[Closed] How long before the miraculous recovery?

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.

[i]Wonder what type of dementia he has. There are hundreds of types. [/i]

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

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-32720625 ]as above[/url]

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

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11554636/Forgive-my-cynicism-at-the-timely-onset-of-Lord-Janners-dementia.html ]None whatsoever[/url]

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.

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 [s]lying ****[/s] 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.

[quote=sadmadalan ]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.

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

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 ****ing 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?

[quote=AD ]I really don't understand why the trial of facts has now been abandoned - not impressed.

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

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

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?

I found it intetesting that His behaviour seems to me to be entirely consistent with someone with advanced dementia.

If it were easy to fake, wouldn't all criminals fake it to get off?

A quick google suggests the accusation that kicked all this off was made by a convicted child abuser. We keep hearing how the victims must be 'beleived', now the perps must also be beleived, but only if they say something happened, not if they say they're innocent.

It really is a witch hunt.

It's difficult to make sense of abuse.
Rationality is often abandoned in the rush to blame someone, anyone.

A conspiracy theory is often more palatable and easier to accept than the truth.

Why did Special Branch have [url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4424417.ece ]files on Lord Janner[/url]?

[img] [/img]

(As they did with [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31908431 ]Cyril Smith[/url] and [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/22/leon-brittan-westminster-child-abuse-files ]Leon Brittan[/url], among others)

I don't know why.
Neither do you.

But banging in about it daily and stoking the hysteria helps no one.

Yep, probably best to just forget about it, eh...

Why did Special Branch have files on Lord Janner?

So Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children?

What did they know of politicians involved in child abuse associating with members of the Paedophile Information Exchange?

Yep, that's EXACTLY what I said.

A quick google suggests the accusation that kicked all this off was made by a convicted child abuser. We keep hearing how the victims must be 'beleived', now the perps must also be beleived, but only if they say something happened, not if they say they're innocent.

It really is a witch hunt.

hmmm 4 more accusers had come forward since the trial was announced

the saville effect justifies publishing names of the accused? or just made up?

the telegraph seem keen to keep it in the news, in contrast to Leon Briton, though thats undoubtedly for partisan political reasions

hmmm 4 more accusers had come forward since the trial was announced
the saville effect justifies publishing names of the accused? or just made up?

Who knows. We hear a lot about allegations, and silence about the evidence. For all we know they could all have gone to the police, told people at the time and kept a diary. But maybe its just their word.

I read a lot of the hospital reports on Saville. It's shocking how weak the evidence is. The evidence for necrophillia for instance - it's total nonsense. Third hand hearsay. Some of the "accusations" are for things that aren't even illegal.

I challenge anyone to find a single example from the Saville hospital reports of an assault with convincing evidence. I read a large number and came up blank, but I didn't read them all so could easily have missed some.

Yes, I accept there usually isn't evidence in these cases but 3000, without anyone going to the police, without anyone getting pregnant without anyone writing in a contemporary diary or telling someone at the time?

As I say I may have missed a good example. I'd only need to see one, then I could cheerfully join in with the national outrage.

I read a lot of the hospital reports on Saville.

What "hospital reports" and why did you read them?

Yes, I accept there usually isn't evidence in these cases but 3000, without anyone going to the police, without anyone getting pregnant without anyone writing in a contemporary diary or telling someone at the time?

there were plenty of reports at the time
thatchers own advisors warned her that he had a reputaion as a pervert,
even johnny rotten repeats rumours

there were 9 complaints made (only 1 formal) at stoke mandeville about him b4 1985 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jimmy-savile-scandal-stoke-mandeville-nurses-ignored-complaints-sex-abuse-victims-1489539

as for now prgnancies, maybe hes firing blanks?

What "hospital reports" and why did you read them?

Every hospital he was involved in wrote a report detailing every accusation, all published online.

I read them because I read about the Necrophilia "glass eye stealing" accusation and it seemed a bit dubious to me so I read it in the report first hand for myself.

One report lead to another and before I knew it I was half way through the reports without finding anything vaguely compelling. (...and a raft of stuff that was 3rd hand gossip or obviously bollocks.)

That's why.

there were 9 complaints made (only 1 formal) at stoke mandeville about him b4 1985

Great, which one of the 9 do you consider the most "cut and dried"?

no idea, I have no intention of reading them

i was merely responding to your claim

without anyone going to the police

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/12/sussex-police-missed-chance-jimmy-savile-ipcc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-33428170

One report lead to another and before I knew it I was half way through the reports

Just compulsive reading eh, I thought it might have been part of your job somehow.

