Lord Janner

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.

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'.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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”

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!

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

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

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?

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

Is this the one you mean, Iam64?

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

Saunders was tried and convicted and spent 10 months in jail before he was released due to his supposed dementia, though.

I don't see how anyone can have a fair trial if they are genuinely suffering from dementia. How could they possibly defend themselves if they can't remember what happened, when or even if it did?

I'm not making any excuses for Janner or any other alleged criminal but woudn't it be morally wrong to convict and imprison someone who has no idea what's going on or why they are where they are?

An 'independent' doctor who deals with dementia patients isn't sufficient. I know of dementia patients with convictions for sexual offending who continue to be sexually aggressive, dementia patients who still understand the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal, and dementia patients who can still accept responsibility for their actions. He needs to be assessed by a doctor who specialises in forensic assessment and treatment of dementia patients who have committed sexual offences. There are plenty of them around.

I remember that Knowsley and wasn't there a similar issue with Richard Nixon and Watergate

I don't have the technical skills to post a link but if anyone is interested, google the needle blog where you'll find the CPS statement setting out the decision not to prosecute. It makes horrific reading. Lord J has been accused of serious crimes over many years but never prosecuted.

It stinks of cover up at a high level, just like the background to the Cyril Smith case.

whenim64 makes a good point, unless Lord J is on a locked ward he remains a risk to children. Paedophiles don't grow out of it because they're old!

Anyone remember the Guinness share trading fraud (trial about 1990)? One of the defendants, Ernest Saunders, was released when his defence claimed he was suffering from dementia. After his release, Saunders miraculously recovered from his dementia.
All accused of this heinous crime MUST be prosecuted.

I did not think that being unlikely to offend again was a reason for not being prosecuted. I understand that this person may have dementia but very old frail and demented individuals have been pursued by Nazi hunters to general applause, so why the difference here? Jimmy Saville was dead and thus unable to stand trial, this has not stopped enquiries that have established his guilt. I hope that the old sodomite Janner is having nightmares in his dementia, is terrified and scared to go to sleep. just like his victims. The Police are obviously very angry about this.

Simon Danczuk the Rochdale MP has posted on his fb page that he will ask the DPP for a redacted copy of its decision making processes. whenim64, the news reported that an 'independent' doctor examine Janner and decided he wasn't fit to be interviewed. Contrast that with so many other occasions when interviews have gone ahead!

Unless Lord Janner is living on a locked ward, or is so physically disabled that he cannot use his limbs unaided, there is nothing to reassure the public that he is now low risk of harming children. Dementia does not bring immunity, from either further sexually aggressive behaviour or accountability for offences committed. I understand he hasn't been interviewed this time, so has he been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist who is qualified to determine whether he is fit to stand trial? Probably not, as this only hapoens when charges have been made and he hasn't been charged. Justice needs to be seen to be done.

joIbook

I'm not so sure this is an 'Establishment' decision to be honest, who the heck knows?

Why? Because I think the public are 'now' , pity they weren't decades ago, so on top of these stories, allegations, past failings that the Establishment have little room to display the contempt for the public without a backlash. Having said that perhaps their skin has hardn't so much they are prepared to ignore public opinion.

If a man is to clear his name surely a trial needs to go ahead. If not his name will be forever sullied and that is not a fair position to be in, or am I mistaken?

But then JS didn't have the protection of the Establishment. And believe me, It is one thing to have a miner's crimes examined rather than those of a politician who could bring down this country's "Great and Good" by snitching. This House of Cards should fall.

Thank you for that post pogs. I know that it is difficult at present because parliament is not sitting and none of us can be sure who our next MP will be but I really feel that it would be useful to let them know our feelings on this issue.