Rolf Harris Guilty

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 9:19 am

Rolf Harris found guilty of indecent assault | UK news | theguardian.com

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:30 am

None of this should be in any way surprising, as films - especially those of the 60s - 70s era often portrayed celebrities of all types as being stereotypically sexist & sexually abusive, believing that their celebrity status not only gave them the right to act in this way, but that it was to be expected of them. True, as I said, these may have only been stereotyped images, but even stereotypes are founded on actual cases, albeit possibly exaggerated.

The point is, that although such activities are in no way acceptable by today's standards, might things have been different back then? Similarly, whereas back in those days cigarette advertisements would blatantly lie by stating that their products were "Good For You", does that mean that they should be prosecuted by today's standards. I know it's not exactly like for like, but just a demonstration of how standards change over time. However, this should NOT, in any way whatsoever, be taken as justification of his actions. What he did was wrong in any time frame. It's just a matter of how wrong it might have been considered at the time.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:35 am

The best thing to come out of this will be if the abused come forward for current crimes rather than wait twenty odd years to gain courage or backing to do what should happen immediately.

It leaves me feeling uneasy that an 84 year old faces jail so long after the crime. I don't know what proper punishment would fit, but the guilty verdict and shame involved and a short custodial sentence might be the judgment of Solomon.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:45 am

FourPart;1458723 wrote: None of this should be in any way surprising, as films - especially those of the 60s - 70s era often portrayed celebrities of all types as being stereotypically sexist & sexually abusive, believing that their celebrity status not only gave them the right to act in this way, but that it was to be expected of them. True, as I said, these may have only been stereotyped images, but even stereotypes are founded on actual cases, albeit possibly exaggerated.

The point is, that although such activities are in no way acceptable by today's standards, might things have been different back then? Similarly, whereas back in those days cigarette advertisements would blatantly lie by stating that their products were "Good For You", does that mean that they should be prosecuted by today's standards. I know it's not exactly like for like, but just a demonstration of how standards change over time. However, this should NOT, in any way whatsoever, be taken as justification of his actions. What he did was wrong in any time frame. It's just a matter of how wrong it might have been considered at the time.

You share my viewpoint...

My apologies but I have said this before on this forum but I'll stick my neck out here and say we are now seeing people penalised by today's standards rather than 50 years ago but I In no way mean serious assault or rape.

As I have posted before, as a kid, I babysat for a dancer who was on TV shows such as Saturday night at the London Palladium. These dancers were not kids from sink estates but In their 20's from wealthy families who'd put them through ballet and dance academy's. She told me about ' that culture' and In one particular much loved household name who by all accounts was an absolute menace and they had a tacit agreement, they didn't go backstage unless In two's and three's. It was not serious violent assault but groping titties and bottoms sort of thing but It appears this was a culture back then. Whenever these celebs are charged, I keep expecting his name to crop up.

What concerns me, Is that prior to the Savile scandal, we saw no drive from the CPS or police to pursue celebs unless It was serious assault. For the Rolf Harris's and the Stuart Hall's, we have also seen many a celeb found not guilty off the back of the Savile scandal and It does seem to smack of, they couldn't get Savile, so let's go after anyone else. cases such as William Roache, Michael Le Vell, Dave Lee Travis, Jim Davidson, Freddie Star etc, all found not guilty but worse far worse, police went to the media and named them long before any evidence was heard In court. That ruins lives. So while those who enjoy the smug satisfaction of being able to find one or two guilty, look at the ruined lives of the collateral damage In the drive to get just one or two.

Back In the 60's, groping titties and bums especially In the entertainment business seemed to be part of the scene. The only thing that has changed Is laws and attitude... we are now arresting people for an attitude 50 years out of date. Then, from my own experience we have girls who back then would lie to get In a concert or gig to meet celebs about their age but today are now Indignant of that performers attitude toward them.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:10 am

FourPart;1458723 wrote: None of this should be in any way surprising, as films - especially those of the 60s - 70s era often portrayed celebrities of all types as being stereotypically sexist & sexually abusive, believing that their celebrity status not only gave them the right to act in this way, but that it was to be expected of them.

But really, how easy do we think it is to refuse a fair-looking, infatuated woman or "girl" when she looks at you with 'that look'?

I'm positvie that if I could look back at my years of puberty that I could find incidents that would have me facing charges today for something that was as natural as chasing butterflies 'back then'. I still remember that very young girl (VERY young) dropping her kickers to show us boys what was lacking in the female species. It was only a flash and it was part of growing up and discovering your body. And then the French woman I dated who's 10-year-old daughter was fascinated by my manlihood and was keen on touching it. I was uneasy about her interest but her mum saw nothing wrong in it and thought I was silly to be embarassed. Ah! Les Françaises!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 11:13 am

Whether he had been found guilty or not, just like all the others who have been cleared, his career & reputation would have been irreparably torn to shreds. Innocent Until Proven Guilty means nothing to public opinion in the real world - "No Smoke Without Fire" & all that.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:57 pm

I'm afraid I am gobsmacked that Rolf Harris has been found guilty ! I'm not convinced that the evidence is conclusive enough. It just seems that people are just trying to disgrace various celebrities, get them to be found guilty in order to claim compensation.

