SIGN UP

If Lord Janner Had Alkzheimers For Years Why Was He Still In The House Of Lords?

Avatar Image
barney15c | 06:25 Thu 23rd Apr 2015 | News
35 Answers
Joshua Rozenberg in his piece in Guardian yesterday

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/22/critics-of-lord-janner-decision-misunderstand-justice-system

quoted that "I have no independent confirmation of the doctors’ reports. All I can say is that the last time I saw Janner in public – which must have two or three years ago – he could no longer remember anybody else’s name. A colleague who saw him at around the same time says he was “away with the fairies”.
If this is so why was he allowed to attend parliament and vote on laws if he was known not to have the mental capacity to know what he voting on. Apart from the abuse allegations it makes an absolute mockery of the political system, god I hope they get to the bottom of this, some hope though the establishment will just close ranks tighter.

Answers

1 to 20 of 35rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Avatar Image
Child abuse inquiry judge to investigate Lord Janner allegations http://gu.com/p/48xx9/stw
12:56 Wed 29th Apr 2015
Question Author
Maybe a newpaper should call Janners bluff, publish the evidence making sure there is no doubt that the facts are irrefutable then invite Janner to sue them for libel / defamation. That's one way of getting the old *** in court.
If this is so why was he allowed to attend parliament and vote on laws if he was known not to have the mental capacity to know what he voting on.

Did he attend parliament? Did he vote? More info required if you are to beat Mikey in the vigilante stakes.
Question Author
In the 12 months up to April 2009, the year of his diagnosis, he attended the Lords 143 times – only just shy of the 147 maximum possible. And he managed to fill in forms procuring himself £12,075 in subsistence payments and £13,468 in ‘office costs’ – with another £691 in mileage claims for his car.
In the following year, up to April 2010, he attended 136 days at the Lords out of a maximum 142 and claimed £10,986 subsistence, £11,625 office costs and £589 mileage.
In the year to April 2011 he turned up 126 days out of 137, and claimed expenses totalling £34,014. In the year to April 2012, Janner attended 143 days out of a maximum of 156. He also managed to claim a hefty £28,800 in expenses.
In the following year, up to April 2013, he turned up 136 days out of 144, and claimed expenses totalling £24,600.
In April, May and June 2013 he attended every one of the 30 days the the Lords sat, claiming a total of £6,450 in expenses. In July he was absent just one out of 20 days, claiming £2,850 for the remaining 19.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3044366/Janner-spoke-Lords-years-dementia-diagnosis-stopped-police-raid-home.html



Question Author
I would say that was pretty compelling, I have no reason to doubt he voted in this period, and it is well doc he made at least one speech during this time.
Question Author
I'm waiting to see what bile his parliamentarian chums are going to spout out in defence of this creep in an attempt to keep Janner out of the dock. Fully expecting Vaz and co. to add their tupenny into the mix (not surprised he has been strangely absent in making a comment as he's normally the first to stick the boot in).
Can only guess but would suspect dementia was not a reason to take away a peerage, and having a title gave automatic rights to attending the upper house. Maybe there is no specific bar for those unable to pass mental tests ? Probably not a big problem, one speker/voter is unlikely to sway the decision of the whole house. But maybe a situation to consider reforms for ?
Speaker
As typed !
It could be a big problem if he's put on a sack barrow and wheeled through with no idea what he's doing, Old Geezer.
That would be fraud.
I wanna quote from Rozenberg: 'it' is the change over to the CPS

Some police forces still haven’t got over it. Last week, Leicestershire police said the CPS decision not to prosecute Lord Janner for alleged indecent assaults and buggery on nine individuals was the “wrong one”. This may have had something to do with the CPS’s allegation that mistakes had been made by Leicestershire police in 2002 (as well as by the CPS itself) and that Janner should have been prosecuted while he was still fit to stand trial. Leicestershire police responded by publishing an allegation that Janner was an “animal”.

