A Labour peer facing more than 20 allegations of historical child abuse looks set to avoid prosecution after doctors said he was unfit to be quizzed because he has dementia.
The member of the House of Lords will not be interviewed or arrested by police investigating the alleged sexual assaults – which include claims of rape – on vulnerable boys in children’s homes.
One man said he was aged seven when the politician visited his care home and entertained him and the other youngsters there with magic tricks.
The suspect, who was the local MP at the time, then allegedly took him aside and sexually assaulted him. His alleged victim claims he reported it to police but it was not properly investigated.
He said: “That man humiliated me. He told me to undress and then fondled me. It scarred me for life. I complained previously and the police made a mess of it. But they are being very good now.”
Officers have compiled a dossier of more than 20 complaints against the peer, who was previously accused of child abuse more than two decades ago.
At the time, the serving MP agreed to be interviewed by police and a file was passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, but no charges were ever brought.
Another police investigation into similar allegations is ongoing and a file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Sources confirmed the peer would not be questioned after two doctors examined him and concluded he was unfit.
A police spokesman said the decision was taken for “operation reasons” and added: “The inquiry has had a number of individuals who have come forward and made complaints. We are investigating their allegations, and providing them with professional support.”Source: Daily Mirror
The name isn't mentioned, of course, but it is hard to see who it could be other than Greville Janner, former chairman of the British Board of Deputies of British Jews and president of the World Jewish Congress. As mentioned in a previous post, he has a sideline in "magic tricks", which, as I noted, must have been useful in allowing him to get close to children. It would be very interesting to know the ethnicity and religion of the two doctors who declared him unfit to stand trial. As previously discussed, he appears to have been shielded previously by a Jewish Home Secretary and a Jewish director of public prosecutions. Who exactly made the decision not to proceed with prosecution this time? Is it something the doctors are able to decide amongst themselves if there is a consensus? Surely not, I would have thought. So who made the decision? And was he a fellow Jew?