wrinkly67 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 from how I'm understanding it, it will be a "trial of facts" which doesn't aim to seek punishment for the accused. Whilst it may give some degree of satisfaction to his accusers, such a court cannot pass a criminal sentence. they can make a hospital order, order for supervision or give an absolute discharge. I think we can rest assured that Janner will end his days very comfortably. is that justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Rolf Harris was hardly a spring chicken, but he went in the dock all the same - I believe he was 84 when he stood trial. And compis mentis. If the man really is in advanced stages of dementia than what is the point having him dragged to court? I see the argument that having a court-case is important for the victims, but they will gain nothing more than from when he is dead. So treat it as a post-mortem case to give the victims peace of mind and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) 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.... And the rest, look... No wonder his case of standing trial is being looked at again http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3078301/Labour-peer-Lord-Janner-voted-203-times-Parliament-attended-House-Lords-634-children-granted-power-attorney-following-dementia-diagnosis.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32720625 Edited June 27, 2015 by poppet2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrinkly67 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 And compis mentis. If the man really is in advanced stages of dementia than what is the point having him dragged to court? I see the argument that having a court-case is important for the victims, but they will gain nothing more than from when he is dead. So treat it as a post-mortem case to give the victims peace of mind and leave it at that. I wonder what peace of mind they would really get when knowing that since the diagnosis of dementia, Janner has been able to continue attending the House of Lords, claiming more then £100,000 in allowances and expenses and voting on important issues. If the diagnosis is correct then that shouldn't have been allowed but it was. I wouldn't blame any victim for feeling that if he was seen fit to serve in the Lords, for which he was very well recompensed, he's fit to stand trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 And compis mentis. If the man really is in advanced stages of dementia than what is the point having him dragged to court? I see the argument that having a court-case is important for the victims, but they will gain nothing more than from when he is dead. So treat it as a post-mortem case to give the victims peace of mind and leave it at that. This case may be what they need to unlock other cases. Once things start to be aired in court we might start being able to get at the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I wonder what peace of mind they would really get when knowing that since the diagnosis of dementia, Janner has been able to continue attending the House of Lords, claiming more then £100,000 in allowances and expenses and voting on important issues. If the diagnosis is correct then that shouldn't have been allowed but it was. I wouldn't blame any victim for feeling that if he was seen fit to serve in the Lords, for which he was very well recompensed, he's fit to stand trial. If that is the case, than yes, I agree he should stand trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If that is the case, than yes, I agree he should stand trial. There's visiting the House of Lords to see people he may remember and attending/taking part in debates in the House of Lords. We need to find out which - although people with dementia can slip very quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 If the decision not to prosecute is reversed - but he still remains unfit - In the event that he is found to have committed the acts the sentencing options are very limited indeed (they have been set out earlier in this thread) It will allow the alleged victims to give an account - which may or may not be accepted by the jury - but when he is sentenced to not a lot ? (I will be very interested indeed to learn if the witnesses accounts are positively challenged by his defence - if he is unfit he is unable to give proper instructions to his legal team so they ordinarily say nothing save reminding the jury of the need to be sure) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsTrophy Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So much for putting children first, lets face it most of these judges/lords/top cops etc are paedo's and protect their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redfox Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 So much for putting children first, lets face it most of these judges/lords/top cops etc are paedo's and protect their own. is that a response you thought about before bashing it out on a keyboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now