This is Britain- Lord Janner won't face court

[libuse]

 

Its not possible for me to be aware of something that you imagined.

 

I imagined what? His passing the evidential test? Here you go, it's from the CPS statement about the decision not to proceed:

 

12. With that explanation of functions in mind, the CPS has reached the following conclusions in relation to the evidential test, as a result of the investigations and reviews undertaken in this case.

 

In relation to the allegations investigated in Operation Enamel, the CPS considers that the evidential test was passed on the basis that the evidence is sufficient to have warranted charging and prosecuting Lord Janner in relation to the particular charges listed below; these relate to nine individuals:

14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988

2 indecent assaults between 1984 and 1988

4 counts of buggery of a male under 16 between 1972 and 1987

2 counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988.

 

 

In relation to the other three previous investigations, the CPS also now considers that the evidential test was passed. It follows that the CPS judges that mistakes were made in the decision making at the time by both the Leicestershire police in 2002 and the CPS in 1991 and 2007. Lord Janner should have been prosecuted in relation to those complaints.

 

"Should have been prosecuted" and "the evidential test was passed" are the key phrases you might be looking for there. If you can get past the rape and sexual assault of 9 people who were children at the time. And yet you defend him.

Edited April 21, 2015 by libuse

[Slikkwiver]

I think you might be waiting some time for a reply Libuse.

[libuse]

I think you might be waiting some time for a reply Libuse.

 

Yeh, I know. Not sure why I bother really. S/he never answers my questions. I think (shh) s/he might not be very clever when s/he has to deviate from the knee jerk hard right trolling stuff. It's odd that s/he's defending this one though; Janner's a Jewish Labour party member. I'd have thought s/he'd have had the gallows out for him, regardless of guilt.

[Slikkwiver]

Yeh, I know. Not sure why I bother really. S/he never answers my questions. I think (shh) s/he might not be very clever when s/he has to deviate from the knee jerk hard right trolling stuff. It's odd that s/he's defending this one though; Janner's a Jewish Labour party member. I'd have thought s/he'd have had the gallows out for him, regardless of guilt.

 

I think it might be easier to refer to it as 'it' from here on in Libuse.

 

Soddomy you might know is a common pastime in public schools and the decadent classes don't object too much to the bumming of boys by other boys or by grown men as long as (in the case of men screwing boys) the boy is from the 'lower' classes. Well - you see - who would believe the boy who delivers the milk?

 

There's little to be done to stop the bully boys at Eton beasting their juniors but are we to let their fathers get away with it too??

[Guest sibon]

Yeh, I know. Not sure why I bother really. S/he never answers my questions. I think (shh) s/he might not be very clever when s/he has to deviate from the knee jerk hard right trolling stuff. It's odd that s/he's defending this one though; Janner's a Jewish Labour party member. I'd have thought s/he'd have had the gallows out for him, regardless of guilt.

 

Not this time.

 

For Smithy, some things transcend party politics. If only the April Jones thread was still available. That would make your eyes water.

 

He's a serial defender of paedophiles. He'll pop up tomorrow morning, demanding evidence of my claims. To save time, take a look at the post history of ivanava, MrSmith, maxmaximus and several others. There is a clear pattern.

 

Smithy. Would you care to tell us why you are a serial defender of paedophiles?

[libuse]

Not this time.

 

For Smithy, some things transcend party politics. If only the April Jones thread was still available. That would make your eyes water.

 

He's a serial defender of paedophiles. He'll pop up tomorrow morning, demanding evidence of my claims. To save time, take a look at the post history of ivanava, MrSmith, maxmaximus and several others. There is a clear pattern.

 

Smithy. Would you care to tell us why you are a serial defender of paedophiles?

 

I used to work with child sex offenders (professionally, not sharing the mailbag sewing line with them.) They were a really diverse bunch in terms of age, ethnicity, socio-economic group, victim profile, etc. However, what they all had in common, in my experience, was a victim complex. They were able to argue with complete conviction that they had been unfortunate in encountering a promiscuous seven year old, or that the state was hounding them for not understanding their unique interpretation of the consent that the child had given them, or that the child they were offending against was particularly mature. Exhausting. Anyway, I wonder if loraward is familiar with such offenders and has been seduced by their belief systems? I can imagine if you are very easily led it may be possible. I can't imagine any other reason why a rational human being wouldn't want a probable child rapist testing in a court of law.

[loraward]

I imagined what? His passing the evidential test? Here you go, it's from the CPS statement about the decision not to proceed:

 

12. With that explanation of functions in mind, the CPS has reached the following conclusions in relation to the evidential test, as a result of the investigations and reviews undertaken in this case.

 

In relation to the allegations investigated in Operation Enamel, the CPS considers that the evidential test was passed on the basis that the evidence is sufficient to have warranted charging and prosecuting Lord Janner in relation to the particular charges listed below; these relate to nine individuals:

14 indecent assaults on a male under 16 between 1969 and 1988

2 indecent assaults between 1984 and 1988

4 counts of buggery of a male under 16 between 1972 and 1987

2 counts of buggery between 1977 and 1988.

 

 

In relation to the other three previous investigations, the CPS also now considers that the evidential test was passed. It follows that the CPS judges that mistakes were made in the decision making at the time by both the Leicestershire police in 2002 and the CPS in 1991 and 2007. Lord Janner should have been prosecuted in relation to those complaints.

 

"Should have been prosecuted" and "the evidential test was passed" are the key phrases you might be looking for there. If you can get past the rape and sexual assault of 9 people who were children at the time. And yet you defend him.

 

Yes he should have been as I have said several times, no one as said he shouldn't have been, but they missed the boat because he is no longer capable of being tried, you should try to keep up.

[Mr Bloom]

Janner's family say he's totally innocent. Case closed then.

[Anna B]

Yes he should have been as I have said several times, no one as said he shouldn't have been, but they missed the boat because he is no longer capable of being tried, you should try to keep up.

 

Yet he was fit enough, a few days ago, to fill in a form claiming he was well enough to attend the house of Lords, (and be paid £300 a day to do it) and presumably to vote.

 

He was also well enough and sharp enough to transfer ownership of his £million+ house and assetts to his daughters when he knew a court case was pending. Not bad for a man with dementia....

 

As for the cost of an enquiry, in a society with honest politicians it shouldn't be necessary. However, the sheer number of enquiries lately speaks volumes about the corruption that is at large, and the only way to stop them is to hold them to account.

 

You might like to question the cost more in terms of the rip off amounts that lawyers, solicitors etc are getting away with charging. They are having a field day at public expense.

[redfox]

He may well have benefited from errors made by local CPS offices made several years ago, if they were mistakes then it is right those making the decisions should be held to account - I think a retired high court judge is doing just that at present in this case.

 

As for lawyers charging rip-off amounts at public expense your living in a dream world - fees paid to those dealing with 'legal aid' work have been savagely cut over the past several years. Any other profession out there taken a 40% hit in its fees ? I don't think so.

 

Those with any talent are leaving the profession, firms of solicitors are making staff redundant many are closing down and those left are about to get another fee cut.