Greville Janner and Bookkeeper of Auschwitz
Ethics & Morality

Justice for Greville Janner and the Bookkeeper of Auschwitz

 

Labour peer Greville Janner (left), aged 86, will apparently not be prosecuted over allegations of historic child abuse because the Crown Prosecution Service says his evidence could not be relied on in court. Lord Janner is suffering from a degenerative dementia which is increasing in severity, and, according to the CPS, “he could not have any meaningful engagement with the court process”. Since there is no prospect of recovery and no risk of future offending, the dozen-or-so children he allegedly groomed, buggered and otherwise abused will not have their day in court.

The ‘Bookkeeper of Auschwitz’ Oskar Gröning (right), aged 93, is charged with being an accessory to the murder of 300,000 Hungarian Jews, who were sent to the gas chambers in 1944. Mr Groening does not deny that he was present at Auschwitz, but maintains that his role as a guard and bookkeeper was not a crime. His task was to count money confiscated from new arrivals. “If you can describe that as guilt, then I am guilty, but not voluntarily. Legally speaking, I am innocent,” he told Der Spiegel in 2005. Charges brought against him in the 1980s were dropped because of a lack of evidence of his personal involvement. But jurisprudence develops, and today the court in Lueneburg, Germany, hears that even a small cog in the Nazi killing machine is culpable.

At what great age and in what state of poor health is one let off the hook? While Greville Janner is not fit to enter a plea and must be presumed innocent, the evidence against him of systematic sexual abuse is damning. Oskar Gröning pleads innocence, and yet he was involuntarily participant in mass murder and systematic genocide. Neither Janner nor Gröning present a risk to public safety, but Gröning is apparently capable of discerning moral truth and so must be tried in a court of law.

There are, of course, many different kinds of law governing different kinds of institution: states, churches, international relations, etc. But their end is the common virtue of justice and punitive satisfaction. Abel still speaks even though he is dead (Heb 11:4), and the blood of six million Jews cries from the ground. Raped boys still bear the mark of Janner, and no judgment of guilt or innocence can wash the filth from their minds. Society’s justice can never be true justice because the offended will cry out for greater degrees of satisfaction, and the offender plead for more mercy. Judgments of guilt and innocence are tied to an ever-spinning wheel of injury and restitution, and civilisation can never perfectly satisfy the universal demand for justice.

What is gained by imprisoning Oskar Gröning for 15 years? Is the petty incarceration any kind of just satisfaction for the 300,000 Jews who were gassed to death while he was busy counting their pengős? And what is to be gained by prosecuting Greville Janner, who, by all medical and expert accounts, has no mental competence to understand the significance of his moral culpability?

The outrage is inescapable: justice cannot be done and the innocent will not be vindicated. Only in the afterlife may judgment now be made and satisfaction found. The CPS sees in mirrors darkly: the eyes of God perceive in perfect light. He determines guilt and weighs the punishment, and His justice reconciles a world which cannot fulfil natural justice. Oskar Gröning and Greville Janner may have participated in or perpetrated great evil, and both may escape the duty of the moral institution to determine and convict. But the resurrection of Christ was an eschatological act of justice (Rom 5:18) which accounts for all crimes, reconciles all debts and supersedes our partial notions of jurisprudence. What satisfaction of justice can there be for the eyes and ears of the atheist? What fulfilment of law may be found by those who deny the perfection of divine judgment and retribution?

  • You assume guilt in your fourth paragraph and pass judgement. In para 5 you ignore that Mr Janner signed a legal document earlier this month.
    Tim Marshall http://www.thewhatandthewhy.com

    • alternative_perspective

      Query, in the absence of official procedures to determine guilt on a semi-objective basis, especially when the individual in question would normally be charged; is not the individual at liberty to consider the evidence themselves and make their own judgement as to the guilt or innocence of an individual?

      One cannot clearly call this man proven innocent, especially in light of the evidence and lack of due process but similarly one cannot call him guilty in any legal sense – but perhaps one can: morally.

      • Happily we have a law saying that someone is innocent until proven guilty, but the fourth paragraph in this article, without I assume examining all the evidence and documents, has it as fact that the crimes alleged were committed. If so sure, why not come forward many years ago.

        • CliveM

          The first allegation was made in 1991 under oath. Further allegations were made that led to a formal investigation in 2004. So people have been coming forward.

          It is also criminal that he wasn’t charged and tried as far back as 1991. The victims have been let down.

          • On that we can agree. I’m only talking about the 4th para and remain not in favour of passing judgement without a trial, especially if the writer waits until it is safe to do so.

          • CliveM

            So when do we speak about this? There are serious issues here with regards guilt, justice, cover up and these need to be aired and debated. Not to do so would be a bigger injustice. Or do we wait until he is dead ?

            Let’s be brutal about it for a second, if his dementia is as reported, he can’t be hurt by this and his family will be equally hurt whether before or after his death.

          • We speak about it now. In as many places as possible. And we use the word ‘allegation’.

          • CliveM

            We don’t speak about Saville as alleged anymore.

          • What people chatter about, and the law, are different things.Saville was never prosecuted and legally there are only allegations against him A QC agrees there was enough evidence to justify the CPS bringing those allegations to court. I’m not defending either man. I’ve met both and disliked both. I think we are only disagreeing about terminology and the law.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Goodness! I hope you stoutly refused to sit on either man’s knee…

        • Pubcrawler

          “Happily we have a law saying that someone is innocent until proven guilty,”

          Well, we hold to the principle in jurisprudence of presumption of innocence during legal proceedings, which means that no one may be punished for a crime unless the evidence of the accusers has been tested to the required level of doubtlessness in a court of law. Not quite the same thing.

          • Indeed not. It was shorthand, and also the reflex of the journalist in me that you simply do not go to print with an unproven allegation of this magnitude unless you are utterly certain, and I assume the writer does not have access to the documents. I unsuccessfully ‘doorstepped’ Janner in 1991 for a quote on this and agree the whole thing stinks of a cover up, but allegations they remain.

  • CliveM

    This is a difficult one. When does a person become so old or so ill that they can’t be tried for their, in Janners case at least, alleged crimes? Are some crimes so awful that justice demands a trial in all circumstances?

    I don’t know. It is interesting that in Germany that Oskar Gronings role was understood in the 1980’s but not believed to be criminal. But today with no extra evidence it is. I understood he came to the authorities attention again, by his decision to stand up, in the face of holocaust deniers and say “you lie, I was there”. Should he get some benefit for that? I don’t know what the answer is.

    I am glad that at least in the next world, if not this, there will be justice. For that at least there is hope.

    • alternative_perspective

      Yes and without God, all the injustice ever perpetrated will never be compensated. All the hurt suffered will never be soothed and all the evil never judged.

      But for our good God, for whom time is no barrier and space no obstacle justice will be wrought, compensation dispensed and evil overthrown.

      I often ponder that no-one ever throws the “problem of evil and suffering” back at the atheist: for they have quite literally, no answers. There is no hope in that creed, only blind pitiless indifference.

    • carl jacobs

      Should he get some benefit for that?

      No.

  • Orwell Ian

    Janner is judged unfit to plead yet he was fit enough to write to the House of Lords recently. Why I wonder would the establishment have an interest in hiding such a case from public scrutiny?

