This is Britain- Lord Janner won't face court

[Anna B]

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.

 

I'm sure that like many other professions those at the bottom don't earn nearly as much as those at the top, but many high profile cases cost ridiculous amounts of money. They are the one's usually presided over by those at the top of the profession and paid for by public money - so no limit on what they can get away with charging or how long they can take. They are also establishment, through and through and can be guarenteed to come up with the 'appropriate' verdict. That's worth it's weight alone in some quarters...

 

Judging by the number of times verdicts are overturned or subsequent enquiries needed, I don't imagine they are chosen because they are good, but because they have powerful friends and contacts who recommend them.

 

Nice little earner.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Anna B

[redfox]

"They are also establishment, through and through and can be guarenteed to come up with the 'appropriate' verdict. "

 

No that's the jury who decide on guilt or innocence unless you think they are hand picked too. The most serious cases being dealt with by those at the top of the profession is a complaint ? Who do you want to prosecute these cases please?

 

As for a nice little earner - the fees are fixed for criminal cases - as in they are set by the government. It might be news to you that those high profile celebs who were acquitted having paid for there own defence got not a single penny back - Is that fair?

[Anna B]

"They are also establishment, through and through and can be guarenteed to come up with the 'appropriate' verdict. "

 

No that's the jury who decide on guilt or innocence unless you think they are hand picked too. The most serious cases being dealt with by those at the top of the profession is a complaint ? Who do you want to prosecute these cases please?

 

As for a nice little earner - the fees are fixed for criminal cases - as in they are set by the government. It might be news to you that those high profile celebs who were acquitted having paid for there own defence got not a single penny back - Is that fair?

 

Interesting. But doesn't the Judge direct the jury? And rule out certain conclusions? As they did with the Princess Diana verdict?

[redfox]

You are confusing a coroners court with a criminal court.

 

The Judge in a Crown Court trial directs the jury on the law and reminds them of the facts - there are only 2 possible verdicts (leaving aside the issue of a hung jury)

 

In a coroners court the jury is directed as to what the possible verdicts can be - it is upto the jury what verdict they reach

[Slikkwiver]

(Replying to Libuse) Yes he should have been (prosecuted) 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.

 

You pretend to be in the right through bluff and bluster and the desperate hope that nobody goes over your previous posts. You are a fraud of the worst kind - the kind too arrogant to accept that they may be in any way mistaken.

 

You pursue arguments not necessarily to advance a theory thought or contention or to clarify an opinion or an assertion but only to gratify your vain belligerence and fragile ego.

 

Try giving Libuse the credit he deserves. He has indisputably proved you wrong. Admit it.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2015 at 21:42 ----------

 

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.

 

Quite - Anna B.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Slikkwiver

[loraward]

You pretend to be in the right

 

Since the law agrees with me I think we can be sure that I am right and you are wrong.

[Anna B]

And I would argue that someone wishing to spend millions of pounds on inquires instead of spending it on more doctors, nurses, police, is intellectually and morally barren.

 

We cannot afford not to pursue it.

 

Just as Thatcher thought it essential to crush the miners to show who was in charge, it is now just as essential to demonstrate that no one is above the law. We must restore credibility and the trust that has been sadly lost over the last few years, and the only way to do this is to expose all the miscreants in the Establishment, have them pay the penalty, and wipe the slate clean.

 

They got away with the expenses scandal, allowing the bankers to get away with ruining the economy, and now this, the biggest scandal of them all.

 

Is there any right minded person who still doesn't think this is happening in our midst? Too many people know about it now, thanks to the internet. It can no longer be swept under the carpet and it will not go away. The effect of not doing anything goes against every British notion of justice and decency.

 

Unless they lance this boil once and for all, they're finished. Law and order will go out the window. In that case, let's restore Jimmy Saville's Knighthood, release Rolf Harris, Stewart Hall and all the rest, and not bother prosecuting anybody - we'll save a fortune...

Edited April 26, 2015 by Anna B

[Slikkwiver]

Since the law agrees with me I think we can be sure that I am right and you are wrong.

 

Here's a classic example of how your ' bluff and bluster' is used in the (vain) hope that people won't bother reading back over your posts - which they probably won't - and why should they - they know that you're either trolling - attention seeking or quite simply a madman.

[libuse]

Exaro News have today published a full list of the 203 votes in the house undertaken by Janner since granting power of attorney over his apparent ill-health

 

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5558/lord-janner-voted-203-times-in-parliament-despite-dementia

[altus]

It looks like he will probably face prosecution after all - CPS decision not to prosecute Lord Janner 'to be overturned'