harvey19 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 More distasteful than the sexual abuse of children? If you wish to quote my posts please use the full post so things are kept in perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Please tell me what is "not in the public interest" to pursue and investigate an alleged paedophile who just happens to be a former MP and in the House of Lords? There's no way he could have a fair trial and so no justice could be gained that way. Therefore no public good could happen through a prosecution. He wouldn't be able to instruct his defence and understand what was happening in court. He should have been prosecuted years ago but that chance has gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I'm not at all sure if it has been "sudden" - he was first diagnosed as having Alzheimers in 2009 - 6 years ago. I heard he was still visiting The House of Lords up until 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 It would have other purposes. It would go some way to openly validating how his victims felt, and helping them get some compensation. I find it distasteful when this is boiling to claims for money. If a person is unable to understand accusations leveled at them or defend themselves and had previously denied all accusations when they were able to understand these accusations it is the end of the matter irrespective of how much some people may wish differently. Justice is seen to be done when a person can answer accusations put to them and the court decides whether they are guilty or innocent. Compensation is part of the process of closure, & hopefully it will help fund counselling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I heard he was still visiting The House of Lords up until 2013. Yes - my father was capable of visiting familiar places and coming across as "plausible" to people who didn't know he had Alzheimers for 3 or 4 years after diagnosis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 I remember Harold Wilson's close friend, lord Ganex (yes, he of the raincoats) was "done" for (I think it's it was) embezzlement. He was sent to prison, but was released after a very short time, on "compassionate grounds", when he developed Alzheimers / dementia. Almost as soon as those prison gates closed, with him on the outside of them, he miraculously recovered. The cynic in me awaits a similar recovery by Jenner. I don't think you remember very well. It was Ernest Saunders who did that. And Lord Gannex (two n's) was what Private Eye called Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 And Lord Gannex (two n's) was what Private Eye called Wilson. Don't remember that - I do remember that Private Eye called Wilson (or Wislon as they often put it) Lord Loinwash (an anagram of his name). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Compensation is part of the process of closure, & hopefully it will help fund counselling. Thank you for using my full post. I still do not think financial compensation is the way to proceed in such cases as this. Justice is what is required and unfortunately this can not be achieved by the usual method by any of the parties involved, accusers or defendant. As I posted earlier the main issue now is to understand why a prosecution was not pursued earlier if there was sufficient evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Thank you for using my full post. I still do not think financial compensation is the way to proceed in such cases as this. Justice is what is required and unfortunately this can not be achieved by the usual method by any of the parties involved, accusers or defendant. As I posted earlier the main issue now is to understand why a prosecution was not pursued earlier if there was sufficient evidence. I think it useful at this point to link to the DPP / CPS http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2015/04/the-decision-not-to-prosecute-lord-janner-statement-from-the-dpp.html I see there were 3 previous investigation were Janner's name cropped up - twice there was thought to be insufficient evidence to prosecute and once the police stopped the investigation. I can't help but wonder if the CPS saying he should have been brought to trial earlier is based on todays public knowledge of and attitude towards abuse (post Savile, Smith etc) rather than that existed say 15 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Thank you for using my full post. I still do not think financial compensation is the way to proceed in such cases as this. Justice is what is required and unfortunately this can not be achieved by the usual method by any of the parties involved, accusers or defendant. As I posted earlier the main issue now is to understand why a prosecution was not pursued earlier if there was sufficient evidence. That would effectively put Jenner on trial in absentia. If he is "genuinely" not in possession of his faculties then a trial would be pointless, if not dangerous. If this guy was a binman he'd have been processed and likely doing time now. Edited April 17, 2015 by ronthenekred 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