    Gröning has had the misfortune to live too long. He has survived the age of “postwar reconciliation” and been overtaken by the inevitable retributive justice of rigid Political Correctness. Are the authorities cloaking themselves in righteousness to camouflage their own drift into ever deeper anti-semitic tendencies?

  • David

    This has a distinct whiff of an establishment cover up.
    It will appear to many as if the can was kicked down the road for long enough to arrive at this juncture. But justice is a two way street and the victims need to see it dispensed.

    • CliveM

      There was a similar case where a man was tried in his absence of abusing girls. He couldn’t be found guilty as such, but was found to have “done the act charged”. It isn’t justice but it does give legal status to the facts.

      • David

        Interesting, thank you.
        The victims need to see their suffering publicly acknowledged as part of the process of purging them of the horror they have had to try to live with for all those decades. They need to see such vile acts condemned as part of their journey out of that suffering.
        To many times now the little people have been trampled upon by the establishment. Justice must be done.

  • Linus

    The resurrection of Christ is an unsubstantiated story that independent and impartial analysis renders highly unlikely to be true.

    Fake gods can’t render any kind of justice. But they can, it seems, inspire endless declamation of empty and highly stylised rhetoric and condemnation from their followers.

    Off you trot on that eschatological hobby horse of yours and go and look for some facts to back up your hollow arguments with. If you can find any that stand up to scrutiny, your overblown and dramatic rhetoric might then be taken a little more seriously. But if all you can do is repeat high sounding phrases that don’t actually mean anything, don’t be surprised when all those Atheists you condemn from the height of your utter ignorance just roll their eyes and walk on by.

    • bluedog

      ‘ your overblown and dramatic rhetoric might then be taken a little more seriously.’ Hmmm.

      • William Lewis

        Quite.

    • The Explorer

      Hello Linus,

      Remember me? We’ve chatted from time to time on other threads.

      Let’s put it simply. If there is no God, Janner escapes justice. If there is a God, Janner will be judged.

      Marx raged for justice, but it could apply only once his system had been implemented. (And 100 million corpses later, we’re still waiting.) Justice could not apply retrospectively to those already dead before he plagued the Earth. Christian justice takes in the whole sweep of time.

      This is not an argument for the existence of God, as in:

      There must be justice for all.
      There can be Justice for all only if God exists.
      Therefore, God exists.

      For if there is no God, then injustice might be woven into the fabric of the Universe.

      • carl jacobs

        Don’t be too hard on Linus, Explorer. There is much about that war the French would prefer to leave buried. The achievement of justice is not their first concern. It’s not just invisible accountants who are culpable.

        btw, you are missing a ‘not’ in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

        • Linus

          If the “not” remark was directed at me, no I’m not…

          • carl jacobs

            Sigh.

            Marx raged for justice, but it could not apply once his system had been implemented.

            Or perhaps ‘never.’ The sentence as written is missing a word. It isn’t consistent with the rest of the argument.

          • CliveM

            I thought the missing word was ‘only’ and even then meant only sarcastically!

            Explorer, where are you?!

          • The Explorer

            You thought right. I put in ‘only’ as soon as I saw the post and realised the omission.

          • The Explorer

            The intended word was ‘only’ (Speaking from Marx’s point of view). My point was meant to be that he could only bring justice for those who came after him; he could do nothing for those who were victims of injustice before he was born.

          • carl jacobs

            But … but … that can’t be right. Because that would imply that I was wrong about something. Such an outcome is inconceivable.

            😉

          • CliveM

            And I was right.

            Which is also inconceivable!!

          • The Explorer

            Not at all. I was guilty of lack of clarity. So severely that you were unable to determine my meaning. Mea culpa.

          • CliveM

            Nah he was wrong!

          • The Explorer

            Clive, international diplomacy is at stake here! Insulting the French is one thing. But insulting the Americans?

          • CliveM

            We’ve played the puppet long enough. We need to make a stand.

            I understand that senior officials of the Obama administration have decided the ‘special relationship’ has ended, so we no longer need to be acquiescent.

        • The Explorer

          Sorry Carl, I’m not clear. What war? My comments were specific to Lord Janner.

          • carl jacobs

            World War II. The image of someone like Oskar Gröning is a little too familiar for French consumption.

          • The Explorer

            Fair enough. I remember the furore surrounding Claus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyons.

      • Linus

        Any dispassionate and objective analysis of rhe universe shows us that neither justice nor injustice are woven into it. Stuff just happens. The concepts of justice and injustice only exist in our minds.

        This is unsurprising for a species of social ape that relies on cooperation and group cohesion in order to survive in a hostile world. Many animals have a rudimentary sense of justice. Dogs for example can become very stressed and uncooperative when treated in a way that we humans would describe as unfair.

        In general, the more social the animal and the more developed its sense of individual identity, the more likely it is to develop a concept of justice. It’s a logical outgrowth of complex social structures combined with individual intelligence.

        I don’t believe in God so I don’t believe that Janner will be punished for what he did unless the British court system punishes him. To me that will appear like an injustice. But you know what? Injustices happen all the time.

        Man’s desire to correct injustice stems from our fear that a hostile world may harm us and so
        needs to be controlled. It’s a natural enough feeling, but raising it to the status of a religion and persuading yourself that justice will always be visited on those who do you wrong is just wishful thinking. I indulge in it myself from time to time when I say “what goes around comes around”. It doesn’t always, even though I might like it to.

        What I like is not a basic condition of the universe. And when I’m dead it won’t matter to me whether justice was done or not. Life is full of injustice and then you die. Inventing a god to administer justice in your name is just wishful thinking. Another way in which Christians attempt to impose their own desires on the world around them and call it god.

        The millions who died unjust deaths will never see justice done on their behalf, but as they’re dead and gone, they won’t mind. They can’t mind. They don’t exist in order to mind.

        • The Explorer

          “Life is full of injustice and then you die.” Fine. So why all the indignation on behalf of the Mediterranean migrants? Just give that message.

          • Linus

            So you acknowledge that your wish to deny them access to Europe is unjust. Good. A bit of honesty from you makes a refreshing change.

            Yes, I am indignant on their behalf because I’m capable of putting myself in their shoes and feeling the sense of injustice that they must feel when they see those who have so much denying them the chance to strive for something better.

            The essentially random nature of the events that we call just and unjust doesn’t preclude us from trying to effect change. Nobody has to accept what his own actions can alter. An African who gets on a boat and comes to Europe is taking effective action to eliminate injustice from his life. If he succeeds, his life has a chance of improving. I support that initiative because I too often take action to improve my life. So why shouldn’t he?

            This notion you have of exclusive nationality conferrîng special rights and privileges is merely an attempt to justify a basic injustice, i.e. I’ve got more than you and I intend to keep you out of my country so you can’t get any of it because less for you means more for me.

            Oh well, at least you’re starting to be honest about it. Although only when forced. But still, quite how you can reconcile such patent selfishness with a Christian faith, I don’t know. A real Christian isn’t selfish. He shares his good fortune with those less fortunate than him. So I must conclude that your Christianity is feigned and that you don’t believe in God after all. No, instead you worship your own prosperity and God help anyone who threatens that…

          • The Explorer

            I don’t think that; you think that. You just said so. And you also said that once the victims of injustice are dead and gone, they won’t mind. This isn’t about what I think; it’s about what you think.

