Wow, the principles of British justice have really gone out of the window in this thread haven't they. Innocent until proven guilty?

And whatever happened to the compassionate society? She's not fit to stand trial, fair enough. She's not "getting off", the trial will be suspended until she is fit to stand trial. Why would anyone wish to torment a fellow human being by putting them through a process they clearly can't handle?

At least she's not accused of kiddy-fiddling. There would be calls from people (including some on 404) to have her horribly mutilated in a truly medieval fashion in order to force a confession before her inevitable death,

Like others have said, if she can't handle going through the trial she shouldn't have committed the crime in the first place.

EFT.
I'll just add that as someone who's suffered with depression to the point of being suicidal, there's no way I'd have been fit to stand trial while I was ill.
Now, though, I'm certainly fit enough to answer to any authority about my actions whilst I was ill.

but you could use the past to effect the future outcome of a case, which could not be judged at the time, and in doing so result in a no trial

funny how only the few can out stride justice when the many have to face justice regardless, ho hum ...

Exactly right, Jon.

And as for this:


If someone isn't fit to stand trial, the law says that the trial cannot proceed until such time as they are fit to undergo due and fair process. The principle of justice you state requires that we don't suspend legal principles just because someone happens to be an MP.

It's perfectly simple - she isn't fit to stand trial so she doesn't stand trial. Utterly irrelevant is the fact that she's disliked by unthinking, swivel-eyed parrots of a formerly Fascist-supporting, idiocy-mongering hate-rag like the Daily Heil.

This is logically silly for at least two reasons

1) People don't do crimes expecting to be caught. They do crimes because they think they will get away with them.
2) How the hell is anyone who hasn't been through a trial before supposed to know whether they will or won't be able to deal with one beforehand?
3) What you're actually requiring is 'if you won't be able to handle the trial at some indeterminate point in the future, don't do the crime'. Find me one person who can answer that question with any certainty.
You're setting a standard which is simply impossible in the real world to meet, and would result in all sorts of people who are patently more in need of medical and/or psychiatric help ending up in the dock. Is that really what you want? People who are literally not in control of their actions being tried in court?

The only important question is this and it's very simple - ' Is she medially and psychologically fit to stand trial?'

if the answer is 'yes' you send her to court. If the answer is 'no', you don't. You wait until the answer is 'yes'.

That's how you run a proper justice system. As oppose to some sort of bizarre system we abandoned when we gave up the ducking stool.

Jon

sadly this only seems to effect a few chosen people, unlike the rest of us mere morals

remember we are all in this together ...

if you are unable to do the time for the crime don't do the crime
and when the crime is uncovered and you are found out, live with it

especially when in a position that is in regard to putting in place laws that have to be upheld, ho hum ...

I don't think anyone is disputing that she should be put on trial, the only matter is when.
Or are we suggesting that there should be no such thing as 'unfit for trial'?
Because that's not a good road to travel at all.

i think she has taken good advice and acting lessons
if she wishes to top herself i hope she obliges, saves the cost of a court case ...

Really? The probability of British former-MPs being judged not fit to stand trial is significantly lower than that of the UK general population? Do you have any data to back up your assertion?

Or are you simply making it up because the story involves someone from a class of people you happen to irrationally hate?


So your implication is that either:

1. Mrs. Moran, as a Labour MP, contradicted a soundbite given by a Conservative/LibDem government not elected until after she stood down as an MP
2. The coalition Conservative / LibDem goverment is somehow interested in protecting a disgraced former Labour MP.

Erm...

So, just to clarify, you have no data or facts and are just spouting drivel based on fantasy.


So, just to clarify, you have no data or facts and are just spouting drivel based on prejudice and irrational hatred.


So, just to clarify, you have no data or facts and are just spouting drivel based on an arbitrary and purely binary value system in which anyone who you don't like is either ‘management’ or a ‘lackey’


So, just to clarify, you have no data or facts and are just spouting drivel based on resentment of a nefarious, arbitrary, mystical and imaginary ‘they’.

+1 to pretty much everything Rustybucket has said on here.