How stuff works: Greville Janner, his son. his friend and the DPP

The more we hear about this Greville Janner business the worse it gets.  Now it turns out that a key individual advising the Director of Public Prosecutions on the case is a former colleague of Greville Janner's barrister son, Daniel Janner QC.

I first noticed this latest twist in a Guardian article which focused mostly on the fact that whilst supposedly being to incapable to understand legal proceedings Lord Janner was apparently able to write to David Beamish, the clerk of the parliaments a letter received on 9 April:

The peer wrote: “I am writing to request Leave of Absence from the House of Lords for the duration of the 2015 Parliament. I understand that this will take effect on the next sitting day.”

The letter was signed by Lord Janner, but the signature has been blanked out by the House of Lords to avoid any risk of ID theft. Below, someone has printed “Lord Janner of Braunstone” on the bottom of the letter.

Asked whether Janner’s signature on the letter warranted further inquiries given the public outcry over whether he is fit to stand, a House of Lords spokesman said: “The signature on the form matches the signature of Lord Janner of Braunstone. There is nothing for the Clerk of the Parliaments to investigate.”

Janner also wrote to Beamish on 3 October to indicate that he wished to go on leave of absence, the spokesman said.

So the man who we are told requires round the clock care was able to write a letter requesting a leave of abence from the House of Lords.

But it gets worse. From the same article:

It also emerged on Monday that Saunders sought advice on Janner from a CPS barrister who recently worked in the same chambers as the Labour politician’s son. Neil Moore QC, Saunders’ principal legal adviser, was based at 23 Essex Street chambers with Daniel Janner QC until late last year.

A CPS spokesman said: “Saunders made the decision not to prosecute on her own and Moore had told her he had been in chambers with Lord Janner’s son before discussing the case.”

Got that?  The DPP's advisor told the DPP that he was a former colleague of Greville Janner's son and then gave her advice that led to her deciding that her advisor's former colleague's dad should not face trial.  I wonder how different her treatment of his advice would have been if he hadn't declared his interest.  Actually I'm left wondering if the declaration of interest was the advice....

Günter Grass and Greville Janner: Compare and Contrast?

At least I think that's what today's Jewish Chronicle editorial has done without actually naming Greville Janner.  See this:

He was only a Nazi

Gunter Grass may have had literary merit but he was also a Nazi, having served proudly and freely as a member of the Waffen SS. This fact was simply swept aside as inconvenient by many of the arts establishment in their gushing tributes. The BBC’s arts editor, Will Gompertz, briefly referred to his Nazi past as having caused “controversy” before returning to Grass’ literary magnificence. Had he been found to have been a paedophile, one imagines the tone would have been rather different.[my emphasis - obviously]

Now if the JC had Lord Janner in mind then I can think of lots to contrast with Günter Grass and not a lot to compare but what on earth was the JC thinking?