            And “group cohesion to survive in a hostile world”. Sounds like a variant on “Birds of a feather” to me.

        • TimeForTea

          Linus, is it that you believe in anihilation at death? i.e. there can be no life after it. When we die, nothing but blackness and no concept of anything once we are dead. Gone forever and that nothing is eternal?

          Had you considered that as we have mass, we are subject to acceleration and gravity and therefore time. We are subject to time, only because we have mass. If you don’t have any mass you are not subject to acceleration or gravity and are therefore outside time.

          If you follow that on and apply it to a person. What makes one person, different from another? Obviously there are the external physical differences but essentially we are all made up of the same oragns, flesh and bone. If you look out into a room full of people, you can’t tell what any of them are really like just some reflection from their outward appearance.

          What makes a person themselves as an individual is that which is demonstated by their outward actions in their personality which is the product of a number of things. We refer to the shaping of that person as by what they’re born with (nature) and their circumstances (our nurture). We start as children and out responses in brain function, hormones, physical responses etc. are the same for different inputs. Our nature and nurture add ability to control it in later life which is why as adults we don’t all respond the same to different situations.

          We all recognise that we are born with something intangible which gives us our disposition in life and that no matter how external pressures change us we have an inherant nature made up of heart, mind, instinct and all the other intangibles, the sum of these things often called our soul. The thing that makes us different is actually information (the soul) rather than the hardware (the body).

          A soul doesn’t weigh anything. The information that’s contained within has no mass, so is it constrained by time? I would propose that it’s not and hence is not subject to time and therefore whether I like it or not is eternal.

          That would mean that if there was a god who was outside of time and he so desired he would be able to pass justice as he saw fit as Cranmer proposes.

          • Linus

            There are also only two massless particles: the photon and the gluon. According to quantum theory, these massless particles must always move at the speed of light.

            If our souls were made of photons, we’d spend our time bouncing around the cosmos at the speed of light and couldn’t stay together as a coherent whole, so consciousness would not be possible at all.

            Gluons can be confined, and their lightspeed movement restricted within hadrons. But their activity is confined to the radius of a single atomic nucleus, i.e. each massless particle exists in solitary confinement and vectors the strong nuclear force to each hadron, but crucially
            NOT between hadrons. This role is performed by the meson, which has mass.

            So for a soul to be a coherent whole, it has to have mass otherwise there can be no communication between its constituant particles. And if it has mass, it’s not eternal.

          • TimeForTea

            Would a soul have to be made up of particles at all? I’m not sure I see any reason why it would need to be.

          • Linus

            I thought so. When the science goes against you, just let magic take up the slack, eh?

            So let’s imagine what a soul could be made of if not particles. Electromagnetic waves, perhaps? And where’s your source? Only charged particles can produce electromagnetic waves, and charged particles have mass. So not eternal, and therefore not capable of producing an eternal transmission of energy. So the soul can’t be a wave…

            OK, so we’re going to have to imagine something that isn’t a particle, or a wave, and doesn’t have mass, and that we’ve never seen before, and that God uses to fashion souls out of.

            What shall we call it?

            Hmmm, if we were being scientific (joke!) we’d call it something impressive-sounding like a theotron. But we’re not being scientific, we’re just pulling crazy ideas out of thin air in order to try and justify a preconceived conclusion, so we can afford to be a bit more creative, I think.

            I know, let’s call it angel dust! It isn’t dust of course, because dust is made up of particles that have mass, but we’re a bit handicapped by our lack of a concept of what something that isn’t a particle, or a wave, or possessed of mass could be, so we’ll just have to live with the restrictions imposed on us by inadequate vocabulary.

            So, God sprinkles angel dust on our heads when we’re born (or maybe when we’re conceived … wouldn’t want to leave fetuses out in the cold, would we?) and somehow this substance, which isn’t really a substance because it isn’t a particle, or this force, which isn’t really a force because it isn’t a wave, reacts with the matter and electromagnetic activity that makes up our bodies and gives us an eternal consciousness.

            And there we have it folks! A complete theory of what a soul is. It must be true because it supports our preconceived idea that we have eternal souls. All hail angel dust!

            Now, who do I talk to about getting this written into the Bible?

          • TimeForTea

            Yes but that still doesn’t explain why it has to be made of particles. Why does it have to be made of particles or waves for that matter?

            None of the information required for a soul, feelings, memories, emotions, beliefs, experiences etc. are made of particles or waves so no need for angel dust quite yet….

          • Linus

            If the soul is not made of particles or waves, what’s it made of then?

            Whatever you call it, in the end it’s the same as calling it angel dust. Or spirit. Or even magic.

            You go ahead and believe in magic. Fantasy is free and there’s an inexhaustible supply of it in Christians’ heads. Here in the real world we like to base our beliefs on verifiable fact and prefer not to let ourselves be ruled by fantasy and imagination.

    • Old Blowers

      “is an unsubstantiated story that independent and impartial analysis renders highly unlikely to be true.”
      As is the big bang fiction you numpties keep going on about…It appears the lack of evidence don’t stop you droning on. For the love of anything you hold dear, PLEASE INCREASE YOUR DOSAGE!!!!

      • Linus

        Increase your own dosage. The Alzheimers drugs clearly aren’t working.

  • bluedog

    Years ago the satirical magazine Private Eye coined the term Waldheimer’s Disease to describe a condition pertaining to the Austrian Chancellor at the time. Patients suffering from the condition were typically incapable of remembering anything that they had done in the Third Reich between 1934 and 1945.

    The mistake Herr Groning is making/has made is in not developing symptoms recognisable as a case of Waldheimer’s. It is of course deeply ironic that Lord Janner, a Jew, has perfected the symptoms of Waldheimer’s and has become untouchable as a result.

    • IanCad

      Very astute bd.

  • carl jacobs

    The man who suffers dementia cannot be tried because he cannot participate in his own defense, and therefore cannot be legitimately convicted by the state. The purpose is to restrict the reach of the state. Age has nothing to do with it, nor consciousness of guilt. A man is never to old to face justice. If Greville Janner avoids the condemnation of the court, it is because the state has been bound for fear of what it might otherwise do.

  • carl jacobs

    Legally speaking, I am innocent

    What an interesting linguistic construction. “All I did was count the money, and you can’t prove anything else. Counting money isn’t a crime.” He is asserting that he is not legally culpable because he didn’t actually interact with the prisoners. Should I believe that? Should I care? Let’s explore a little.

    All I did was drive the train. Driving a train is not a crime.

    Would we buy this argument? Transporting thousands of people in inhumane conditions during which many died in transit is not a crime? The engineer didn’t load the train. Or guard the train. He just drove the train. Should we therefore consider him guiltless?

    Oskar Gröning was there. He admits it. He was a member of the SS and a camp guard at Auschwitz. I am not interested in what he admits to doing. I am interested in what may be reasonably inferred from his admission. If the operation was fundamentally criminal, then his participation was fundamentally criminal. In any case, I don’t buy the “invisible functionary” line. It’s too convenient by half.

    The first purpose of punishment is retribution for the sake of the victim. It is never to late to exact retribution.

