http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35027705

Depends on how much cash he has left 😉

I’ll just leave this here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32720625 He mananged to vote over 200 times after giving family power of attorney.

Seems fair to not stand trial considering all the medical evidence and agreement, whether you like or support the judges decision or not those are the terms to which it will be heard. I don’t think they would have come to this decision without being sure of the capabilitiy of the defendant to understand what’s being brought before him.

He probably does have advanced dementia, the prosecution accepts that he has. Although it’s obviously more fun to claim that it’s all part of an establishment cover-up which even the prosecution are in on..

At least there will still be a ‘trial of facts’.
FWIW I have little doubt he has dementia – which opens up another important debate as pointed out above – how the hell can a guy with dementia be allowed to vote 200+ times?

Wonder what type of dementia he has. There are hundreds of types.

I agree, but this case does push the boundaries of Dementia and it’s affects in capability and culpability. We move into a society now seeing more intensive questioning about Dementia and it’s affects on the human condition and it’s interaction within society.

Hate to say it, but this is a good thing 😕

I’m certainly not claiming any sort of cover up, ernie, and expect he probably does have dementia, however TZF’s evidence is enough to make you a bit suspicious and I suspect it’s not completely impossible to fool the doctors on something like this (I’ve taken my mum for dementia testing so have some idea of what they do). There is after all precedent for miraculous recoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders

I’m sure jive will have fun though.

Has he got the same thing HAD Rupert Murdoch?

The establishment sticking together. Who’d have thought it.

I expect the extent of his condition has been exaggerated.

I hope that the prosecution get to have their day in court, then I’ll come out and speak my mind about this individual case.

But politicians are generally the absolute lowest of the low.

Really hard to see why Judges, civil servants and doctors would all conspire.

So the right decision IMHO.

Ernest Saunders came to mind for me too. I wish my grandma had got the sort of dementia that magically goes away when it’s no longer useful.

Wonder what type of dementia he has. There are hundreds of types.

My Dad has dementia. If you met him for the first time you’d never know, and even if you’d known him for years you wouldn’t know either – unless you asked him a question that required more than a smile and a yes/no.

But take him out of his immediate surroundings and he hasn’t got a clue where he is, who he is or why he’s there (deaf as a post doesn’t help either).

Really hard to see why Judges, civil servants and doctors would all conspire.

Judges, part of the establishment

Civil servants, part of the establishment

Doctors, part of the establishment

Can you join the dots……?

Really hard to see why Judges, civil servants and doctors would all conspire.

I’d hoped not, too.

Clearly, Janner isn’t malingering

as above

Nope. He’s a very poorly man with no awareness at all

None whatsoever

My Dad has dementia. If you met him for the first time you’d never know, and even if you’d known him for years you wouldn’t know either – unless you asked him a question that required more than a smile and a yes/no.

Just for conrast, my wife’s dad has dementia – ask him anything about the last ten years and he’d have no clue; ask him about his working life, or when he met his future wife 50 years ago, make yourself comfy as you’re in for a long chat

I honestly think, in these circumstances of extremely serious allegations (hard to standardise, I admit), a suspended sentence for contempt of court should be applied – using the maximum tariff for the alleged offence(s). This should be enforced with no leave for appeal the moment that the lying **** is seen to recover

I honestly think, in these circumstances of extremely serious allegations (hard to standardise, I admit), a suspended sentence for contempt of court should be applied – using the maximum tariff for the alleged

They used to convict mentally handicapped people like this, just to make the crime stats look good. Thankfully, we’ve moved on considerably since those very dark days.

@footflaps, I think you maybe misunderstood scaredy- the idea is that yes you take into account the (alleged) condition but if, after the case is dismissed, the person turns out not to have the condition at all, you rip them a new arse.

Again harking back to the Guiness trial- Saunders was released early due to a condition he didn’t have, and quickly stopped even pretending. It made an ass of the law; having fooled it once he was free to return to normal life.

Given that Janner has been examined by multiple doctors (If I heard R4 correctly this afternoon it was 10 doctors) and they all reached the same conclusion. He is unable to know what is going on. As such the original decision by the DPP as correct.

I am actually against a ‘trial of the facts’. People will be asked to remember what they thought happened many years ago, without being challenged about it. A fact can only be something that cannot be challenged. We will hear a set of allegations that cannot be proved or disproved. I believe we used to call this a witch hunt

There is a feeling that this will help the victims by allowing to their day in court. But given that Janner cannot recall what happened or not, just publish in the papers/book/internet and be dammed.

This won’t reveal anything about alleged establishment cover ups. I am sure there were cover ups, but that is being investigated by Justice Lovell and is going to take many years.

So we’ll end up with lots of people in a court, with a Judge trying to keep it under control. Allegations will be made and not challenged and in the end we will find him guilty and tell him to go home. What a total and utter waste of time.

I reckon I could probably convince a doctor tomorrow that I didn’t know what is going on. If I was going to convince 10 then I’d probably want a few days to work on my act so it is consistent.

I’m sceptical – but I don’t attach any significance to voting after giving power of attorney; if anything it proves the opposite. You have to be mentally competent in order to give a valid power of attorney, and it can be invoked later by the attorney if and when you aren’t capable of deciding for yourself. I’ve had PoA for my mother for years and she’s still fine, just covering herself for what might happen.

I don’t attach any significance to voting after giving power of attorney; if anything it proves the opposite

so what about claiming dementia after giving PoA and then voting after that ?

I see he’s playing a committed game. That’s some wheeze to dodge the beak.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35142675

was a canoe involved?

So, no miraculous recovery, then.

If he recovers it definitely will be a miracle

Best give it til about Easter before a final decision though…

It would have been a bit embarrassing if he had died during his trial. Specially on the first day.

It does nobody any credit that he didn’t have the opportunity to answer the allegations in a court, and the years/decades of dithering by police (and prevarication on the part of others) in several high-profile, politically sensitive cases has made a mockery of the justice system*

I can only hope that the several trials, many doomed to lack of coclusions due to massive delays, mean that future generations come forward sooner and are given a hint of credibility when they do.

Lost files, my arse; listen, investigate, document and then **** well follow it through or present very clearly your reasons for not doing so !

*… and given some folk the opportunity, maybe even necessity, for almost endless airings of various theories – of, well, varying quality.

“See! I told you I was ill!”

I wonder for whom the lack of a trial of the facts is convenient.

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

I really don’t understand why the trial of facts has now been abandoned – not impressed.

If we “know” Saville was guilty without a trial (of any sort), what’s the difference here?

The question is, if it would have still been held following his death, would he still be alive? 😈

aracer – Member
I wonder for whom the lack of a trial of the facts is convenient.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
POSTED 4 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

I wonder for whom Janner being 87 years old and mortal was convenient.

scotroutes – Member
If we “know” Saville was guilty without a trial (of any sort), what’s the difference here?
POSTED 8 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST

I suppose a real conspiracy theorist would be saying that Savile was a patsy. Why would “the establishment” set him up, otherwise? He was conveniently childless, unmarried and was not part of the establishment (a couple of photos with Prince Charles and NYE at Thatcher’s doesn’t make you an insider).

Of course, that would be stupid.

Who gained from Janner living to the ripe old age of 87? Maybe he was supposed to die in his 70s and ‘they’ kept him going. Makes you think.

Interesting to read about his 60 second court appearance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33931860

What specifically is interesting about it?