Hmm

Last week, the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, announced that the now 86-year-old Janner would not be facing any charges on the grounds that he was suffering from dementia and therefore unfit to stand trial. It required the CPS to add that “this decision does not mean or imply that… Janner is guilty of any offence”. In turn, Janner’s family issued their own statement praising the man’s “integrity” before adding: “He is entirely innocent of any wrongdoing.”

However, in an exceptionally rare move, the CPS went on to detail the exact charges Janner would have faced had he been deemed well enough: the 22 sex offences, alleged to have taken place from 1969 to 1988, involving nine children and young adults then cared for in children’s homes. These ranged from indecent assaults to buggery. What’s more, Saunders admitted Janner should have been charged in 1991 and that there were two further missed opportunities in 2002 and 2007 when the “evidential test was passed”, meaning there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

He is undoubtedly innocent but it’s perhaps not a witch hunt.

14 comments on “Hmm

  1. He is undoubtedly innocent but it’s perhaps not a witch hunt.

    He is not undoubtedly innocent. That is a state known only to God and himself. Well, God if the rumours of Janner’s mental state are true. You mean we undoubtedly have to behave as if he is innocent.

    Not the same thing.

    What’s more, Saunders admitted Janner should have been charged in 1991 and that there were two further missed opportunities in 2002 and 2007 when the “evidential test was passed”, meaning there was a realistic prospect of conviction.

    I think it is a witch hunt but this does not look good. This looks even worse:

    Key was Vaz, MP for the neighbouring Leicestershire constituency, who clearly hadn’t been party to the rumours circulating in his home town. He said his dear friend had been the “victim of a cowardly and wicked attack”

    If Keith Vaz spoke out for him, well, it is hard to maintain that presumption thing.

  2. I take any diagnosis of a mental illness in anyone up before the beak with a pinch of salt, after Ernest Saunders quickly forgot he had been diagnosed with galloping Alzheimer’s after his early release from choky

  3. Oh FFs Saunders, shit or get off the pot, you fat fool. We’re supposed to have a presumption of innocence and then a trial. This justice by innuendo and press release simply won’t do.

  4. @bif, have been engaging in the same argument elsewhere on the web regarding the Germanwings thing. Forum chock-full of German lawyers. As far as they are concerned Lubitz is innocent and always will be, since being dead he can’t be tried. The counter-argument that a murderer is a murderer even before a court has found the fact (and that per the German lawyer logic Hitler is likewise not a murderer) didn’t persuade people who have disappeared so far up their own professional arse.

    The presumption of innocence is an essential tool against tyranny and mob justice, it doesn’t mean you are actually innocent (just that you are entitled to be treated as such). Indeed it extends so far that if you have already had a trial by media, you can’t get a trial in court.

  5. bif,

    well put. It’s absolutely rotten. They know if he’s got dementia that he won’t sue for libel for saying such things.

    Wikipedia includes a reference to the accusation from 1991. “In a debate on 3 December on the issue of contempt of court and third-parties being potentially defamed in court cases, Janner said he had received a letter from Beck’s former cellmate who had written that Beck was intent on implicating Janner as being responsible for criminal acts after the MP had slighted him by refusing to provide a job reference and had “enlisted” the witness, Paul Winston, in an attempt to “frame” Janner.”.

    Janner’s going through the same process as Savile. Everyone knows they can say anything they like because he won’t sue.

  6. Oh FFs Saunders, shit or get off the pot, you fat fool. We’re supposed to have a presumption of innocence and then a trial. This justice by innuendo and press release simply won’t do.

    Agreed. The state shouldn’t accuse or be seen to accuse someone if it has no intention of prosecuting him.

  7. The journalist–when he isn’t accusing “Thatcher’s friend Peter Hayman” says he had letters from Janner to the “victim” –which appear perfectly innocent unless you already knew (that bit isn’t specified) that Janner was guilty. Cyril Smith’s former membership of the Labour party didn’t get mentioned for some reason.

    A bit lacking in the objective dept. The journo is a leftist cunt who wanted to smear Thatcher with guilt by association and is still unhappy his chance did not arrive.

    The entire affair needs its own real world investigation–which will come neither from the state or the poisonous leftist press. By someone who is committed to the objective truth –as far as humanly possible–not a politically based and biased outcome.

  8. A witch hunt is a social/collective phenomenon, not an individual case. If our society were not in the midst of one, the actions of Saunders et al would not be deemed acceptable.

  9. And don’t try that Maoist Self-criticism re-education bullshit on us either, Saunders, you toadying demogogic moron. we’re quite aware that the only people in the frame will be Janner, previous DPPs and a couple of retired policemen, not you. And that the enquiry will have to start with a presumption of guilt since its terms will be “Why didn’t we prosecute this criminal?”

    Call yourself a lawyer? You’re a fucking disgrace. And good luck finding a “judge” to head your enquiry. He should be debagged or defrocked as well. It’s people like you who give female genital mutilation a good name.

  10. “Ernest Saunders”: my wife said that his case made her think, for the first time in her life, that the judge’s bank account should have been checked.

  11. bloke in france – “Oh FFs Saunders, shit or get off the pot, you fat fool. We’re supposed to have a presumption of innocence and then a trial. This justice by innuendo and press release simply won’t do.”

    Well I tend to agree with you. But on the other hand justice should be public. I would like to know what decisions were made and why. I think the case should be properly open. We need to know who made what mistakes and why.

    Perhaps the solution is for justice to be even more public? At least we ought to have a Grand Jury over seeing these sorts of decisions. Given that the prosecutors clearly cannot be trusted.

  12. I said in another thread that grand juries would need to be an improvement. A major part of this mess- from either the SJW side or whatever side I’m considered to be on- is that the State is deciding by fiat who to prosecute and whether, in its own judgement, there is “sufficient evidence”.

  13. Ian B – “is that the State is deciding by fiat who to prosecute and whether, in its own judgement, there is “sufficient evidence”.”

    So we ought to have more light shed on the process. Not less. This sort of thing should not be done behind closed doors. So yes, it is tragic for people who are suspected of crimes but not charged. But it is probably better for us all to know why they do what they do.

    They have clearly f**ked up here, and in a big way. People should be fired unless they have a very good explanation.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.