The Telegraph — a lazy disingenuous editorial from a failing newspaper

There is a deeply political editorial in today’s Telegraph that I think needs rebuttal. They chose not to contact me for a view on the Janner case. Had they done so I would have told them how appalled I was at the decision. Despite tweeting support for the survivors who have been denied justice, the Telegraph did not reflect this in their editorial.

For what it’s worth, the IPSO Editors’ Code says:

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Whilst the Telegraph chose not to ascertain my views before publication, I guess they must think is is acceptable to attack me in an editorial because this is what they call “comment”. You can make up your own mind if you think that is fair.

Anyway, the editorial is in italics:

There was a strange silence in some quarters yesterday over the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to bring charges for child sex abuse against Lord Janner. Although a police investigation uncovered enough evidence to bring the Labour peer to trial, he was judged unfit on grounds of advanced dementia. If Lord Janner is ill — and we must take the diagnosis of four doctors at face value (though the police are not convinced) — then it would have been wrong to put a sick octogenarian in the dock. But the allegations were first made against Lord Janner many years ago, when he was perfectly compos mentis; so why weren’t charges brought against him then, or subsequently?

It is vital that we understand why previous inquiries failed. I said that yesterday.

When similar accusations were levelled against Conservative politicians, such as the late Lord Brittan, Labour MPs such as Tom Watson were quick to accuse past Tory governments of a cover-up. Yesterday, when one of their own was in the spotlight, little could be heard by way of reproach from the usual group of self-styled paedophile hunters.

This is why details and context are important. I have spoken directly to survivors of Leon Brittan. I have not spoken directly to any survivors of Lord Janner. I have received second hand intelligence regarding him. All relevant information is shared with the police. Had the Telegraph asked me I would have told them this.

The level of intelligence regarding Brittan that was in my personal possession is much greater than that of Janner. So whilst I could speak out with confidence about Brittan I have chosen not to do so in other cases, including those that allege crimes by other political opponents.

To repeat: I have shared intelligence with the police regarding politicians from at least three political parties including my own.

I have never styled myself as a “paedophile hunter”. If I am hunting anything it is an explanation of how child abuse cases were covered-up. Presumably the Telegraph now believe that cover-ups did take place?

No one asked, for instance, why Lord Janner was ennobled by Tony Blair, given that in 1991 he was named as an abuser in the trial of a predatory children’s home owner, Frank Beck.

Until this morning I was not aware of the sheer number of survivors making allegations against Janner. I don’t speak for Tony Blair but I assume he wasn’t either. I am assuming that like the Telegraph at the time, he had been assured the allegations from the earlier case were spurious. If they had doubts they would have published them at the time, right? Here’s a tip for the Telegraph editor though: why don’t you ask Tony Blair what he knew?

He dismissed it as a slur and was supported by fellow Leicestershire MPs, notably Keith Vaz. Three previous police investigations failed to find enough evidence to prosecute him; only now has a “strong case” apparently been constructed, which raises serious questions over past decision-making.

Well done Telegraph. You’re nearly there. We need to uncover the facts of historic cases. You know that’s what a number of MPs have been calling for the last 18 months, right?

Of course, Lord Janner, like everyone else, is innocent until proved guilty and these allegations will never be tested in court. But those in the Labour Party who have carelessly alleged conspiracy and cover-up when Tories have been implicated should think twice before doing so in future.

There were cover ups. I’m assuming the Telegraph like the rest of the country understand this as an undisputed fact. Police officers themselves have alleged that investigations were closed down.

As for “carelessly alleged conspiracy” — the definition of conspiracy is “a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal”. It’s hard not to conclude that the failed scrutiny of Smith, Janner, Brittan and Morrison and others did not involve secret planning and more than two people. It certainly caused harm and probably involved illegality.

There was a conspiracy to cover up child abuse. Each case is different but the general picture is clear. The British state let powerful people get away with crimes that others wouldn’t get away with.

Thinking twice about alleging conspiracy and cover-up? Believe me, I think about it a lot of the time. It took months of interviews, reading and research, fact-checking, cross-referencing and reviewing to conclude that something very dark happened over many years that ruined the lives of many children.

Perhaps the Telegraph editor should ask himself this: As one of the most powerful newspapers in the country, employing hundreds of professionally trained journalists, could the Telegraph have done more to get to the truth?