Labour Lord Janner being investigated of rape of boy by Police in Scotland.
 

Who do not have the same Laws as England


http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-762x428.jpg

http://news.sky.com/story/1498623/po...er-abuse-claim

"Police Scotland is absolutely committed to preventing all forms of child abuse
and to keeping children safe while bringing perpetrators
of abuse to justice, regardless of the passage of time."

Vile man. This "unfit to be charged" thing should definitely be looked into because people like him really need to be kept off the streets.

Haven't you posted this story before though? What is the update since then?

That Boy was taken to Scotland
to be Raped by the Labour Lord back 30 years or more ago
as a Man he has been to the Scottish Police before


There other threads about him
but as Scotland is not under England Laws
this needs its own thread.


That Labour Lord was voting in the House of Lords
before the police went public
then he was to ill, all of a sudden


Do the Math

Just debated on Ch4HD news


Another Victim Paul Miller
(he was in a Childrens Home as a boy)
who was raped in the 1970's
by that Labour Lord,
he wants his day in court

I do not know the full story, but assuming everything you said there is true, I think that he is definitely fit to be charged and I hope that he spends the remainder of his life in prison. People like that are not wanted in society.

What are the differences in law that prevent his prosecution? Surely it must be only a matter of wording and could be resolved? I assume pedophilia and rape was not acceptable in Scotland regardless of the wording around that time

His dementia is a factor here and he's been found unfit to stand trial, they may not have that in Scotland I don't know. I hope they don't.

If he's not fit to stand under English Law, I'm not sure how Scotland can find him fit enough to stand. It's not a decision people make lightly. Scotland do often go their own way though... for instance, freeing terrorist al-Megrahi so he could return home to Libya to die because he was apparently at death's door. He lived another three years though, comfortable and in his own home... which is more that can be said for the 270 people who died when the aicraft he exploded blew up over Lockerbie. Bad decision, Scotland.

So, if Janner's really not free to stand trial here, I'd say Scotland would be wrong to try him there.

No way on this earth was that decision made by Scotland alone, not that the cases are in any way comparable.
The decision in England and Wales is under review, so the worm is still wriggling.

Scotland made the final decision, they had to.

Anyway, the crux of the matter is, if someone is actually unable to stand trial because of their health then no amount of wishing and appealing can make it happen.

If they had to it wasn't entirely or in any way their decision was it?

Yes on topic if Scotland wish to proceed as per their laws then what we do or don't do here has little or no relevance.

What I mean is that they had to make the decision, and no one else.

And if you think differently, then it cancels out your last sentence.

they had to
they had to.

Same quote different connotation.

Personally I don't feel the Scottish are to blame at all, how would it seem if we were treating him and/or he was hospitalised in the UK?... Huge diplomatic nightmare and national security risk.
Janner isn't, he is/ was only a risk to young boys ..allegedly.

Yes, I changed the bits in italics because you weren't grasping my point. I was emphasising that Scotland have their own laws and they make their own judgement calls. I used al-Megrahi only as an example.

Scotland does do things a little differently as to law however the facts that will still remain, I would say are.
1) can the accused person really independently understand the charges made against them.
2),can they independently themselves instruct lawyers on their behalf.

Scotland is part of all human rights rulings too, to put to trial someone deemed incapable of understanding or able to instruct others as to the issues in question, would surely go against those human rights.

If Scotland were to do so and all medical evidence stated convincingly otherwise then Scotland could be in massive trouble nationally and internationally.

The other case, al-Megrahi,was a cancer condition, it can be that medicine puts a limited time on survival of those with cancer but it can be that those with it survive much longer.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of that case, they are far different to a case where because the brain is in effect rendered incapable of its full function as to memory, understanding and coordination and independent living too for the individual.

It would be either a very brave or really bad legal system that actually went ahead with a prosecution of such a sufferer of that.
A UK inquiry into his 'alleged' crimes is vital but it would surprise me, if the weight of evidence as to his dementia status was upheld,that any case in court would or could be brought.

Ah. well you can't blame me for your mistake but I do agree Scotland have the right to apply their own law in this case.
International terrorist activity maybe wasn't the best comparison.

Sigh.