and it is nothing to do with Janner and everything to do with officials finger-pointing and blaming each other and not getting gongs and honours because it is your turn to crapped upon for some mistake from years ago - possibly mmade by someone else who HAS retired
Blimey if we had mental tests for the House of COmmons,
we wouldnt have any Irish MPs - no - no - no
I dont mean that,

I mean we wouldnt have 650 MPs - nothing like.....
Question Author
" Probably not a big problem, one speker/voter is unlikely to sway the decision of the whole house."
That hardly the point though is it Geezer, would you like to be convicted based on a law that was passed by somebody who had no mental capacity of what was going on around him or comprehension of what he was voting on , and that casting vote was the one that passed the law. I would be a mite p155ed off I that was the case!
Question Author
And another thing, the crafty *** was compos mentis enough to give authority for his £2m London flat to be signed over to his children pretty much soon after police searched it last year in the event of him being sued so that it reduced the level of compo the victims would get. There is just too many dodgy incidents in this case to believe he isn't fit to stand trial. Remember he is a barrister he knows every stalling tactic in the book, even low enough as to his mental state.
The problem with Alkzheimers is that it is progressive and the rate of progress varies enormously from person to person.
Some 40 years ago my mother was diagnosed as having it but no-one told us. Living 250 miles away we didn't see my parents often, usually just at holiday times. They spent Christmas with us and all was fairly normal - dad was clearly covering for her (with hindsight) but all seemed well. Six weeks later we had a phone call from an uncle "You must come up". In the six weeks she's turned from fairly normal into completely incapable of anything (thought I was her dad etc). If Jenner is in this sort of state there is no way he should be tried and the fact that he was attending parliament relatively recently proves nothing.
.

Barney I dont think your point gets up and runs to be honest....
[ your point in short sits there and shouts I want a wee-wee now ! ]

gaga politicians dont pass gaga laws ...

The record books hold which laws are passed by majorities of one.
[ The new Parliament Act [1949] has led to more crap laws - that is the one where the House of commons can over rule the Lords. The War Crimes Act springs to mind. ]

The only one I can think of is the Divorce Bill of 1821 ( !! yup) - Cl 2 was passed by one vote and the govt was advised to abandon it rather than risk defeat and a general election

and THAT is why Queen Caroline could go up to Westminster Abbey and demand entrance as Queen, during the Coronation - coz she still was.

and the Vote of confidence which defeated Callaghan and eventually brough YThatcher to power - carried by one vote.
The Sinn Feiner stayed in Ireland and Gerry Fitt attended the House of Commons and purposely did not vote....

and I cant think of any others over the last two hundred years
Question Author
Your missing my point Peter.... we expect our politicians to be of sound judgement, the act of legislating is a fundamental part of how our country functions. Its like me saying to you that you need a life saving operation but the only surgeon capable of doing it the early stages of alkzheimers, would you trust that man or a politician to have your best interests at heart.
BHG I have no reason to doubt that your mother was nothing other than a decent woman who never done any ill to a soul. The difference here is this man has done some truly dreadful deeds, hasn't shown an ounce of contrition when he was healthy and now that is he a serious illness we should show compassion and understanding towards him when he never showed a jot to his victims. He was quite prepared for another man with that condition to go on trial for his equally vile crimes so why should it be any different for him?
Not defending him but my Dad had Alkzheimers and it got critical very fast.
He was a bit forgetfull but no more, then one day he went out to do his part time paper round and half way through he just forgot who he was, where he was and what he was doing. He never got better and passed away a few months later.
Also just 2 years before this he was working as caretaker of a large school with no problem.
Barney - I'm NOT saying we should show him compassion. I'm just saying he (probably) isn't fit to be tried. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial with a chance to defend himself; if he's as poorly as several doctors have independently certified then he cannot have a fair trial.
"This man has done some truly dreadful deeds".
That is for a court to decide.
Question Author
CPS thought so...in the end

1 to 20 of 35rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

If Lord Janner Had Alkzheimers For Years Why Was He Still In The House Of Lords?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.