UK will prosecute ex-pol with dementia with child sex crimes

LONDON (AP) — British prosecutors have reversed their position and say they will charge a former lawmaker who now has severe dementia with sex crimes against children.

The Crown Prosecution Service said Monday that a "trial of the facts" would be held for 86-year-old Greville Janner.

Police and child abuse victims expressed outrage when prosecutors announced in April that they would not charge Janner over alleged offenses against boys, even though there was enough evidence to prosecute. Prosecutors said his dementia meant he was not fit to stand trial.

But after his alleged victims complained, prosecutors decided "it was in the public interest to bring proceedings before the court."

Janner was a Labour Party lawmaker from 1970-97, later serving in the House of Lords. His family says he is innocent.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-06-29

Block, block, block, delay, give a little bit, block, deny, delay, hope they die, set up a delaying enquiry, halt an investigation, give a tiny bit, delay, silence the press, prosecute some entertainer, keep the paedo judges out of any investigation and so it goes on.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

Amazing how fast his Wikipedia page was updated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner,_Baron_Janner_of_Braunstone

Review of CPS decision

On 29 June 2015, it was reported the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute Janner has been overturned by David Perry, the QC appointed to make a review of the CPS decision in April. The case is due for Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 August. A judge will now decide if Janner is able to stand at a criminal trial.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

You need to go back and look at the trial and conviction of Frank Beck and how the police and CPS went very much out of their way in the 80's and 90's to ensure no prosecution of Greville, now Lord, Janner ever occurred.

You seem to know nothing about this case. A bit of research will enlighten you.

He probably had an establishment doctor declare his dementia.

He'll sit in court and drool and mutter a bit, and another establishment figure will declare him unfit.

Then he slip off home for a 12 year old and wish it wasn't just whiskey.

It's nothing but a disgrace.

My ex MP, Leicester East. I disliked him when I met him when I was 13 and now I know why.

He probably had an establishment doctor declare his dementia.

He'll sit in court and drool and mutter a bit, and another establishment figure will declare him unfit.

Then he slip off home for a 12 year old and wish it wasn't just whiskey.

It's nothing but a disgrace.

I'm sure you are correct in your comment regarding establishment doctors. The case of Ernest Saunders springs to mind, he was the chairman of Guinness who was sentenced to five years imprisonment for corruption, went straight to an open prison from where he was released after serving just 10 months because he was suffering from dementia. Once he was released he made a miraculous recovery, the only person known to medical science who recovered from dementia! Nothing changes when it comes to protecting establishment figures.

Before taking the decision not to prosecute Greville Janner, the DPP, Alison Saunders actually took legal advice on the matter from a lawyer who was a colleague in the same chambers of Daniel Janner QC. Greville Janner's son! Unbelievable!

Lord Janner is a current labour peer.

This guy can and apparently does occasionally turn up at the house of lords despite and since his dementia diagnosis.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

Sad as it may be, these are not proven victims. They are victims in law once the court adjudicates that they are. Until then, they are claimants or plaintiffs or aggrieved parties. The man has dementia. Nothing will be served by having him in the prisoner's dock in his adult diaper, drooling. The man cannot have a fair trial because he is incapable of defending himself. Maybe the allegations are true, or maybe they are not. All I know is that any attempt to pursue this matter in court will be fought hard by groups who would rather not do so. T

Block, block, block, delay, give a little bit, block, deny, delay, hope they die, set up a delaying enquiry, halt an investigation, give a tiny bit, delay, silence the press, prosecute some entertainer, keep the paedo judges out of any investigation and so it goes on.

Judging by this information by the BBC it's going to be a farce,to placate the victims and keep them quiet:

"A judge will now decide if Lord Janner is fit to stand trial. If not, he will face what is known as a "trial of the facts", where a court hears evidence from alleged victims and decides only if Lord Janner committed the physical acts of abuse. There will be no finding of guilt or conviction"

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

Sad as it may be, these are not proven victims. They are victims in law once the court adjudicates that they are. Until then, they are claimants or plaintiffs or aggrieved parties. The man has dementia. Nothing will be served by having him in the prisoner's dock in his adult diaper, drooling. The man cannot have a fair trial because he is incapable of defending himself. Maybe the allegations are true, or maybe they are not. All I know is that any attempt to pursue this matter in court will be fought hard by groups who would rather not do so. T

Personally I would rather see justice being seen to be done, than an attempt to sweep it under the carpet because the poor lad has dementia.