Just compulsive reading eh

Yup. You'd think the press fact check - seemingly they don't they just write out a headline 'accusation' as fact even if the source is "a bloke remembers another bloke telling him something on a nightshift in 1983, but he doesn't remember the name of the bloke who told him." Once you start spotting the differences between reality and the press version it becomes addictive.

no idea

Thanks anyway.

Edited.

So Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children?

Sorry, I didn't realise that article was the crux of the issue at this point in time; I'd been basing my argument on the vast body of evidence which suggests

Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children

Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children

Maybe that's what 'they' want you to think?

[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Sorry, I didn't realise that article was the crux of the issue at this point in time; I'd been basing my argument on the vast body of evidence which suggests

Special Branch knew several politicians were abusing children

Do we have to do our own research?

Probably not a bad idea... do an advanced search for Janner on here and you'll see I mentioned it long before any of the media ever publicized the allegations.

Daresay you'll also find plenty to bolster my argument...

You mentioned it on here before the allegation was made public by convicted abuser Beck in 1991?

If they wanted to cover it all up, why prosecute Beck thus creating a disgruntled loose cannon with nothing to lose?

Now you're being silly (not that you weren't being silly before... you seem to think Jimmy Savile is an innocent victim of false accusations)

If Beck's allegations had been followed up, there wouldn't be such suspicion now about the multiple occasions when investigations into Janner were shut down, or the fact that the Home Office lost files on his abuse.

Of course, if as the Times article above suggests, Special Branch were aware of Janner's abuse in the 60s, 70s and 80s, Beck's publicizing the issue would likely have brought the full force of the establishment on him.

Sorry, I didn't realise that article was the crux of the issue at this point in time

I don't know what the point of all this is when you won't even read the sources that you yourself cite.

The fact is, this whole issue has been running for some time~ Janner is not an isolated case and Special Branch are said to have intervened in many similar cases...

A swift snapshot is provided by [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28201997 ]this BBC article[/url], but there is a wealth of information out there which expands on the issue and raises many more questions.

A man claiming to be a former Home Office civil servant last week told the Sunday Express that not only was PIE receiving funding from the Home Office in the 1980s, it was doing so at the request of Special Branch, the intelligence-gathering arm of the police. And he believed the police were not interested in catching child abusers.

He said his superior told him that Special Branch "found it politically useful to identify people who were paedophiles... I was aware a lot of people in the civil service or political arena had an interest in obtaining information like that which could be used as a sort of blackmail."

Home Secretary Theresa May has said a Home Office review found the claim that PIE was government funded to be untrue but it would be re-examined by the inquiry.

Allegations of Special Branch involvement in a cover-up were also made by Jack Tasker, a former Lancashire detective who tried to prosecute Cyril Smith for child sex abuse.

He says Special Branch detectives arrived in his office one day, told him to hand over all his notebooks and files, and told him to go no further with his investigations.

"Nothing like that had ever happened before," he told the BBC. "That came from London." Cyril Smith was never prosecuted.

If these allegations are true, the newly commissioned inquiry into abuse has a lot of work on its hands.

(Worth noting article was written before 2 heads of inquiry resigned)

[url= http://news.sky.com/story/1610295/care-home-resident-janner-was-regular-visitor ]Care Home Resident: Janner Was Regular Visitor

The man said he raised concerns about suspicious activity involving youngsters at the home run by a notorious paedophile.[/url]

A former care home resident has told Sky News how he watched Lord Janner repeatedly visit a children's home run by a notorious paedophile.

The man, who did not want to be identified, was a resident at Layton Road children's home in the 70s and 80s and said he repeatedly raised concerns about suspicious activity at the site involving youngsters.

The centre was run for a short period by Frank Beck, who was later convicted of multiple sexual offences involving children at various homes in Leicestershire.

Beck was ordered to serve five life sentences but died in prison in 1994.

The former resident told Sky News that at one stage the then MP would visit up to three times a week while Beck was in charge: "He'd be in his blue jag, he'd be driving.

"He'd go up and ring the bell, Frank Beck would know the time Janner would be turning up.

"Two children would go into the living quarters, there would be some talking, I don't know what was said and then Janner would leave with the children on a number of occasions, they'd come back two-and-a-half hours later or so, they'd be fragile and upset.

"It was then that I was suspicious that there was a very serious thing going on."

He also alleged that another man he recognised sometimes accompanied Lord Janner and said that man is still alive.

But senior figures at the Crown Prosecution Service are now understood to regard the case against Lord Janner as "overwhelming" - and the level of abuse alleged as "horrific".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35304528

so does everyone owe JHJ an apology?