Passing the buck on Lord Janner?

Another weekend – and yet more evasion and obfuscation from most of those who could/should have been involved in bringing Lord Janner to trial on charges of child sex abuse.

I have already examined the language used by Alison Saunders, who is in charge of the English and Welsh prosecution service (CPS) https://deceivingus.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/the-evasive-language-of-alison-saunders/

https://deceivingus.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/the-evasions-of-alison-saunders-continued/

But now more people are coming out of the woodwork; and the language used by those involved is revealing – this doesn’t of course prove who is telling the truth but it is interesting that some involved are keen to speak clearly while others are not.

I am grateful to The Sunday Times, which spoke to three crown prosecutors who were among those accused of missing chances to bring Janner to court.

Kate Carty said: “I have no knowledge of it… I am not able to comment further.” Martin Howard was “aware” of an investigation into Janner but said that the police “never spoke to me about it, or referred anything direct to me.” Janet Meek said that “the decision not to prosecute was not taken by me” and cited the Official Secrets Act as a reason not to discuss the case.

Carty: “I have no knowledge of it” – these are the words of a person being excessively defensive in their use of language – it leaves a nice escape route if something else emerges.

Howard: “referred anything direct” – of course that leaves him a let out if something was “indirect.” Again the structure of words seems strange and defensive.

Meek: Her use of the Official Secrets Act. Well, I am not a lawyer but the Sunday Times found a CPS prosecutor who doubted if this was an appropriate use of the Act.

Then there is her use of multiple nots and particularly her use of the passive in saying that “the decision not to prosecute was not taken by me.” Interestingly this suggests that a decision not to prosecute was taken by someone. And it is intriguing that she hides herself at the end of the sentence rather than saying: “I did not take….” – this is the natural way to formulate a sentence.

The way the prosecutors speak is a contrast to the language of those on the other side of the argument. Former detective Kelvyn Ashby said that he was not allowed to arrest an MP. His words are clear and precise and use natural forms of the English sentence construction

The same applies to Peter Wanless’s letter to Saunders and the comments of the Labour MP Simon Danczuk as they added to the pressure for more information to be released about who was responsible for the decision not to prosecute Janner.

I know which evidence I would find more compelling if I was sitting in the jury.

As the Daily Mail so aptly put it on Saturday: “Janner: The stench grows.”

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Passing the buck on Lord Janner?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s