panoma1 Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 I see former MP now Lord Janner is according to the DPP, is now too sick and old to stand trial on over 20 historic charges of kiddy fiddling! It doesn't indicate that there are two sets of rules and that this decision demonstrates that not all are equal and accountable in law of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 I see former MP now Lord Janner is according to the DPP, is now too sick and old to stand trial on over 20 historic charges of kiddy fiddling! It doesn't indicate that there are two sets of rules and that this decision demonstrates that not all are equal and accountable in law of course! If true then it is disgusting. Establishment looking after their own? A case of 'if I go I'll take you, you and you with me'? I wonder if there were any former Gestapo/concentration camp officials let off on similar grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Yes, coincidence that by the time they finally admit he could have been prosecuted he's too sick. I'm sick ............ sick to death of theses conniving sleaze balls looking after their own and laughing at us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 The Police have expressed their dissatisfaction with the DPPs failure to prosecute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 If he is too ill - mentally - to defend himself - fair enough. If he is just physically sick - get him in court - rapidly - before he dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike737 Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 If true then it is disgusting. Establishment looking after their own? A case of 'if I go I'll take you, you and you with me'? I wonder if there were any former Gestapo/concentration camp officials let off on similar grounds. Funnily enough, the news just reported that in a very early interview he said that Nazi war criminals should not be let off because of their age... Mike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 If he is too ill - mentally - to defend himself - fair enough. If he is just physically sick - get him in court - rapidly - before he dies. Supposedly has advanced dementia, doesn't know what day of the week it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Funnily enough, the news just reported that in a very early interview he said that Nazi war criminals should not be let off because of their age... Mike. Many of them haven't, been jailed in their 80s and rightly so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 It is said that he is under pretty much continual care for dementia, therefor cannot represent himself appropriately in court. I sympathise with that decision by the courts as it would be a terrible precedent if we could prosecute people who are without the mental faculty to appreciate what is going on, but there then needs to be an alternate process where the person can be tried in absentia in order that the rule of law is being observed. I feel that losing his liberty through a custodial sentence would make little difference to him in his state of mental decline, but a guilty verdict would make a massive difference to the victims and that should be the prime motivator in any decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel b3 Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 It is said that he is under pretty much continual care for dementia, therefor cannot represent himself appropriately in court. I sympathise with that decision by the courts as it would be a terrible precedent if we could prosecute people who are without the mental faculty to appreciate what is going on, but there then needs to be an alternate process where the person can be tried in absentia in order that the rule of law is being observed. I feel that losing his liberty through a custodial sentence would make little difference to him in his state of mental decline, but a guilty verdict would make a massive difference to the victims and that should be the prime motivator in any decision. i agree with you 100% , its just such a shame that the victims will never get their day in court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liamey Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 If true then it is disgusting. Establishment looking after their own? A case of 'if I go I'll take you, you and you with me'? I wonder if there were any former Gestapo/concentration camp officials let off on similar grounds. I was thinking exactly the same thing. Didn't they just jail a 90 something year old fiddler. Your establishment there certainly puts the D is disgusting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 I think the main question should be why he wasn't prosecuted years ago? we are not just talking about historic sex abuse we are talking about historic cover ups and that is the bit that really needs to get dragged out into the open. Its too late to get him it appears, just like it was too late to get Leon Brittain, Cyril Smith and the rest but there is nothing to do about that. What I really want to know is who was pulling the strings and how far up the line it went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 It goes a very good way up and you'll never know, simple. It goes way too far to be let out into the public domain. We can only hope for a whistle blower, which is unlikely because he'll know he will not have long to live !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 Yes, coincidence that by the time they finally admit he could have been prosecuted he's too sick. Perhaps those in certain positions daren't run the risk that in a moment of lucidity in the witness box he lets the cat out of the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 I remember Ernest Saunders being given early release from the sentence he was given due to his part in the Guiness/Distillers fraud trail (I was a witness in that by the way) due to Alzheimers. Only for him to make a remarkable recovery from this incurable disease shortly afterwards. Wouldn't be surprised if the same happened here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 I remember Ernest Saunders being given early release from the sentence he was given due to his part in the Guiness/Distillers fraud trail (I was a witness in that by the way) due to Alzheimers. Only for him to make a remarkable recovery from this incurable disease shortly afterwards. Wouldn't be surprised if the same happened here. Very true. he shouldn't be let off, just postpone the case indefinitely. If he makes a miraculous then rope him in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 I remember Ernest Saunders being given early release from the sentence he was given due to his part in the Guiness/Distillers fraud trail (I was a witness in that by the way) due to Alzheimers. Only for him to make a remarkable recovery from this incurable disease shortly afterwards. Wouldn't be surprised if the same happened here. Had forgotten all about that. It was rather convenient wasn't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 you cant beat the establishment KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 In cases like this where a defendant is incapable of defending themselves, there should still be an enquiry to examine the evidence and come to some kind of verdict. We owe it to the victims and their families but also to the accused - just because the police feel that someone should be prosecuted it does not mean that they are guilty. Of course they may well be but that should be for a court or equivalent to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) How can you have an enquiry when one of the people who may know the truth is incapable of giving his account? That would just be meaningless. Edited April 16, 2015 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 So what's the alternative, more or less say the victims are lying and just not bother at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) How can you have an enquiry when one of the people who may know the truth is incapable of giving his account? That would just be meaningless. I agree Gordon, there may well be other avenues where an investigation could take place and possibly even a verdict issued, but if the guy in question is completely incoherent then it would make a mockery of justice to put him in the dock. Edited April 16, 2015 by grrclark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 So what's the alternative, more or less say the victims are lying and just not bother at all? There is only one person who is saying that - you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) So what's the answer gents ? genuine question, not a wind up. edit. Just seen the post above. No, it was a question not a statement. Edited April 16, 2015 by rodp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted April 16, 2015 Report Share Posted April 16, 2015 How can you have an enquiry when one of the people who may know the truth is incapable of giving his account? That would just be meaningless. That is why I suggested an enquiry rather than a trial. In abuse cases there is more than one person who knows the truth and, in any case, he is the one least likely to want the truth to come out if he did actually do what he is accused of. It happened in the Saville case, where he was well beyond giving evidence. It could not lead to a conviction but it would allow the evidence to be considered independently and give the victims and their families the opportunity to voice their feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.