    • CliveM

      A strange construct perhaps. But a common one in law. Legality/justice and morality only occasionally coincide in the Justice System and then only accidentally.
      It is not rare that a person is innocent in the eyes of the law, but morally guilty.

      • carl jacobs

        It seems to me he is trying to divide the tasks of the SS into bins marked “legal” and “illegal” so that he can say “I will only admit to performing tasks in the ‘legal’ bin, and you can’t prove otherwise.” I don’t care if I can prove otherwise. The organization itself was criminal. Therefore, he is guilty.

        Assume I work for a drug cartel, and my job is to deposit money in the bank. Am I guilty of a crime?

        • CliveM

          I wouldn’t disagree. However simply being a member of the SS isn’t enough for a criminal conviction under German law (I believe!!). If so there is a former Pope and a recently dead German writer who would have been charged. There seems to also to need to have been some additional criminal activity. This use to be quite narrowly applied but as HG said this has changed. In 1980 he was not guilty of a crime, today he maybe. Obviously the moral position hasn’t changed, nor will it whatever the outcome of the trial.

          • carl jacobs

            But he wasn’t just a member of the SS. He was assigned to Auschwitz. To be there is to be guilty of the crimes of the camp.

          • CliveM

            That’s what the case will decide. As I said the law and the moral position don’t necessarily coincide. Let’s hope it does this time.

          • sarky

            Could he alone have stopped the atrocities? What would have been his punishment for disobeying orders?
            Don’t think it’s that clear cut.

          • CliveM

            He volunteered for the SS. He wanted to join an elite regiment.

          • carl jacobs

            “I was only following orders” is not a valid defense.

            He was a part of a criminal enterprise. He does not have (and does not deserve) the protection of a uniform. And I for one don’t want to try to parse lines between the guy who ordered the gas, the guy who transported the gas, and the guy who dropped the gas into the chamber.

          • sarky

            Agreed.

          • Watchman

            The people of the village of Bergen-Belsen knew of the existence of the concentration camp in the woodland adjacent to the village. Some of them would have provided goods and services, in whatever minor capacity, to the camp or the personnel working at the camp. In what way we’re they culpable? Should they have faced trial in the same way as the guards or is it only the wearing of a uniform which renders one guilty of the crime? Is knowledge of an atrocity without taking action against the atrocity evidence of guilt?

    • IanCad

      Retribution; Hmm? You talked about that a couple of weeks ago, as I recall.
      Didn’t sit too well with me. Made me a little discomfited. As had Edward Gibbon – somewhere in chapter fifty of Decline and Fall – if remember correctly.
      Be merciful; turn the other cheek, that’s what I’ve always said. I must admit it was always someone else’s mercy and cheek that I was contemplating. Not my own.
      I am bending, yielding, reconsidering. You may have the right of the matter.

      • carl jacobs

        The man turns the other cheek. The state does not. That difference is crucial. The Sermon on the Mount is not a political treatise.

        • IanCad

          Agreed.

  • dannybhoy

    This very much reminds me of the case of Ernest Saunders…

    “And there was Ernest, ashen faced, out on a day trip from Ford Open Prison
    where he was serving five years for fraud. An eminent neurologist was
    attempting to show, with the help of flip charts, diagrams and scans,
    that Ernest’s brain was abnormally small for a man of his age. It was
    showing shrinkage of the type normally associated with disease. “Well
    there you are,” whispered the man from the Sun. “Not even Ernest is
    capable of conning a brain scanner.” A few weeks later, Ernest was
    released, having served only 10 months of his sentence.

    Five years on and Ernest appears to have made a recovery so
    miraculous that he is now heading a consortium bid for Queen’s Park
    Rangers, the football team he first sponsored while chief executive of
    Guinness.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/profile-ernest-saunders-out-of-jail-and-back-in-business-1347932.html

    The man should go on trial regardless. This kind of “closing ranks and pulling strings” by the Establishment is why so many people have lost faith in our country.
    Chilcot anyone?

    • Anton

      Please clarify which man you mean in your last paragraph – Saunders, Janner, Gröning. I’m not clear.

      The problem is that Saunders did what is basically – if deplorably – normal practice in the City.

      Please don’t criticise Chilcot before his report is out. One of the better newspapers got hold of the key witnesses and asked them about their interrogations by Chilcot and his team. On the basis of that – and we have nothing else – the report is absolutely not going to be a whitewash, however long it takes. Which is likely to be long after the election, so conspiracy theories about John Chilcot and timing can be discounted.

      If Greville Janner really is senile (which should be more clearly verified) then he should not be tried. Equally, though, he cannot sue and so the people making allegations against him can have their day in the media and internet. I wish them well in that. And the case should obviously be added to the major enquiry into abuse that is currently gearing up.

      As for Gröning, he is not senile and I see no reason for a statue of limitation. There isn’t one in the Law of Moses, after all. The question is what, if anything, he should be charged with. Some of the charges at Nuremberg, such as “crimes against peace”, were no better than charges subsequently trumped up by communist regimes against dissenters.

      • dannybhoy

        I think what I was pointing out (although obviously 🙂 I failed), is that Ernest Saunders escaped serving his full jail sentence on the grounds of dementia. He then went on to make a full recovery.
        As I think it says in my link.
        Greville Janner could/should still be tried on the evidence regardless.
        If there is solid evidence that he did those things should it be covered up because he now has demetia?
        The point of mentioning Chilcot is that many people are baffled that it is taking so long for this report to be finished. One has to consider the deaths and injuries of so many young men ordered into a war which we now know was initiated in a dodgy pretext by a socialist prime minister who went on to make millions of pounds…
        I never said anything about the findings of the inquiry, but I think those young men and their parents and loved ones deserve better than this.
        Don’t you?

        • Anton

          Let’s not get rhetorical where we basically agree. I didn’t know who you meant because you said he should be “tried” and Saunders had been. Perhaps those who got him out of jail so quickly should be tried.

          Re Janner I would not wish to use one case to alter the precedent that a man who is mentally incompetent to defend himself should not be tried. But I certainly want to know just how incompetent he really is. And if he is then it cuts both ways as it is open season on him in the tabloids and the internet for any of his accusers. Were he to launch a civil action in response then the CPS could say he had proved himself competent and launch a criminal action against him.

          I’m sure that John Chilcot regrets the delay too, but reportedly much of it was due to stonewalling by Blair. That too might appear in the finished report.

          • dannybhoy

            No the point is that Saunders got out of jail using dementia as an excuse! I meant that Janner should go on trial too, regardless of his current state.
            As I said, this is where the Establishment closes ranks for one of their own. They always do because there’s lots of secrets shared and kept hidden..
            That’s how hierarchies function the world over and it won’t change this side of eternity.
            As regards Chilcot, if indeed it is Blair who is stonewalling then let Chilcot do something noble for those who died for nothing, and publicly say that is the case.
            I don’t see how the deaths and amputations of all those young men warrants anything less.

    • Busy Mum

      Pretending to be out of one’s right mind is an old trick!

      ” And David…was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath. And he changed his behaviour before them, and feigned himself mad in their hands, and scrabbled on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard.Then said Achish unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad; wherefore then have ye brought him to me?……” ! Samuel 21 v 12-15

      • The Explorer

        It is an old trick. Unfortunately, there are also a lot who are not pretending.

