It sickens me, as I'm sure it sickens all of us that anyone should get away with committing any crime, let alone one so abhorrent.
There is apparently worse to come, so far we've only learned about the tip of a very large ice berg. However one would hope that abusers will face prosecution and not evade Justice as Janner has over the years. Sounds similar to how Cyril Smith evaded justice tbh.
I also think it's clear that there are serious questions to answer about why he wasn't prosecuted when he was more able, and whether any privilege came from being an MP, and whether any parliamentary colleagues helped to cover anything up.
It's fairly certain had he not been an MP, then he'd have been in front of the courts a long time ago. As it is a 96 year old was convicted of sex offences not long ago.
But there's something we need to realise about our democracy. We set up a system which is as fair and just as we can, but it's not going to be perfect, and it means people will slip through the net.
Unfortunately it appears quite a few MP's and Lord's have slipped through the net. It's anyone's guess as to how far up the establishment chain this goes. As for our Democracy ? It's damaged, but not beyond repair. Exaro news Editor may well be right that this will be the biggest political scandal we've seen since WWII. May cause a constitutional crisis if things go really pearshaped.
I'm sure none of us would be happy being on trial for something and have the level of proof required being set at below 'beyond a reasonable doubt', despite the fact that we know some guilty people will walk free because we just don't have quite enough proof.
The Evidence passed the CPS test. When it comes to these kinds of cases it's the survivors vs the abusers then a Jury has to decide whose telling the truth. Even if they can't prosecute Janner, they should be looking into who covered his abuse up and where possible prosecute those people.
It's right and proper than anyone who is accused of a crime should be able to take the stand at their own trial and defend themselves if they wish to do so, and I doubt anyone would argue with that, or want to be tried not having the opportunity to defend ourselves.
That principle is not under attack here. Merely the process in which the CPS used to reach it's decision.
Subsequently, painful though it is, I think this is probably the correct decision.
I think it would have been better had the decision process been taken through the courts and not behind the closed doors of the CPS. In any case, I expect the medical examinations and views on Janner will be given to the CSA Inquiry. Though it appears the Police are going to challenge the decision in the courts. As it seems quite odd that Janner's dementia only came to the fore as the Police moved in on him. Before then he'd been active in the Lord's and filled out complex forms for expenses. That's what's raised some people's suspicions.
On its own, it is probably legally correct.
Legally correct, but seriously flawed in how the decision was reached and then disseminated to the public. As I said it would probably have been better had the courts decided on the question of Janner being fit to stand trial rather than the CPS.
Morally, taken in isolation, it's wrong that he shouldn't have to face trial. But morally, looking at the overall rules of the justice system, it's right that we uphold the principle that the accused are allowed to defend themselves.
It would have been a show trial more than anything else. Questions about Janner will remain until the medical reports are released, if ever.
In this instance, the morality in allowing every accused the right to self defence outweighs the fairly rare instance of this sort of thing happening.
Well lets just hope Janner does not make a remarkable recovery as happened before in another case.
We really need to accept that, just because someone gets off and it makes us angry, that we shouldn't criticise a justice system which never claims to be able to get it right every time.
The issue here is the length of time it took the Police to investigate Janner properly, had they done so a decade or so earlier he could have faced trial. That's where my anger is directed - Savile and Cyril Smith could have been prosecuted long before they died, but for whatever reason they were not.
Johntheexpat, I too thought immediately of Saunders. My understanding is that, in this case, his illness is completely kosher (pun intended) and quite advanced. I'm not sure we'll be seeing the same sort of Lazarus-type act.
If he's faking it, he's pretty much condemned himself to a rather solitary final few years of life to avoid a trial and possible prison time.
The difference here is that, if he suddenly pops up all sprightly, or appears in a video on the Sun's website inhaling helium, he can still be brought to trial. I'm sure people will, quite rightly, be watching him like a hawk.
Steve W
Plenty of people will be watching him for signs of a recovery. But if he is indeed suffering from dementia then that's the end of it. Other than chasing those who covered up his abuse in the first place. But that may uncover more abusers and more brickwalls will be thrown up in order to protect the system rather than uphold the values of our Democracy and hard won freedoms.