Lord Janner

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Are they hushed up too?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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'.

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

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

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.

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].

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.