        • dannybhoy

          A lot who are being accused of crimes you mean, or as in the general population?

          • The Explorer

            Can’t speak for the accused, but before I became ill myself I did a stint visiting an old people’s home.

          • dannybhoy

            I am sorry to learn that you are ill Explorer. That’s very sad. I managed a sheltered housing scheme once, and I saw first hand the effects dementia has on people.

          • The Explorer

            I had heart failure last year, and nearly died. I’m recovering, but very slowly. It’s why I’m at the keyboard so much: one of the things I can do.

          • dannybhoy

            We are a bunch aren’t we?! You recovering from heart failure, me with COPD, Linus with a persecution complex and Clive with chronic baldness..
            As Tiny Tim might say, “God bless us, everyone!”
            ps
            I like your comments.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

          • CliveM

            Hmmm………. ;0(

          • Dreadnaught

            I take it you are bored with the topic; how insulting to chatter over such a serious well thought and presented OP.

          • dannybhoy

            Well I pretty much said what I thought was worth saying Dreadnaught. Other people here have different or deeper insights to share, and I’d only be repeating myself.
            But in any case we were talking about dementia and the Explorer let slip that he himself was ill. Tha’s important too I think.

          • Dreadnaught

            But in any case we were talking about dementia

            And totally off topic. That’s why the man redesigned his blog to include a chat-room.

          • Bless you. It’s a massively under-used resource.

          • Old Blowers

            You obsequious bootlicker *giggles*

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            You all need cheering up. How about afternoon tea at The Palace here in Barchester? I shall serve some of my special hobnobs and Signora Neroni can perform her ‘Cosi fan tutti.’ Mr. Slope would love to show Linus around (though a round what I have yet to determine…). We should however give serious thought to the piece above. What I don’t understand is why, if this man is deemed too ill to stand trial because he would not understand what was happening to him, is he allowed to be a part of the legislature and claim attendance allowance? Why indeed, if his proclivities were known about, was he given a peerage in the first place? Compassion is all well and good, but is their no compassion for the victims? Serious stuff to consider over hobnobs…I must bake Dundee cake instead.

          • CliveM

            Please not Dundee cake. Most indigestible. LemonDrizzle would be so much better.

          • carl jacobs

            One does not criticize Mrs Proudie’s baking. They still haven’t found the last person who did so.

          • dannybhoy

            Mrs Proudie.. a veritable force of nature.

          • CliveM

            I wasn’t criticising. I’m sure she makes splendid Dundee cake. It’s just I find Lemon drizzle so much nicer.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            My Dundees are exceedingly robust

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Ah dear Carl, just one of those Cathedral Close rumours I fear…I’m not sure if you can buy hobnobs on your side of the Pond, so I shall send you a batch immediately…

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Mr Slope has offered to whip up a Battenburg…

          • The Explorer

            I’ll bet he’s great at beating eggs.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Indeed Mr Explorer…but one is suddenly reminded of Johnny Craddock’s famous remark about his celebrity wife’s doughnuts…

          • The Explorer

            Mr Slope is presumably not interested in doughnuts like fannies. But I think we should stop deviating (in every sense) from the thread. There’s always the chat-up room for conversations like this.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Dear Mr Explorer, I fear you are quite right. These forums are no place for light-heartedness and banter, this one in particular. Time to graciously retire to the chat room – one does not wish to bring down His Grace’s wrath, and one commends him for his patience and charity with regard to his ‘foolish virgins’ ….

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            On the other hand…it is a goodbye. This forum has become very very serious and sometimes quite unpleasant. I have tried to find something positive in chaps like Linus but to be honest I can’t be arsed. It’s no longer fun. Goodbye then Mr Explorer, Clive, dear Inspector, Bluedog, Hannah, Happy Jack, Arvi et al…I’ve loved each and every one of you in my own way…hobnobs descend upon you all in abundance. To His Grace I say thank you for putting up with my whimsy…I have dipped out of here before, but this is really it dear things. My parting shot is to Linus; eat more bran with your snails, take your head out of your beau cul and reflect on the fact that the very people you abuse on this forum actual like you…proof positive of the British championing the underdog!

          • CliveM

            Mrs Proudie

            Don’t you dare leave us. I personally will miss you dreadfully. If this really is adieu (and I do hope I’ve mis-spelt it!!), please know you will be sorely missed and I will shed a tear.

          • bluedog

            You won’t give up on poor Dickie, will you?

          • Royinsouthwest

            I hope you go on to make a very good recovery.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you.

  • Busy Mum

    Convicting Janner would send out a very clear message that the courts are firmly of the opinion that boys under 16 should still have the full protection of the law.

    This message will not suit those who are pushing for a lower ‘age of consent.’

    Neither will it suit those who engineer the sex education program in schools, the general drift of which is that children ‘need to be fully informed so that they can keep themselves safe’. Convicting Janner would be an inconvenient reminder that the onus is still firmly on adults to behave themselves, rather than on children to protect themselves.

    • Watchman

      Doesn’t it strike as odd that HMG is seeking now to take the moral high ground in the courts whilst at the same time employing and encouraging Stonewall to corrupt even our primary school children by informing them of the activities of sodomites?

  • bmudmai

    What I want to understand is why Janner can’t be prosecuted because he is too ill to defend himself and yet Saville (as an extreme case) it’s deemed okay to prosecute. Is dead not too ill? When Janner dies will they prosecute him then?

    • The Explorer

      The Saville case rather puts a bomb under the maxim, “Don’t speak ill of the dead.”

      • CliveM

        Also there is no trial to determine guilt. There is an enquiry to work out how he got away with it for so long.

    • Busy Mum

      Maybe paedophilia will be acceptable by then and people who have been convicted by the, ahem, unenlightened prudish morality of the early 21st century will be receiving posthumous and/or retrospective pardons.

      • Guglielmo Marinaro

        What a weird fantasy! What makes you think that there’s any chance of it becoming a reality?

        • Busy Mum

          No doubt the notion of homosexual behaviour becoming acceptable would have been deemed a ‘weird fantasy’ a century ago.
          Likewise the notion of any sexual activity outside of marriage.
          These precedents – along with moves in that direction in places like Canada I believe – make me think it highly likely. On what basis do you think paedophiles should have to restrain their urges when absolutely nobody else is required to, either by social mores or the law? Isn’t that discriminatory?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            I would point out that, as attitudes to homosexual behaviour have become more enlightened and accepting, this most welcome development certainly has not been accompanied by more indulgent attitudes to paedophilic behaviour. Quite the contrary, in fact: attitudes have hardened. The legal penalties for sexually abusing children, a crime which has always been regarded with abhorrence by most of the public, have become more severe, and the vetting procedures designed to prevent paedophiles from getting into situations where they can commit offences of that kind have become ever more rigorous. The public reaction to the recent exposure of sexual offences committed by media celebrities, politicians etc. is ample evidence that a more tolerant view of paedophilia is not on the horizon.

            I would also point out that most heterosexual people, as well as some homosexual people, are themselves parents of children. With perhaps the exception of the small number of parents who are themselves sexual abusers, they will never regard paedophilic sex as acceptable, no matter how rational and civilized their view of homosexuality becomes.

