that article was the crux of the issue at this point in time

I don't know what the point of all this is when you won't even read the sources that you yourself cite.

The fact is, this whole issue has been running for some time~ Janner is not an isolated case and Special Branch are said to have intervened in many similar cases...

A swift snapshot is provided by [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28201997 ]this BBC article[/url], but there is a wealth of information out there which expands on the issue and raises many more questions.

A man claiming to be a former Home Office civil servant last week told the Sunday Express that not only was PIE receiving funding from the Home Office in the 1980s, it was doing so at the request of Special Branch, the intelligence-gathering arm of the police. And he believed the police were not interested in catching child abusers.

He said his superior told him that Special Branch "found it politically useful to identify people who were paedophiles... I was aware a lot of people in the civil service or political arena had an interest in obtaining information like that which could be used as a sort of blackmail."

Home Secretary Theresa May has said a Home Office review found the claim that PIE was government funded to be untrue but it would be re-examined by the inquiry.

Allegations of Special Branch involvement in a cover-up were also made by Jack Tasker, a former Lancashire detective who tried to prosecute Cyril Smith for child sex abuse.

He says Special Branch detectives arrived in his office one day, told him to hand over all his notebooks and files, and told him to go no further with his investigations.

"Nothing like that had ever happened before," he told the BBC. "That came from London." Cyril Smith was never prosecuted.

If these allegations are true, the newly commissioned inquiry into abuse has a lot of work on its hands.

(Worth noting article was written before 2 heads of inquiry resigned)

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1610295/care-home-resident-janner-was-regular-visitor ]Care Home Resident: Janner Was Regular Visitor

The man said he raised concerns about suspicious activity involving youngsters at the home run by a notorious paedophile.[/url]

A former care home resident has told Sky News how he watched Lord Janner repeatedly visit a children's home run by a notorious paedophile.

The man, who did not want to be identified, was a resident at Layton Road children's home in the 70s and 80s and said he repeatedly raised concerns about suspicious activity at the site involving youngsters.

The centre was run for a short period by Frank Beck, who was later convicted of multiple sexual offences involving children at various homes in Leicestershire.

Beck was ordered to serve five life sentences but died in prison in 1994.

The former resident told Sky News that at one stage the then MP would visit up to three times a week while Beck was in charge: "He'd be in his blue jag, he'd be driving.

"He'd go up and ring the bell, Frank Beck would know the time Janner would be turning up.

"Two children would go into the living quarters, there would be some talking, I don't know what was said and then Janner would leave with the children on a number of occasions, they'd come back two-and-a-half hours later or so, they'd be fragile and upset.

"It was then that I was suspicious that there was a very serious thing going on."

He also alleged that another man he recognised sometimes accompanied Lord Janner and said that man is still alive.

But senior figures at the Crown Prosecution Service are now understood to regard the case against Lord Janner as "overwhelming" - and the level of abuse alleged as "horrific".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528

so does everyone owe JHJ an apology?