Lord Janner

Definitely the right decision that Jenner should be charged and a court make the decision about whether a trial or a fact finding (I don't think that's the right term, but it'll do) take place. He ought to have been charged in 1991 and the way in which he was welcomed into the HoC when the decision was taken not to charge him was disgusting imo.

Frank Beck was the 70/80's.

That's how long some of them have waited.

It smacks of one law for them, the establishment, and another law for the rest of us.
Too many people have allegedly and actually been protected from their actions by virtue of who they are.
They have been public figures holding numerous prestigious posts and allegedly getting away with vile crimes.
People must have known and did nothing about it. They are also guilty and perhaps can also have a day in court.
The case of Frank Beck in 1991 led to Lord Jenner being interviewed but apparently there was insufficient evidence.

Needless to say I am hoping that the men who have suffered the abuse and mental trauma for decades will have their voices heard in court at last. They have been backed by the police but the establishment in one way or another has closed the door on their work for years.

The ' Victims' Right to Review Scheme' established in 2013 has given them the go ahead at long last to establish the truth, something they have wanted for so long .

They deserve that at least!

petra, why do you think he is the 'sacrificial lamb'? These allegations have been around since the 70s.

Lord Jenner has held many roles in public life beside being an MP and member of the House of Lords. He was also chairman of the Board of British Jews between 1978 and 1984.

Let's hope this opens the door for other allegations to be investigated within the eyes of the public.

He won't be appearing in court. The case will be tried on evidence with him needing to appear apparently.

Yes Nellie I remember that case well.

So Janner is to be the sacrificial lamb. That'll keep the plebs quiet ( that's 'us', by the way)

Who was it who was diagnosed with dementia when facing a court hearing and appeared to recover? Ah! this is who. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders

theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/19/janner-request-to-keep-seat-in-lords/
So if Janner can still want to sit in the Lords and make decisions why can he not stand trial?

We need to show that this country will not allow the establishment to ignore alleged offences by trying to protect any persons accused from facing a full enquiry. If they have done nothing wrong they have nothing to fear. The alleged victims need to feel that their concerns have been addressed.
The "Historic abuse enquiry" is set up to look at the evidence. There is still a lot of suspicion about others in the "British establishment" being involved in sexual abuse of children they surely all cannot develop dementia. These concerns have already been raised and in the public domain.

The right decision I think.

Thank goodness. Wonder if this had anything to do with the public protests or with the Scottish threat that they might prosecute anyway?

Quite right, too.

Janner's being prosecuted after all....

What is wrong with Pax and calling it quits? The analogy of terriers at rabbit holes springs to mind!

Soutra. It matters if you feel offended.

Can you guys stop scoring points off each other? OK you may both have a point, but does it matter that much?

MP.Simon Danczuk has certainly got the bit between the teeth today with his letter with 'cross party' alliance from the Lords.

Eloethan,

In response to your post to me Sat 18th 11.13 it might not have escaped a few posters notice on other threads I am getting mighty fed up having every word I say analysed by one or two posters so in response to your post and to make you happy I will say Labour MP Simon Danczuk, Labour Lord Janner, Conservative Leon Briton, Liberal Cyril Smith just to show it is not party political on my part as you sate.

I would have thought had you read my posts you could determine that I have a sincerity about the handling of this case and the subsequent trauma which I know has blighted the lives of the boys/men that were involved.

That all sounds very reassuring, not.

What possible reason could there be for any person to arrange for someone without mental capacity to retain a seat in the House of Lords?

And why would the House of Lords go along with it, as they have no doubt heard about said mental incapacity?

If it's all to do with humouring him, why should they? It wouldn't be done for anyone in a normal job, they'd just be out on their ear.

Ana. Janners son is a Barrister. And not just any old Barrister, his chambers are the ones who advise CPS.

Here's hoping the British Justice system cares about Janner's victims.

<wanders completely off the point>

But anyway - we shouldn't have the HoL

Perhaps the matter of parliamentary expenses and allowances was part of the reason for the letter being sent? Janner and his family will, of course, have expert 'advisors'.

But if he's really got dementia, someone must have poa and could have written on his behalf to the HoL to explain the situation and that he wouldn't be coming back. His family need to have a good think about what is going on