            “On what basis do you think paedophiles should have to restrain their urges when absolutely nobody else is required to, either by social mores or the law?” Really? So those who wish to rape or strangle women, indecently to expose themselves in public places, or to spy on other people’s private and intimate activities without their consent – to take just a few examples – are not required to restrain their urges? I hadn’t realised that; I always thought that they were.

          • Busy Mum

            You say that “attitudes to homosexual behaviour have become more enlightened and accepting,”

            I think people have always accepted homosexual behaviour, it is the level of approval that has increased. This is as people have become less enlightened.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, my concept of enlightenment is clearly not the same as yours, but however that may be, the fact remains that the more modern attitude to normal consensual homosexual behaviour, whether you share it or not, has not caused or even coincided with a more permissive attitude to paedophile behaviour. Very much the contrary, in fact. Nor – even if some paedophiles and eccentric sympathizers are pleading for it, as they have now been doing for decades – is there any indication that such a development is in the slightest degree probable, and I have already explained why it is not.

            However, if you wish to suggest, as you seem to have done in the last paragraph of your previous post, that it is inconsistent and unfair to deny adults the right to have sex with children, I am sure that there are those who will be suitably grateful to you making that argument on their behalf.

          • Busy Mum

            You seem to be clear in your mind as to what the definition of ‘child’ is; the government is not.
            I do not believe anybody in the world has the right to sexual relations with anybody unless they have formally ananounced their union – married, as God intended marriage to be.

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Well, I’m sure that you will govern your own personal life by the light of your own beliefs. Quite right too, as long as you’re not harming anyone else or meddling with other people’s lives. It is right for others to have the freedom to do likewise.

          • Busy Mum

            Absolutely agree – maybe you are in a position to stop Stonewall meddling in everyone’s lives?

          • Guglielmo Marinaro

            Stonewall and similar organizations have done a very good and very necessary job, campaigning for equality, and against anti-gay bullying in schools, anti-gay discrimination and harassment at work, etc. It is not clear to me how Stonewall can now meaningfully be said to be meddling in everyone’s lives, although I have to concede that the latest CEO of Stonewall does strike me as being remarkably like a woman in search of a cause.

            I have no connection with Stonewall myself, except that I did, if my memory serves me, donate some money to help their campaign for the repeal of the pointless and ridiculous Section 28 – happily now just a distant memory. So no, I’m afraid that I am in no position to stop Stonewall from doing anything.

    • dannybhoy

      If they get their way they will prosecute when everbody involved in this scandal has passed away.
      If he did it, he didn’t do it on his own..

  • Dreadnaught

    At least the Nazi admits having a role in the genocide.
    What should be on trial is Jenner and the British Establishment. Both should be in the dock for being the embodiment of the betrayal of the fundamental priciples of both The Rule of Law and Democracy. As things stand, We the British People have become too complacent for the good of either.

    • bmudmai

      And at least he admits his involvement in a genocide unlike the Turks

  • The Explorer

    Jbmudmai’s question about Jimmy Savile seems to me an excellent one. As must be apparent, I know very little about the law. However:

    Jimmy Savile, being dead, isn’t able to answer questions in person; but his actions while alive can be investigated, and a verdict can be passed on them. His reputation for posterity can be altered, even though he can’t be otherwise punished.

    Greville Janner isn’t dead, but is unable to answer questions. But surely he could be treated in the same way as Savile? His actions could be investigated, and a verdict passed on them. His reputation for posterity could be altered.
    Three questions arise for me from this.

    1. If you can’t be prosecuted if you aren’t in a position to answer questions, then surely JImmy Savile’s reputation should have been left alone?
    2. If Janner were found guilty, could he be imprisoned? He might not know what was happening to him, but his victims would.
    3. Are there others involved, who don’t have dementia? Investigation of Janner might bring other names to light. So don’t investigate him, and any others involved can retain their anonymity. How far is compassion a factor in any decision not to prosecute?

    • CliveM

      1. Problem is a lot of people had worked to cover up his abuse. When ITV did the exposé the Police could not be trusted to deal with the issue. If we continued to hide Savilles name, how could those who aided and abetted, including covered up, be identified and investigated for possible criminal proceedings?
      2. I don’t know. I would have thought it likely if he really did suffer from advanced dementia he would be released.
      3. The purpose of the inquiry into the events surrounding Saville is to see what can be learnt going forward and also identify those who deliberately protected him and bring a criminal prosecution ( fat chance of that). Surely the same principle at least needs to apply to the Janner case. There does seem to be some evidence of cover up.

  • Inspector General

    Janner, one recalls, made front page news in the 1990s. If the evidence against him is so overwhelming, why was he not nailed by the police at the time? The Inspector demands that those policemen involved and the Crown Prosecutors who would have considered bringing a case be brought before him, in chains preferably. You see, those wicked individuals actively aided and abetted Janner, if culpable he be, by not pursuing him then. They were present at the time and are thus as guilty as any extermination camp clerk.

    • CliveM

      Agree totally.

      However would you like a little wager that no one in the police or crown prosecution service is charged with any crime relating to this case?

  • Inspector General

    The German has an entry in Wikipedia. It’s all there. It makes for harrowing reading, and that’s the Inspector saying that, so don’t go there without expecting the worst.

    The man wanted to join an elite fighting unit, like his grandfather had. Unfortunately, he chose the Waffen SS. Yet his highly nationalistic father was disappointed in him for doing that. He didn’t sign up to work in an extermination camp. He was sent there, and obliged to go through what is known as ‘soldiers obedience’, a valid legal defence strategy.

    He did not participate in the killings directly, so he says, and unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, we should accept that. Yes, he was there when it happened, but remember, he had no part in setting the place up. It was in full ‘production’ for want of a better word, before he arrived.

    He took on the holocaust deniers. We should all be grateful for that. It is unfortunate that because of this they have him now. He was born in the wrong place at the wrong time and made a bad discussion in joining the SS.

    There is one thing about the man that cannot be ignored. He harboured ill feeling towards the Jews at the time, and did not object to their deaths, although he is remorseful now, and begs their forgiveness for his involvement. A victim of NAZI propaganda at the time maybe. Should this add to his culpability? The crime of bad thought when a young man?

    • carl jacobs

      we should accept that.

      He was an SS guard at Auschwitz. I dont have to accept anthing he says.

      • Inspector General

        He denied the holocaust deniers. He stuck his neck out for the truth. How many of those involved did that? We’re not talking Mengale here…

        • carl jacobs

          What he does now is not relevant to what he did then. It is also not dispositive.

          A man does not erase his guilt before the law by confessing. The law does not exist to rehabilitate. It exists to measure out punishment.

          • Inspector General

            Though he broke no German law at the time. It would be different if after the war, survivors talked about the sadistic cashier who robbed them.

            Britons would recognise him as having turned “Queen’s Evidence”. In other words, his value as a witness far outweighs any perceived culpability. He’s an old man now, but there was a time when his accusers could have come forward and denounced him. Apparently, no one did.

          • carl jacobs

            And yet there are survivors at the trial who hope to see him convicted. He is an old man who carries a guilty secret. Age doesn’t lessen the guilt. Nor does it lessen culpability.

