On 16 Apr 2015 at 1:45pm Metatron wrote:
It seems Lord Jenner is off the hook.
I quote the Independent Newspaper.
"The statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders concluded that the severity of his dementia means he is not fit to take part in any proceedings. “There is no treatment for his condition, and there is no current or future risk of offending,” her statement added.
Leicestershire Police said it was disappointed at the decision not to prosecute Lord Janner, condemning it as the "wrong one". Assistant Chief Constable Roger Bannister confirmed the force is exploring any possible legal avenues to challenge it."
when in gods name will we be able to protect our children from these beasts.
On 16 Apr 2015 at 2:13pm yawn wrote:
I see you are trying to make a cheap political point, disguised as concern for child protection.
Just to remind you that one of things that child abuse is about, is power, not a specific political party. That is why many political parties have found themselves associated with high profile abusers , and found themselves rather lacking in dealing with abusers. There are no winners here.
On 16 Apr 2015 at 4:06pm Metatron wrote:
Yawn and my political point is....where?
I think your comment may say more about you than about my intentions.
On 16 Apr 2015 at 11:13pm Southover Queen wrote:
It's an easy mistake to make if you head your comment "Labour Lord Janner".
The disgrace here is not party political: it's that an elite of any kind should have been allowed to operate with complete impunity. There have been just as many accusations swirling around about Conservative and Liberal/LibDem politicians, some of them proven. It seems from the rumours that it wasn't just politicians either; those routinely abusing children were drawn from other groups too.
The scandal here is that the evidence has taken decades to gather and consider. It sounds as if the man in question is simply not fit to stand trial, to the enormous regret of everyone involved. I imagine that Janner's family would prefer to have the case heard too, if they're so certain that there is no truth in the matter. The truth is though that if someone genuinely has no memory of the period in question it would be impossible to hold a fair trial, would it?
On 17 Apr 2015 at 9:10am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
It's only a year or two since he was an active member of the House of Lords, his deterioration must have been rapid.
I find it amazing that the evidence is never ready to bring a case to court until the suspects have either died or become too ill to stand trial. That never seems to happen to common or garden "celebrities", only to once-powerful establishment figures. Most unfortunate.
Of course, that didn't happen in the case of poor Ernest Saunders, his dementia didn't prevent him getting sent to prison, just from serving his sentence. Remarkable the way he recovered after he was released though.
You're right about the fair trial though, SQ, any guilty verdict would be sure to be overturned on appeal because of his illness.
I feel so sorry for all those victims who never get see their abusers pay the price for what they did.
On 17 Apr 2015 at 9:52am Southover Queen wrote:
"I feel so sorry for all those victims who never get see their abusers pay the price for what they did."
I completely agree, ACT. And the fact is that there is a scandal about the "establishment" covering up child abuse on an industrial scale which has been threatening to break through for many years. I thought, finally, that it might happen after Leon Brittain died, but it seems not.
I was also struck by the senior police officer saying that the appropriate thing to do was to hold a "trial of fact" which would establish whether the evidence they had gathered was strong and that an offence had taken place, without naming the perpetrator(s). That would seem to be a very effective way of allowing these matters to be aired at last, after decades of D notices and suppression. I wonder why the CPS decided not to take that route once they'd determined that Janner was in no state to be tried himself.
On 17 Apr 2015 at 12:37pm Yawn wrote:
Yes SQ, putting 'Labour' in the thread title was not a casual slip of the keyboard that can be defended. A nasty misuse of a serious issue.
A 'trial of fact' or something similar sounds like an excellent idea, since it may enable an increased understanding of what occurred and enable prevention.
On 17 Apr 2015 at 3:22pm Metatron wrote:
Yes Yawn a nasty misuse of the facts.
I think if I was politicking as you claim, I would have scored many more points don't you?
As I said earlier your outrage says more about you than it does me.
On 19 Apr 2015 at 8:48pm Ed Can Do wrote:
One would hope that all trials are, to a greater or lesser extent, based on facts. I always thought that was kind of the point of them.