Lord Janner

Is this the one you mean, Iam64?

theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/full-leicestershire-police-statement-on-perverse-janner-decision/

Surely a trial will uncover more people who were involved at the time regardless of whether the defendant has dementia or not.

Lord Janner - still deemed fit to make our Laws, to sit in the HOL and collect his £300 for passing Go, BUT, not fit to stand trial under the Laws that he helped to formulate. WTF?

Thanks for that link whenim64, but no the one I read is the full statement issued by the CPS.

Sorry, that was the police statement. This is the CPS statement on the decision not to prosecute. Found it on Twitter.

theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/official-cps-statement-the-decision-not-to-prosecute-lord-janner-statement-from-the-dpp/

Thanks whenim64 - I'll have to up my technical skills. The list of alleged offences in that document turn the stomach don't they.

Astonishing! There are plenty of sex offenders with convictions, despite having impaired cognitive ability and being unable to comprehend what they have done. Equally, there are plenty of old, sick and terminally ill sex offenders serving prison sentences. Prisons are having to extend facilities for elderly, frail and infirm sex offenders.

I note that the statement says he presents no risk of further offending. To put it crudely, only dead paedophiles with convictions present no risk of further offending!

CPS being leaned on, obviously, given that they found at first that there were grounds to prosecute. Twitter very active with protests about the decision not to prosecute, from professionals who know their stuff.

“@mwilliamsthomas: CPS felt evidence test was met to charge & prosecute #LordJanner with 22 serious sexual offences against 9 males twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/588647585331707904/photo/1”

I think you have hit the nail right on the head there Tegan Someone, somewhere is very afraid of what might come out at a trial and this is a pretty good way of keeping it all quiet.

The whole think stinks to high heaven.

There is also the deterrence aspect. Those tempted to give in to their unfortunate leanings and commit offences against children need to know that nothing, nothing at all, will prevent them serving their punishment if they are proved in a court to have committed such offences - not power, money, age infirmity - nothing.

This is interesting. Comes from Children Have Rights campaigning group, who subscribe to the view that government/establishment coverups are dictating what or whether info gets out.

www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sl7mdf

Any probs with the link, look for Children Have Rights or Mark Williams Thomas, on Twitter. They and others aren't going to let this rest.

The children who were assaulted by this man had 'no idea what was going on or why they were where they were' . His victims need to see that society judges what was done to them was wrong. Present and future pedophiles need to see this man held to account.

This is very interesting, and reminds me of the efforts made to ridicule the allegations of 'satanic abuse' being made in a notorious investigation in Nottingham in the 1980s when several adults from one estate were convicted and imprisoned. The allegations made by a number of children described sexual abuse 'parties' organised in important public buildings by people in authority but all of these were 'investigated' and 'disproved', with foster carers and social workers lambasted for putting ideas into children's heads. There were similar cases in other areas of the country. I wonder whether there will be any move to reassess those allegations in the light of what is now coming to light. I think we might well be truly horrified at the extent and scale of abuse and coverup that has gone on.

That's an interesting thought night owl. I didn't work in Nottingham or Rochdale but had lengthy involvement with children who alleged they'd been trafficked/sexually abused by adults who used ritualistic/satanic abuse as a means of controlling them. I'll never forget the 3 year old who threw a glass of ribena at the wall, whilst pleading with us not to make him 'drink blood'.

Mishap your post at 13.55.06 hits the nail on the head. No-one should ever, ever, be protected from prosecution in this way. The victims' stories need to be heard; I don't care whether Lord Janner is fit to stand trial - the trial should be held anyway, not least in order to prevent this vile man from going to his grave with a 'clean slate'. His evil must be proved in court, his wrongdoings accounted for, for all to see - including his family who have claimed that the allegations are unfounded.
But I would go further and say that anyone who has been instrumental in covering up his heinous crimes in the past and standing in the way of a full and proper investigation leading to trial, should be brought to book and prosecuted as well. I don't care how important or old they are; everyone must be held accountable in law for their actions, everyone, top down.

Apparently 4 psychiatrists have assessed his fitness to stand. 2 for each side and all agreed he is not fit to stand. What is the point in a very long trial in which the defendant does not understand what is going on? A trial is essentially about the person on trial and the establishment of guilt. So I guess we have to think - if he had had a serious head injury, or a massive stroke that impaired his cognitive abilities would it be appropriate under our legal system to take him to trial?

Unlike the Guinness trial, Janner has had the diagnosis for several years. I think we have to accept that he is not fit to stand but I can understand why the police are furious because they have gathered the evidence.

I think the real issue here is the cover-up and whether powerful men can potentially get away with this kind of thing in future. Several of the victims reported crimes years ago and they were let down by the system. Possibly Janner could have been stopped.

An eminent judge from NZ is conducting an enquiry and now that this case has hit the buffers with the legal system she will be able to get stuck into the cover up aspect. I hope she prioritises the politicians and police rather than Saville and the star-struck BBC.

As to the victims, of course we feel terribly sorry for them, but would going through the court system really help or is this just what the media keep telling them? Do court cases act as therapy? (You might have an answer Whenim64). I sometimes think the news media like the idea because it makes a good story for them with a beginning, a very public middle when all the details of the case are revealed (fodder for press) and an end - the victim gets their day in court, achieves 'closure' and achieves some kind of redemption.

I guess we might spare a thought for his family, who must be going through a difficult time, through no fault of their own.

Whilst I appreciate that he may be too ill to stand trial. Why should he be allowed to die in dignity with an unblemished name?

I don't have an answer Jess. Court cases are bruising to say the least and it may be that speaking to the child abuse enquiry would bring more satisfaction about being heard and believed. I am sceptical about Janner, having experienced court cases involving many older, frail sex offenders whose diagnoses have subsided considerably after conviction.

All this discussion now but he could have been prosecuted years ago before he had dementia!

I havent been able to stand the phrase "not in the public interest" for many years.
In my opinion, it has been used by higher ups to quieten the general public. And to that end, has been hugely successful.

I think that now that there is social media, the general public are no longer quiet. And rightly so. And wont be fobbed off.

I think that all the old cases that were "not in the public interest" should be reopened and reexamined.

The point, JessM, is justice. Pure and simple.
I agree with AshTree.

I suppose, going back to Ana's point, that the man may have no means of defending himself if he does have dementia.
Perhaps it is not a court case that is needed, but another due process [I dont know much about law, so dont know if such a thing exists currently].

I understand the strong feelings on this thread but am appalled at the facile dismissal of the legal principle of being fit to stand trial. I absolutely accept that symptoms can be fabricated but how can it be argued in this case that the four psychiatrists opinion should be ignored? What sort of society would this make us? Like the States where young black men with severe learning disabilities are executed? Where women suffering from severe post partum psychosis are imprisoned for harming their babies? It is a fundamental principle of justice that an accused person is able to participate in his/ her trial, understand what is going on and instruct his/her defence team. The real issue here is why in three occasions he was not charged. Ana and Jess - excellent posts.

The phrase "not in the public interest" needs to be abolished.

There never seem to be many legal people on gransnet.
I think that the site could do with some.