I find the calls for her resignation somewhat unsavoury. After all, it seems that she followed all the procedures and took all the advice she was given before coming to a conclusion. Surely it is the regs that ought to be being questioned, not the person applying them?
I agree. There is an element of mob rule here.
We are constantly reminded of the need for the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that people accused of crimes have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. If Janner is even moderately demented this will be impossible for him to do.
Action should have been taken years ago.
I also find it disturbing that the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been all but abandoned by some posters here.
That would be one of the issues with a trial of the facts, I suspect, but the innocent till proven guilty thing needs to be unpacked a bit here. It is a legal presumption, it is not something that we require everyone to believe. Indeed, if some people did not believe someone was guilty before we had a trial, there would be no trials. That some on this board express their belief that Janner is guilty isn't necessarily problematic - it would make them bad jurors though.
I also struggle with this being portrayed as mob rule. The procedures for asking for a review have been followed, carried out by an independent QC, generated by the appeal from those accusing Janner as was their right. We have to be careful that we don't just brand anyone seeking that he stand trial as part of some mob. Even those who have called for the resignation of the DPP might be doing for non mob like reasons, possibly if they are close to those accusing Janner, it is understandable given some of the overlap between the decision and Janner still claiming attendance allowance in HoL.
So far, the system is working as designed and while there may be worries that the review by the independent QC might have become subverted by political decisions, that applies to the original decision. This relates to the question of whether there is a benefit to this and it is certainly arguable either way, but in its favour if the accusations are true it will be the right thing to do for those who suffered any abuse. Further we have a real issue in this country with actual child abuse having been covered up to a greater or lesser extent by parts of the establishment. How wide that goes is unclear but Cyril Smith makes it clear that it has happened. It is not an ideal situation that accused or accusers rights become compromised by a larger situation but in this case they have and any decision will be both seen in the light and affect how people think about the justice system going forward. It seems at least arguable to me that due to the mistakes and breaches of the past justice must be seen to be done in a more transparent way and that some form of trial or inquiry would be required for that.
