Many of those who have been reflecting upon the culpability or innocence of Lord Janner, his degree of dementia and the nature, extent and duration of any possible cover-ups will be infinitely grateful to none other than RW Tucker for settling these matters.

The former police officer, I believe, asks “how many OTHER [my capitals] perverts are there in the higher echelons of politics?” – probably about the same percentage as in the various ranks of our constabularies, incidentally. So, in the absence of any official confession or conviction, are we to presume that this correspondent is privy to incontrovertible proof, denied to the overwhelming majority of the remainder of us, regarding his lordship’s guilt?

Moreover, RW, clearly an enormous expert on – and respecter of – the rule of law, the presumption of innocence and our defamation regulations, proposes that the other should be charged (a not entirely fanciful proposition in itself, perhaps), then found unfit to plead and made subject to detention in a secure mental hospital such as Broadmoor, despite having been found guilty of absolutely nothing, presumably currently – if he ever did – representing little or no danger to the public, and the fact that such institutions scarcely cater for those with his supposed condition.

By the way, it may be worth checking out whether anyone else (solicitors, close family, etc) can sue for libel on behalf of the gaga.

I shall leave it to others, if they can be bothered, to comment upon this contributor’s second “problem of public interest”.

DAVID DIMENT
Riverside Court
Oxford