This is Britain- Lord Janner won't face court

[Longcol]

That would effectively put Jenner on trial in absentia.

 

 

Not if I understand harvey19's post correctly it doesn't - he appears to be asking a very pertinent question as to why no prosecution was made if there was sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial.

[Anna B]

Indeed it is, and those who have let him allow to escape justice years ago, should now be on trial.

 

The victims deserve NOTHING LESS than a trial to be heard in open court.

 

Meanwhile, Britain's Westminster paedophile scandal continues....

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10944687&highlight=westminster#post10944687

 

Totally agree.

 

Jenner was first publicly accused in 1991 during the trial of children's home manager Frank Beck. 'Powerful figures rallied round Lord Jenner, and he stood in the house of commons to denounce the claims as 'not having a shred of truth.'

 

He was investigated again in 2002 and 2006 when fresh allegations surfaced but each time the CPS decided that no further action should be taken.

 

In January 201wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal. They uncovered evidence that Lord Jenner preyed on vulnerablr young boys at up to three Leicester care homes between 1969 and 1988.

 

Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders said the politician hould have been charged on each occasion.

From today's 'Daily Mail'

 

So why wasn't he?

[ghost rider]

if you can't take the time, don't do the crime, it's as simple as that.

 

Totally agree with everything you have said Plain Talker.I worry that all these politicians who have allegedly committed these crimes will somehow get away with it and all the talk of bringing them to justice will not happen.I had someone say to me that Rolf Harris should not have gone to prison because he was an old man.I was appalled at the comment and I agree with you that age should make no difference whatsoever.

[Longcol]

Totally agree with everything you have said Plain Talker.I worry that all these politicians who have allegedly committed these crimes will somehow get away with it and all the talk of bringing them to justice will not happen.I had someone say to me that Rolf Harris should not have gone to prison because he was an old man.I was appalled at the comment and I agree with you that age should make no difference whatsoever.

 

Nobody has argued age being a mitigating circumstance on this thread- it's mental capacity.

[Guest]

Saville, Leon Briton, Cyril Smith and now this guy... the truth/allegations about establishment figures seem to come to light when they're dead, gravely ill or to ill to face charge. As we speak right now they'll be countless others the police and media know all about but we'll only hear of it when its too late.

[ronthenekred]

Not if I understand harvey19's post correctly it doesn't - he appears to be asking a very pertinent question as to why no prosecution was made if there was sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial.

 

If there was sufficient evidence, and in order to substantiate that evidence, an inquiry would have to take place. In order for the "evidence" to be questioned Jenner would have to be part of that inquiry in order to defend himself, as well as the 'victims'. If not, and the inquiry went ahead without his involvement then he is by default in abstentia. An inquiry could quite rightly be perceived as a trial.

[ghost rider]

Nobody has argued age being a mitigating circumstance on this thread- it's mental capacity.

 

Well that's another one getting away with it again then.I am off to the bookies to have a bet that not one politician will ever be brought to justice.

[Longcol]

If there was sufficient evidence, and in order to substantiate that evidence, an inquiry would have to take place. In order for the "evidence" to be questioned Jenner would have to be part of that inquiry in order to defend himself, as well as the 'victims'. If not, and the inquiry went ahead without his involvement then he is by default in abstentia. An inquiry could quite rightly be perceived as a trial.

 

No - you could certainly have an inquiry without Janner - just not a trial. We have had inquiries into dead people. An inquiry is a whole different animal to a trial - one fact finding, one adverserial.

[Mr Bloom]

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.

 

More distasteful than the sexual abuse of children?

 

Happy now?

[Guest sibon]

You clearly know nothing about me, the way UK law works or dementia. So there's little that you can add to the topic other than abuse.

 

Seems as though Lord MacDonald shares my lack of understanding of UK law.

 

You should drop him a line, Smithy.