            The camp operated because ordinary men did ordinary things. Without them, it wouldn’t have been possible.

          • Dreadnaught

            He is an old man who carries a guilty secret.

            I have seen him in several documentaries where he showed contrition and remorse. He opened his guilty secret to the record and scrutiny when he must have been in his late forties and has indeed attacked Holocaust deniers on many occasions.
            Justice must decide whether his recantation ameliorates the ultimate punishment or allows him to stand as living testimony of the evil of which he was willingly a part.

          • Jack agrees but how can Carl when he clings to retributive justice as the only factor that counts?

          • carl jacobs

            Heh. “clings”

          • “The camp operated because ordinary men did ordinary things. Without them, it wouldn’t have been possible.”

            On that basis every German citizen and soldier is culpable for the crimes committed by Nazi Germany.

          • carl jacobs

            On that basis, everyone who served at Auschwitz is guilty. The point is this: “There is no such thing as benign service at such a camp.”

          • Dreadnaught

            The law does not exist to rehabilitate. It exists to measure out punishment

            That rather depends on who is dishing out the Justice carl.
            Lt. William Laws Calley, Jr. (bornJune 8, 1943) is a former United States Army officer found guilty of murdering
            22 unarmed South Vietnamese civilians in the My Lai Massacre on March 16, 1968, during the Vietnam War. After several reductions, Calley’s original sentence of life in prison was turned into an order of house arrest, but after three years, President Nixon reduced his sentence with a presidential pardon.

            A soldier in Calley’s unit named Paul Meadlo, after being
            jailed for contempt of court by the presiding judge, Reid W. Kennedy, reluctantly agreed to testify. In his testimony, Meadlo described that during the day’s events, he was standing guard over a few dozen My Lai villagers when
            Lt. Calley approached him and ordered him to shoot all the civilians. When Meadlo balked at the orders, Calley backed off 20 feet (6 m) or more and opened fire on the people himself, and Meadlo joined in. Another witness named Dennis Conti, who was also reluctant to testify, described the carnage, claiming that Calley had started it and the rest of the 105 soldiers of Charlie Company followed suit. Another witness, named Leonard Gonzalez, told of seeing one of the soldiers of Calley’s unit herd some men and women villagers together and order them to strip off their clothing. When the villagers refused, the enraged
            soldier fired a single round from his M-79 grenade launcher into the crowd, killing everyone
            .
            wiki

            It’s worth remembering that Calley was tried and pardoned by his own people in his own country – the families and Vietnamese government were given no say or consideration in the matter – not that if they had, would it have brought the bodies back to life.

          • carl jacobs

            Dreadnaught

            I am not sure what you point is. That law is often not properly enforced? I agree. What has that to do with the points I have made?

          • Dreadnaught

            It was in response to your statement that the law exists to punish. That is true in part only. The law is blind. It exists to govern societal behavour by delivering a just verdict based on the establishment of evidence of guilt beyond doubt. In addition I was making the point with the Calley reference that the US in this case was not acting as a paragon of judicious virtue.
            There are occasions when our own systems of justice can in reality, be less than just and influenced by expediency – especially in time of war.

            A suspended punishment on Groeining I feel would be just in balnce to his contrition and value as an example of a civilised society in peace-time over the one in which conditioned him to act as he did.

          • Carl, judicial punishment serves a number of purposes. It seeks to defend society against the criminal; it endeavours to rehabilitate the criminal, and it seeks retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by crime. In addition, it serves as a deterrence.

            A secular state has authority that serves to maintain a just order in the temporal sphere. The CCC gives a good summary and states:

            Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.”
            [CCC: 2266]

            It seems to Jack in the circumstances to peruse ‘justice’ now against Oskar Gröning is more about vengeance and less about appropriate retributive justice.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack

            Could you tell me the difference between retribution and revenge in your mind?

            judicial punishment serves a number of purposes.

            It does not therefore follow that law has multiple essential purposes. The law has three components:

            1. Established boundaries on behavior.
            2. Specified punishments for transgressing the boundaries.
            3. A lawfully empowered agent to enforce the boundaries and impose the punishments.

            You could remove the purpose of rehabilitation from law and still have law. You could remove the purpose of protection from law and still have law. You could remove the purpose of pedagogy from law and still have law. You cannot remove enforcement & punishment from the law and still have law. Without enforcement & punishment, there is no law. That is why international “law” is a fiction.

  • Inspector General

    One has come across some interesting information regarding one of the 800 drowned migrants, and has posted on Cranmer’s thread about it. You know the Inspector is not wasting your time when he says you should all read it…

  • DanJ0

    “What satisfaction of justice can there be for the eyes and ears of the atheist?”

    One ought to accept what is, not what one would it to be.

    • Royinsouthwest

      We are all agreed about that and if God is, I.e. exists, we will all know one day.

  • Well if Lord Janner was fit enough to be signing official papers only a
    few weeks ago, and if he’s fit enough to still attend the HOL which
    is what he was writing to the Lords clerk about informing that he wants to remain a serving peer, then he can stand trial. We owe it to the
    victims. Anyway a trial can go ahead without him in person.

    • Old Blowers

      ” Anyway a trial can go ahead without him in person.”
      Indeed. Saville has been found guilty of pernicious crimes without being present (after death) so why not Janner. It seems politicians really do own a get out and stay out of jail card!

      • One could always dig up Saville’s corpse and hang, draw and quarter him. There are precedents for this.

        • Old Blowers

          Who on earth could you be pointing to???? Is there some sort of CATeCHism to your response*Chuckles*

          • Jack was thinking of the rotting corpse of Pope Formosus being exhumed and put on trial in the “Cadaver Synod” in January 897. Formosus was found guilty and his papacy retroactively declared null. A most bizarre episode.

          • The Explorer

            One trial, presumably, in which the outcome was a dead certainty.

          • True – Formosus’s skeleton didn’t have the guts to mount a defence.

          • Anton

            His “skeleton didn’t have the guts…”

            Brilliant! But didn’t someone reply on his behalf, as I recall reading?

          • bluedog

            It was also the fate of John Wycliff, courtesy of the Roman Church. It would have been so much simpler if the responsible prelate had simply driven a stake through Wycliff’s heart.

      • And that’s not right at all.

      • CliveM

        Apart from by the Press, Saville has not been found guilty of anything. There have been no trials.

    • Darter Noster

      I find it difficult to see what could be gained by prosecuting Oskar Groning. The guy was a clerk, and a reluctant one at that. He never sought a position in the concentration camp service and he repeatedly tried to get out of it. No evidence has ever been found to contradict that, and he has never denied what he did at Auschwitz; I remember him from miscellaneous documentaries talking about his time there, and he has tackled Holocaust denial head on. John Demjanjuk, who died a couple of years ago, was a different matter; he had been a guard at Sobibor and Majdanek, and had been identified by eyewitnesses as being one of the most brutal. Or if they’d ever got hold of Alois Brunner, Eichmann’s assistant, who was number one on the Wiesenthal Centre’s hit list and is believed to have died a few years ago in Syria, then fair enough. But Groning seems like a soft target somehow.

