Lord Janner

Agree GrannyTwice! And, I get the 'not in the public interest' angle too. Yes, little would be served by having a sham trial but I feel it is wrong for there not to be some sort of enquiry (like Saville) to discover the names of other people who were involved in both the crime and the cover-up. The other names involved might still be alive and fit to be prosecuted.

I said further ^ that Janner, and people like him, did not care that the people they abused were vulnerable while they were going about their evil acts and it does seem wrong that they should not be brought to trial.

The victims have suffered enough and deserve to be heard since they have been brave enough to come forward.

As a bit of a side issue, two of my friends (and their families) have had very nasty sexual encounters with people suffering from dementia who were deemed to be 'not a threat'.

I suppose, Grannytwice the anger about him not being charged and tried stems from him committing offences when he was not mentally fragile and was able to ride roughshod over any attempts to bring him to justice, whereas vulnerable people who commit offences whilst not functioning mentally can be seen with compassion for their circumstances at the time of the offence. Having said that, some people with learning disabilities have sufficient capacity to know right from wrong and do go through trials.

I don't hold with the death penalty whatever the circumstances.

Can there be a public enquiry for someone who is not dead?

I've often noticed that, when people are in the early stages of dementia they can become an exagerrated [sp]version of their true self so I presume that Lord Janner might have dropped his guard somewhat with regards to some aspects of his life. I've known home helps/district nurses etc have to visit some elderly patients in twos because of unwanted advances from them. As for business about 'not being in the public interest' I'm wondering who these 'public' people are, because if I'm a member of the 'public' I want an investigation into this please.

I did say severe learning disabilities. But the point I was making with my examples is that we have, rightly, a very robust standard, at least in principle, about fitness to plead at the time of the trial. But anyway, I absolutely agree that there should be an enquiry ( how many does that make sadly?) into why he was not charged earlier - the CPS and the Police both have questions to answer. I don't think its at all relevant that he was compos mentis when he allegedly commited the offences - it has no bearing on the principle of being fit to plead now.

What has happened to the other stuff re Leon Brittain and his cohorts? What a lot they all were.

Did the authorities know about Jenner a number of years ago? If so then a public enquiry ought to be brought to find out why nothing was done

Whitewave. I think we are up against powerful people at the top of society. I remember Norman Tebbit saying (the Andrew Marr Show) that there was probably a conspiracy of silence in order to protect the status quo. If the top layer of power in the UK is seen to be riddled with Perverts, society is seen to be undermined. So these things are swept under the carpet.

There must be some good journalists out there who could find out. Where are they all?

Are they hushed up too?

Things have become far too political in the journalist and media world. It is awful.

You do wonder. We all get irritated with journalists - especially those on tv but I think they are the only way forward in this kind of horror. If you can't legally punish them, name and shame the bastards.

white wave

'Did the authorities know about Janner a number of years ago'

Read my post Thurs 16th 10.50. Yes they did!

I have calmed down a bit from yesterday and I can see that Janner could not plead guilty or not guilty so a trial would probably collapse if it went ahead. I believe the Leicestershire Police are looking at the technical possibilities of a trial going ahead given the circumstances.

Janner has from the 1970's been like a cat with nine lives. This story has popped up every now and again but he has always ducked being taken to court. I know he has medical evidence of altzheimers but didn't he attend the House of Lords at some time although he had the diagnosis? I am not making an accusation of his misleading anybody I think now he is suffering Altzeimers.

The life the boys have lived for the past 40/50 years is harrowing. They have endured what to my mind is ridicule and the establishment and judiciary at least owe them their right to have some form of acceptance mistakes, cover ups, took place but more to the point they need to know that whilst the evil b-----d Frank Beck was jailed for his part any others they accuse should and must be held to account. It's how to get there so late in the day but get there they must. Nobody in their right mind will expect a custodial sentences , that ship has sailed but surely they deserve better than this travesty.

Just read that Alison Saunders, dpp, bocked this prosecution - not in public interest, she said. Someone is leaning on her, it would appear.

