Lord Janner

[Mafiabob]

Dead at 87.... Another to escape justice perhaps....

[Pearl Ram]

It would be ridiculous to wonder if he might've been assisted with his passing, you know, compelling evidence looking like opening a can of worms so the machine that is the establishment moves to protect one of it's own, so I'm not wondering.

[i-Ram]

It must have been terrible for him in the latter years.  He probably wanted to put the record straight and come out and say sorry I was very, very wrong. But a Labour man he died. Sad really.

[Mafiabob]

Also I see the CPS are dropping the case of the facts.... Good ole establishment eh....

 

One day these lot will be done

[Phoenix]

I've lived in Leicestershire for nearly 40 years and there have always been rumours. This is not some 'jumping on the accusation bandwagon' thing. No smoke without fire.

[ilkleyram]

I (genuinely) wonder when it was that we - as a society - lost belief in the idea that people are 'innocent until proven guilty', especially, but not only, when the accused might be described as being part of the 'establishment'?   Perhaps we never had it.

I wonder when we stopped believing that people in 'high' places - judges and the like -  are able to tell the truth.

Four different doctors with expertise in dementia examined Janner on unannounced visits separately and over a period of some months.  All concluded that he had dementia.  The judge decided that he was therefore unfit to stand trial because he couldn't understand the charges or defend himself and yet it's suggested that he was faking and that 'the establishment' was helping him to avoid court.  If you have seen people with dementia - both my parents had dementia and I worked in healthcare for many years - then you will know that it is hard to fake.

But his accusers are referred to as 'victims', even by the police.  How do we know that they are before their evidence AND Janner's, is heard?  There might be nothing in their stories. He might have had watertight alibis for every event.  It wouldn't be the first time that the CPS, the police and accusers are wrong.

It's ironic that the police and CPS are part of the 'establishment' and that neither of them have particularly good records and yet when a well known person is charged, especially with sex crimes, we are prepared to believe in their guilt and are encouraged to do so before any evidence is actually heard.

Janner might be guilty but surely he is innocent until proven to be otherwise which, as he's now dead, cannot happen.

 

[ossieram]

1 hour ago, ilkleyram said:

I (genuinely) wonder when it was that we - as a society - lost belief in the idea that people are 'innocent until proven guilty', especially, but not only, when the accused might be described as being part of the 'establishment'?   Perhaps we never had it.

I wonder when we stopped believing that people in 'high' places - judges and the like -  are able to tell the truth.

Four different doctors with expertise in dementia examined Janner on unannounced visits separately and over a period of some months.  All concluded that he had dementia.  The judge decided that he was therefore unfit to stand trial because he couldn't understand the charges or defend himself and yet it's suggested that he was faking and that 'the establishment' was helping him to avoid court.  If you have seen people with dementia - both my parents had dementia and I worked in healthcare for many years - then you will know that it is hard to fake.

But his accusers are referred to as 'victims', even by the police.  How do we know that they are before their evidence AND Janner's, is heard?  There might be nothing in their stories. He might have had watertight alibis for every event.  It wouldn't be the first time that the CPS, the police and accusers are wrong.

It's ironic that the police and CPS are part of the 'establishment' and that neither of them have particularly good records and yet when a well known person is charged, especially with sex crimes, we are prepared to believe in their guilt and are encouraged to do so before any evidence is actually heard.

Janner might be guilty but surely he is innocent until proven to be otherwise which, as he's now dead, cannot happen.

 

If he is guilty he is guilty, whether this can ever be proven is another matter. In the eyes of the law he might be classed as innocent, but that doesn't mean that he is. On the other hand he could well be innocent and his illness might have robbed him of the chance to prove that is the case.