Of Jews and paedophiles

As 2015 draws to a close, a national newspaper has published a list of notable people who died in the past year.  Cilla Black and Jimmy Hill are among the more prominent names, but Lord Janner is also mentioned, and with these words:

Besides being a politician, Lord Janner was also a barrister and a writer. 

He was a Labour MP for 27 years, from 1970 to 1997.

Lord Janner was president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1978 to 1984 and was a prominent campaigner in the efforts to gain reparations for victims of the Holocaust.

No mention of him raping children.

Janner was first outed as a paedophile in 1991, but no charges were brought.  In April 2015, another national newspaper reported that a retired police officer called Kelvyn Ashby had been forbidden from charging Janner, apparently on the grounds that he was an MP.

Janner went on to avoid being charged in 2002, 2006, and 2013 - each time in spite of substantial victim testimony.  The Daily Mail reports that:

Ten days ago Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders announced there was enough evidence to charge Janner with 22 offences against nine alleged victims – but he could not be prosecuted because he has severe dementia.

The CPS claimed Janner was diagnosed with Alzheimer's in 2009. But analysis of his activities since then shows he went on at least 20 foreign trips, including to Israel and America as part of his work fighting anti-semitism and bringing Nazis to justice. He was still chairman of an all-party Parliamentary group two years ago.

This man was eager that one group of people - supporters of the National Socialist regime - should not escape justice (or injustice perhaps), but was also eager that he should avoid justice for his own crimes.

It is also notable that the establishment seemed eager to protect Janner all the way along the line.  Consider this timeline.

• 1979: Margaret Thatcher leads the Conservative Party to victory in a general election.  Her close friend and fellow Tory MP Peter Morrison is an active paedophile.  Allegations that Liberal MP Cyril Smith is also a paedophile result in his being questioned by police just once.  Muslim grooming gangs may already be operating in the United Kingdom.
• 1989: Mrs Thatcher's government brings in legislation for the prosecution of National Socialist veterans living in Britain.
• 1991: Labour MP Greville Janner, a Jew, is first outed as a paedophile, but is protected from prosecution.  Britain still has a Conservative government, now led by John Major.
• 1997: A Labour government led by Tony Blair allows Janner to enter the House of Lords.
• 2000: Tony Blair confirms an annual Holocaust Memorial Day.
• 2001: The British National Party becomes aware of Muslim grooming gangs operating in the north west of England, and begins campaigning for prosecutions.  Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2002: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crime.  Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2004: BNP leader Nick Griffin is secretly filmed by the BBC talking about Muslim grooming gangs.
• 2005: Griffin is charged with inciting racial hatred, presumably to punish him for daring to talk about Muslim grooming gangs. Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2006: Griffin stands trial, and is cleared.  A retrial is promptly announced.  Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes.  Labour is still in government, and Tony Blair is still the Prime Minister.
• 2009: The BNP wins two seats in the European Parliament, and the press begin reporting the prosecution of a small number of Muslim paedophiles.  Janner apparently begins suffering from Alzheimers, but continues working.  Labour is still in government, and Gordon Brown is now the Prime Minister.
• 2013: Janner is again protected from prosecution for his crimes.  The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are now in government, and David Cameron is now the Prime Minister
• 2015: David Cameron is able to form a majority Conservative government.  Janner is protected from prosecution once again, this time on the grounds of a medical condition which does not prevent him working.

I do not want to exaggerate the connection between paedophilia and Jewry.  So far as I am aware, neither Cyril Smith nor Peter Morrison were Jews.  Nevertheless I wonder how many of the people - whether Jews or gentiles - who have campaigned for the prosecution of National Socialist veterans have also campaigned for the prosecution of either Muslim paedophiles or of paedophiles with friends in high places.

Update: this newspaper report about the trial of Jeremy Thorpe in 1979 is relevant. 

Related previous posts include:

The Church of England, race, and paedophiles

The great paedo cover up continues

Jews matter.  Does anyone else?

The living wage and household debt

Two recent news items require attention.  The first is that a lot of businesses in the United Kingdom expect to increase their prices in the new year.  This is in response to the so-called national living wage which will come into force in April next year at a rate of £7.20.

The other news item is that household debt in the United Kingdom is rising at an alarming rate.  The Daily Mail reports that:

... families are set to spend £40 billion more than they earn this year.

In the depths of the crisis in 2009/10, families spent £67 billion less than they earned as they moved to cut their debts.

I recall that the recession of the early 1990s was preceded by a credit boom in the late 1980s when far too many families spent beyond their means.

But to return to the first news item.  It is of course true that an increase in the minimum wage might lead to higher prices in the shops.  The current minimum wage stands at £6.70, and so £7.20 represents an increase of less than eight percent - roughly equivalent to an increase of around five pence on the price of a bar of chocolate.

If a company's payroll amounts to forty percent of its total expenditure, then its overall expenditure will not need to rise by more than three percent to accomodate the rise in the minimum wage.

Where prices increase - and not all employers are threatening to increase their prices - then the British public can choose either to pay those higher prices or to reduce their spending.  Given that the increase in the minimum wage will leave many working people better off, then maybe they will tend to pay the higher prices.  By contrast, if people tend to reduce their spending rather than pay the higher prices, then the companies which raise their prices might have to lower them again in order to attract custom.

Another threat related to the living wage is that some companies expect to employ fewer people.  Nevertheless some companies are already paying the living wage, and I'm not aware that any of them are laying off staff as a result.

I am far more concerned about the rise in household debt than I am about the living wage.  I urge all readers of this blog to avoid any increase in their level of borrowing.  Any increase in personal borrowing across the economy as a whole is likely to result at some point in an increase in interest rates, thereby making borrowing more expensive.

As a final point, I will repeat the comment left on the website of one national newspaper that the living wage is only decribed as a living wage by people who do not have to live on it.

Related previous posts include:

The minimum wage and prices
To build on debt is to build on sand

Controlling inflation

Another victory for Nick Freeman

Nick Freeman is a successful lawyer who is often referred to in the press as Mr Loophole.  Over the years he has represented numerous famous clients in courts of law, often for motoring offences.

In many cases his line of defence is pretty much what any defending solicitor might use, for example arguing that singer Ian Brown should avoid a driving ban because he needed his car to go shopping for his elderly parents.  In many of the cases, however, his line of defence demonstrates a detailed knowledge of relevant law.  One example of this is the acquittal of Andrew Flintoff for speeding, on the grounds that the prosecution notice was sent two days later than the law permits.

It is not surprising that Freeman annoys a lot of people.  Like many people, I am not impressed by someone committing an offence and then escaping justice on a technicality.  Nevertheless, I wonder why people who work in the public sector cannot just do their job properly in the first place.  Should we blame Nick Freeman for Andrew Flintoff avoiding justice?  Or should we blame the prosecution for not submitting the relevant paperwork in time?

It is now reported that Mr Freeman has represented a woman pro bono in respect of a prosecution for letting her dog off the leash in a cemetary.  The Daily Express reports that:

Mrs Tweedale was issued with the £50-pound fine despite pointing out there was no sign at the entrance of the cemetery warning of the rule about keeping dogs on leads.

Mr Freeman has also made a formal complaint to police against the council for attempting to pervert the course of justice.

He said he expects the failed attempt to fine Mrs Tweedale to cost the council more than £10,000.

It looks as though someone who works for Bedford Borough Council really ought to resign - not that I expect anyone to.

Related previous posts include:
Dog owners need to get real
A small victory in Barnet
A small victory in Hertfordshire