When Alison Saunders was interviewed on TV she did say that there should be an investigation as to why Jenner was not prosecuted on the previous occasions that the matter had been investigated by the authorities. She said that, should enquiries reveal that the case was dropped not for reasons of "public interest" but because of corrupt practice within the judiciary, the culprits would be brought to justice. I hope that is true but it is hard not to feel doubtful about this.

The case of Savile was different in that he was not tried in court because he was dead. In that matter also, victims had come forward many years before but had been brushed aside because Savile had such powerful establishment connections. Instead, there was a wide ranging inquiry which concluded that he had indeed commit serious sexual crimes.

If somebody is to be tried in court, they have to be deemed fit to understand the charges laid against them and to consult and instruct their solicitors. Four doctors have confirmed that Janner is not fit to plead so he can't be tried because someone can't be found guilty and punished if he/she has had no understanding of or participation in the proceedings. I suppose it is possible for someone to feign dementia - as somebody mentioned, Saunders did - but it is said that Janner has suffered from this for several years.

There certainly seems to be a "ring of steel" around establishment figures that has protected them up until now. Let's hope the inquiry into the Westminster paedophile ring will finally bring all these matters out into the open and if there are people still alive and fit to be tried that this will happen.

Somehow, he managed to attend the lords for 4 years after his diagnosis.
Only stopped attending when police raided his house.

I agree, there is definitely a ratty smell about this. The establishment protecting the establishment?

petra My husband pointed that out to me this morning - I hadn't been aware of it. Apparently he attended the Lords and made a speech in 2013 re Israel/Palestine (he was a "Friend of Israel"). It does make one suspicious doesn't it.

POGS You can't resist making even a subject such as this party political can you - pointedly referring to "Labour Lord Janner", but to "Leon Brittan" (not Conservative Lord Brittan).

In the I yesterday was a "background report" and, referring to the strong support Janner received from his political colleagues when these allegations were made previously, which included:

"This was not just a case of the Labour Party protecting one of its own. Though Labour's Keith Vaz rose to deplore the "cowardly and wicked" slur on a "distinguished" colleague, the majority of the MPs who spoke in Janner's defence that evening were Conservatives."

Neat little statement in The Guardian today from Deborah Orr; incredible that a person can be fit enough to make the law but unfit to face it' I do agree though, that there is little point in the expense of a criminal trial, it will only take a couple of questions from defence team to establish that Janner doesnt know what day it is to get the case thrown out.However, i do believe that there should be a case heard by the public enquiry team, it would certainly appear from Alison Saunders and Leicestershire Police statements that there is very strong evidence against him. I would also be finding out how he was able to attend the House of Lords and claim the substantial allowances for doing so when he was unfit to understand anything going on. This is fraudulent representation and was presumably organised by his family who continue to deny his guilt. They should be ashamed of themselves.

All this fuss about Lord Janner is detracting attention from who else might have been involved.

Could further investigation of LJ turn up others who are fit to stand trial?
Have there been other complaints that have been brushed aside and should now be reopened?

I think it suits many people to have public attention focused on LJ and not on them.

I reads that there can be a trial of the facts , which would give his victims the chance to be heard and that a judgement can be made as to whether these assaults took place.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact

Good. That would bring up a lot of things.

Is it fair to wonder who the doctors are? They should be briefly looked into as well.

I have e just skimmed through this thread for the first time. I would say I am amazed, but no, it is typical Gransnet out-for-blood-any-old-way stuff.

You do know what dementia is I suppose? Surely you must do! How could he possibly defend himself? He probably doesn't know what he had for breakfast yesterday. It wouldn't be a trial. It would be a witch hunt. That's not justice.

Thank the Lord jess has shown some commonsense.

Given that there is emerging evidence of Janner's recent active involvement in his usual lifestyle eg his personally signed letter requesting his seat be kept for him in the house of lords, just a fortnight ago, I think scepticism about his diagnosis is justified. Rather embarrassing for his family, who cannot explain this. And to quote Janner himself, age and distance in time have no bearing - prosecution should still be undertaken.

diagnosis for altzheimers isn't completely hit and miss