Personally I cant wait to see him sat in the dock poo pooing his daiper, NO MAN is above the law.

This has been going on for far too long, WHEN will justice be seen to be being done?

Whats makes this guy so special that the normal rules of law that apply to you and I dont apply to him?

Lord Janner is a current labour peer.

This guy can and apparently does occasionally turn up at the house of lords despite and since his dementia diagnosis.

In the Daily Mail they reported that until the story resurfaced again in the press recently, he was still signing in at the House of Lords and claiming expenses etc.

Lord Janner is a current labour peer.

This guy can and apparently does occasionally turn up at the house of lords despite and since his dementia diagnosis.

In the Daily Mail they reported that until the story resurfaced again in the press recently, he was still signing in at the House of Lords and claiming expenses etc.

Of course he was, I suspect what we have here is a greatly exaggerated case of dementia, remember the 'Guinness 4' case from long ago, one of those guys made a full recovery from his 'Alzheimers'.

This is a common tactic to either avoid prosecution or receive leniency.

Check this : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11554636/Forgive-my-cynicism-at-the-timely-onset-of-Lord-Janners-dementia.html

He is innocent, of course, until proven guilty. He cannot be found guilty in his present state, so the whole thing is a waste of time.

He should have been tried when the crimes were first reported to the police.

Political grandstanding and lawsuit searches now underway...an 86 year old dementia patient is so far gone he wouldn't realize it if they executed him.

Victims should be compensated, but saying this is a search for justice is laughable.

He probably had an establishment doctor declare his dementia.

He'll sit in court and drool and mutter a bit, and another establishment figure will declare him unfit.

Then he slip off home for a 12 year old and wish it wasn't just whiskey.

It's nothing but a disgrace.

I tried adding a "like this" to your tally but apparently there is a daily maximum allowed now.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

people often get dementia at the court but it often heals fast when they are out of court....

Sort of like saying that Nazi concentration camp guards shouldn't be prosecuted because they are so old. How many old people did they without hesitation, send to their deaths?

Jimmy Saville interfered with kids that were mentally deficient. What if he peaded that he had had an unhappy childhood also? Plenty of people with dementia in prison, they don't get released easily.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

It's not vindication; everyone believes them. It just vengeance, and they won't be demolested because there's been a trial.

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

Decades ago investigations into this man were blocked by the establishment on more than 1 occasion.

Now he suddenly develops dementia?

Strange that he was regularly attending the House of Lords and voting on issues until this story broke. He has even sneaked in occasionally since.

Dementia my arse!

Guilty or Innocent...it will not matter much to the ex-pol accused child molester...he will not remember from one day to the next what is going on...

A political trial...to appease the minions...at 86 years of age...it is a waste of time and money...

Maybe it will bring some form of closure for some people who need this prosecution to feel better about themselves...

Whilst I hate to see anyone get away with this sort of crime if the man has dementia then he is not fit to stand trial and bringing him before the courts seems to be a waste of time and money.

No.

The trial of facts gives the victims their day in court.

And their chance to be vindicated.

That's not a waste of money.

Recognizing the rights of victims has to be highest priority.

..................................

It's not vindication; everyone believes them. It just vengeance, and they won't be demolested because there's been a trial.

It's important to find out who was complicit in his crimes. That alone is reason enough to proceed in my humble opinion.

My ex MP, Leicester East. I disliked him when I met him when I was 13 and now I know why.

Janner represented Leicester North West and then Leicester West.

He never, AFAIK, represented or stood for election in Leicester East.

I meet him twice. Once when he was shaking hands pre-election in a pub (The Blackbird); and chose to ignore me. The second time was at a business function where he was one of the speakers.

Sharp, and had a reputation for being a good constituency MP. But, like you, I thought there was something unlikable about him.

I thought the accused was entitled to defend him/herself. How is that going to happen in this case? Can the idea, for heaven's sake!

Well he got away...

Lord Janner: Criminal proceedings over abuse claims end

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35321257

I hope there will be a top level enquiry, there must have been others involved in helping him and covering up.