      As for Janner, as Marie1797 suggests his dementia seems to have come on very suddenly. There was another man accused of similar crimes recently, I forget who, who suffered from the later stages of Alzheimer’s until just after he’d been ruled unfit to stand trial, then seemed to make a miraculous recovery; calls for a review of that decision are ongoing.

      • Darter Noster

        Hans Munch, who died in 2001, is an interesting comparison. He was an Auschwitz doctor who died in 2001. Of 41 Auschwitz personnel tried at the end of the war, he was the only one to be acquitted on all charges, largely because of the number of former inmates who testified in his defence. He is said to have refused to conduct selections for the gas chambers and to have systematically faked human medical experiments as a means of rescuing people from the gas chambers.

        Shortly before he died, he was recorded making controversial remarks, and there were calls for his prosecutIon for his role at Auschwitz, but the remarks were said to have been made under the influence of dementia when he did not know what he was saying. He too tackled Holocaust denial head-on, as a colleague of Mengele and a witness to gassings in Birkenau.

        Should he have been prosecuted?

        • carl jacobs

          Should he have been prosecuted?

          According to your report, Hans Munch took positive steps to renounce the conspiracy. This was established by the testimony of survivors. So, no, he should not have been prosecuted. If you can find similar testimony about Oskar Gröning, then I will concede your point.

          But the attitude expressed on this thread seems to be “We believe he genuinely changed his mind. He should therefore not be punished.” That is not a sufficient reason.

      • CliveM

        With regards Janner, as their hasn’t been a trial would I not be right in saying that if he does recover, the Crown Prosecution Service could revisit the decision? Or is that not allowed?

      • Watchman

        “I find it difficult to see what could be gained by prosecuting Oskar Groning”
        Perhaps you should visit the scapegoat theory. Germany are running out of scapegoats on whom they can lay their guilt and this incident shows that the guilt still remains. I suspect that if they could resurrect the dead and prosecute them they would do so.

  • Raped boys still bear the mark of Janner
    Allegedly. The man is innocent under British law until proven guilty. If he is unable to plead or to defend himself then the trial cannot proceed. No such restriction apply in the case of Groning, but given his age, he may well not survive until the end of his trial and even if found guilty, he is unlikely to serve a full sentence.
    .
    However, as your Grace almost says, both these men will soon stand before a higher court than any in this world, where there will be no possible error in the verdict.

    • Watchman

      Your last paragraph, Martin, reminded me of the testimony of Captain Gereker of the U.S. Army and chaplain to the high profile prisoners and the Nuremberg trials. The majority of these men, all strategists of the Holocaust, accepted the Blood of Jesus as the sacrifice for their sins prior to their execution. Was their execution the final penalty for their sin?

      • sarky

        Oh great, so these vile excuses for human beings get to live it up in eternity! While many of their victims burn in hell.
        And you talk about god being the ultimate justice in the universe. It stinks.

        • Watchman

          I’m not sure to whom your ire is being directed, sarky. I am not the creator. Please direct your remarks to Him; or better still, take advantage of His offer of eternity with Him while it still stands. There’s no point shouting “unfair” if the same offer is available to you. Jesus’ death also paid the price for your sins.

          • sarky

            Might just go and do a bit of genocide first, have something to really repent for.

          • Watchman

            I’m sure you’ve already done enough to need to repent. Genocide isn’t considered compulsory.

          • sarky

            Not me, I’m an angel 😉

        • Anton

          Read of hell and wish nobody there, Sarky. But some of us believe that everybody deserves it.

          • sarky

            I dont believe in it!

          • Anton

            I know you don’t. But you have the imagination to understand how ghastly it is depicted as, or you wouldn’t have written above, “so these vile excuses for human beings get to live it up in eternity! While many of their victims burn in hell.”

          • sarky

            It’s just a bedtime story to scare children and the gullible into being good.

          • Anton

            We would never make up a bedtime story that sent a considerable proportion of our families and friends to a terrible place.

          • sarky

            Even if it won you converts?

          • Anton

            Conversion should be about what one believes to be true. The fact that it is also believed to be of personal advantage is a happy corollary.

          • sarky

            Hmm

          • Anton

            Remember also that when we convert we have to stop sinning. I found some kinds of sinning to be rather fun. We are in this for what we believe to be true.

          • sarky

            Havn’t met a christian yet who stopped sinning!!!!!!

          • Anton

            You won’t, either; the Bible acknowledges that (1 John 1:8). The final change to perfection comes later (1 Corinthians 15:52). But you should find that we sin less after conversion.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            It doesn’t, as you demonstrate.

        • Your attitude is exactly that of the Pharisees (Luke 15:2 etc.). The fact that there is grace for men like that means that there is also grace for men like you. So down on your knees with you and repent like they did.

  • Inspector General

    The more one considers the case of Janner, the more one feels a miscarriage of justice has taken place. Martin Bormann was tried ‘in absentia’, and Savile didn’t even get a trial. Both found guilty by the overwhelming evidence against them.

    The Inspector is minded as to wonder if Janner was tried, in all his supposed feebleness, what nasty truths about the investigation, or lack of one, from a quarter of a century ago, would turn up. It is not beyond possibility that those concerned have not yet departed this life…

    • Darter Noster

      And who the hell was protecting Cyril Smith?

      What did he know that caused anyone who knew about his habits to be threatened with the Official Secrets Act if they tried to prosecute him?

      My father sat behind Cyril Smith at a wedding once; he said he couldn’t see anything thanks to the fat b*****d.

      • Inspector General

        There is a body of evidence emerging that predatory homosexual politicians….

        Well, you know the rest. These blighters are high up. Seemingly too high to bring down. No wonder Pink News won’t touch this…

        • Anton

          Won’t they? That’s very interesting.

          • Inspector General

            To be expected. It’s gay news for the gay community, but not bad news, apparently…

    • CliveM

      Where has Saville been found guilty?

      • Inspector General

        The mob found him guilty. If you want to stand in front of the mob and question that, you’re on your own…

        • CliveM

          I would expect a firmer stand from you Inspector! :0)

    • IanCad

      Spot On!

      Public Schools and Rugby.
      That may well be where the rot set in.
      Ooops! nearly forgot! The Royal Navy.

    • Alison Saunders’ decision has to be challenged.

  • len

    It is a rather sobering thought that nobody escapes the ultimate Judge though they might have though’ they got away with it’ down here.
    Unless of course Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour and He stood in your place and took the punishment for your sins .
    But there seems to be one law’ for them’ and another’ law for us’ in society at the moment and I thought ‘Justice’ was blind….apparently not.

  • Dreadnaught
  • Martin

    Of course the CPS has history, in that it failed to prosecute those who forged the forms for abortions and failed to prosecute over those who illegally approved abortions on the basis of the gender of the child.

    As some have said, it is not unknown for those deemed unfit to stand trial, or prison sentence, to make a seemingly miraculous recovery once the danger has passed.

    All in all, can we trust the CPS, especially when it has shown itself willing to persecute Christians.

  • Manfarang

    The Nazi was at Auschwitz.This is proven fact.
    The Zionist…….well there you go.
    We are in a middle of an election with a Labour party sending out emails to its supporters making appeals based on envy and class hatred.(Tories sending out appeals based on greed and selfishness?)
    It’s against this background this case must be understood.The allegations are unproven and are probably packs of lies.Does England do stalinist showtrials?