Lord Janner

There were rumours circulating in Leicestershire in the 70s. The cover-up presumably started way back then.

When we know that the security services have been named in this cover up, those poor men will never get justice.

Tricia, I believe it all goes higher than MP's . I have followed the North Wales abuse cases from the start, the cover ups are frightening

Anniebach - that's what I thought too.

Janner isn't important , he can stand accused now because he cannot name names ,he was protected when he could though

Petra "It's playground politics: you tell on me, I'll tell on you." Spot on and probably the same with all the other alleged perpetrators.
I do wonder if the enquiry will ever get through the lists of suspects. Will it again be found "Not in the public interest"?

The allegations were made long before 2014, Janner was still in the house as a serving MP, he spoke to the house denying the allegations and received cross party support.

Why didn't the Labour Party ask more questions when he was named in court in 1991 in the Frank Beck court case. Beck named him and so did Beck's victims. It's playground politics: you tell on me, I'll tell on you.

a Labour MP has accused his party of failing to act quickly to suspend Lord Janner after receiving a letter last year outlining claims of child abuse against the peer.
Simon Danczuk, the MP for Rochdale, said that in October 2014 he wrote to Ed Miliband, then Labour leader, warning him of “stomach-churning” allegations faced by Janner

this taken from the Guardian - don't read it myself though

it seems the leadership of the labour party did not act until 5 months later when the CPS said they would not prosecute

Hopefully with this court case it could be explained how, dispite having Alzheimer's he attended the Lords 634 times, voted 203 times earning him £104,365 of tax payers money in attendance allowance.
This money was taken after he was diagnosed in 2009.

That's the one! Thanks.

Victims Right To Review Scheme. Brought in 2013

Is that the 'thing' you mean jingle?

I think it will be ok if they do this thing where the facts are brought to light, guilt or otherwise is declared, but no punishment is brought to bear. I can't remember what they called it. It's different to an ordinary court case.

I don't think you can prosecute someone with dementia in the usual way. Certainly not when you are simply responding to public pressure, as, maybe, has happened in this case.

I see petra

Kittylester. I think you misunderstood me. My meaning was: he is being offered up by the establishment to keep us quiet. Their attitude being: there you go, we are doing something about these vile people. It will all go quiet again after this case is over. They are dragging it out in the hope that all establishment figures involved in this will die of old age ( or hopefully a painful death.

Actually you raise an interesting point Ana and Pogs - why couldn't the Savile case be heard and evidence presented posthumously?

Although, by the sounds of it, trial by media did in one way give the victims some justice. Pity the perpetrator was never outed in his lifetime though. But one effect has been for victims of other public figures to speak out I suppose with the trials of Max Clifford and Rolf Harris for example.

brendaw - I would add the labour party to your list of organisations - he was a labour MP for about 20 years.

Same here, POGS

Well apparently justice has a use-by date if the alleged perpetrator is dead!

Sorry Ana posted without seeing your post 22.45 [dove]

Justice does not have a use by date though does it.

Do they not deserve to have their case taken to a court of law ?

I think that if found there is no reasonable doubt of Janners culpability that would be a justice for them , albeit the only one they can hope to obtain.

Yes, I suppose that's a good enough reason, although what about Jimmy Savile's victims?

I think the victims do think this will bring a form of justice Ana inasmuch as evidence of their alleged abuse will at least be heard.

I can't see the point of this prosecution.

Janner can't appear or give evidence. No verdict can be arrived at or sentence given. All that will happen is that a vast amount of money will be spent over a great length of time on trying to establish whether certain events took place or not.

Will that really give the alleged victims any justice?

Did any of the bodies he belonged to know ,but covered up his alleged actions. The House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Board of British Jews, the CPS.