Maybe a celeb did indecently assault a young girl. Other women who were young girls at that time see pound signs in front of their eyes.

Apparently hearsay evidence is now acceptable in indecent assault cases and other sexual assault cases, so any so-called 'victim' can spin a right good yarn and it will probably be accepted as the truth - there can be no evidence to confirm allegations of sexual assault, so as far as I can see the victim is mostly the accused !!!!!

It is sad that a man can be accused of committing sexual assault when he has reached 84 years of age, and those alleged instances were supposed to have taken place decades ago. What confuses me is how the heck can a jury find somebody guilty when there must be an element of doubt of his actual guilt !!!! Judges always advise juries to be very careful in their considerations and to only find an accused guilty if there is no reasonable doubt of that guilt. Well as far as I can see and as far as I have read, there is considerable doubt of Rolf Harris's guilt that he was involved with sexual offences many years ago.

As far as Paul Gadd (Gary Glitter) and Jimmy Savile are concerned, there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Many celebrities, as has been already mentioned, have been charged, taken to court and because of lack of evidence they have been found not guilty, so all the women who jumped on the band wagon are now not getting any compensation. Why should people be rewarded for lying and destroyng peoples' lives ?

Heaven knows what will be done about that lovely painting Rolf Harris did of the Queen, now that he will be sent to jail and branded a sexual pervert !

I can remember vividly having my bottom stroked and my breasts 'accidentally' rubbed against by one or two male employees at one place I worked at. Each time it happened they finished up with a red pattern of my hand against the side of their face, usually done with the back of my hand as that hurts a darn sight more - they didn't bother me again ! Now, let me think ............ I remember their names and I think they still live in my local city, and I reckon they would be probably over 80 years old now. I wonder if I could get some compensation if I reported all the incidents to the police and named names and informed of their place of work at that time. I doubt the police would pursue my complaint - my assailants are not celebrities !

Sorry, but I find the whole business is out of hand. I believe there should be a time limit for alleged 'victims' to make a complaint about any indecent or sexual assault, and if they do not make that complaint within that time (say within 7 years of the alleged offence, or by the time the 'victim' is 20 years old ) then there will be no case to answer.

I feel sorry that Rolf has had to go through such trauma at his age, when probably what he did was no more than what male fellow workers did to me when I was in my late teens. I expect the guy will probably die in prison, and probably his frail wife will probably die while he is incarcerated - is this what these alleged victims wanted to happen to him ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:06 pm

Excellent post Gill

Very very well said.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:16 pm

Oscar Namechange;1458754 wrote: Excellent post Gill

Very very well said.

Thank you for that. It's just that I feel so bloody angry. There is far too much of this going on and it's mostly just to get some compensation money ( a few thousand ) - easy ! If a girl/woman isn't too bothered about loads of iffy publicity, then let's have a go for it ay ? Don't worry about anybody's life being ruined by your cooked up story, they're past it now, they should be turning their toes up soon anyway. It is so sick, and I'm so angry. I don't know what makes some people tick, I really don't. They're sick in the head. How can they sleep at night knowing they have ruined somebody's life and the lives of the families ? SICK

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:19 pm

Keep me way from the girls Pearl,

keep me way from the girls,

So we bound and tied his hands in chains James,

and that's him shackled to grill.

All together now, tie me kangeroo down sport, tie me kangeroo down,

Tie me kangeroo down sport, tie me kangeroo down.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 1:28 pm

G#Gill;1458757 wrote: Thank you for that. It's just that I feel so bloody angry. There is far too much of this going on and it's mostly just to get some compensation money ( a few thousand ) - easy ! If a girl/woman isn't too bothered about loads of iffy publicity, then let's have a go for it ay ? Don't worry about anybody's life being ruined by your cooked up story, they're past it now, they should be turning their toes up soon anyway. It is so sick, and I'm so angry. I don't know what makes some people tick, I really don't. They're sick in the head. How can they sleep at night knowing they have ruined somebody's life and the lives of the families ? SICK Regardless of evidence heard by the jury which we don't know In full. I learned that lesson after 4 days In court during my trial and what was actually said compared to that of which some novice hack wrote. Regardless, It's the length of time the alleged victims waited to come forward when he was 84 years old.

There are many many of Savile's victims who were told at the time they would never be believed and I fully comprehend why they came forward after the man was beginning to be exposed.

I think there's a world of difference between that and oh, hang on, when I met so and so In 1963, he touched my bum.... AFTER Savile was exposed and a tabloid newspaper printed that compo was to be paid to some of his victims.

I'm not saying all women coming forward for a minute are lying, I just bet some are. Society began to change many years ago and what constituted sexual assault started to change. We have not just suddenly said touching someone's bum Is assault... It's happened over decades and I just feel. some women could have come forward earlier.

Would I leave my young grandchildren alone In a room with Rolf Harris?... yep, absolutely.

Would I leave my dog alone In a room with Paul Gadd?.... Nope.. not on your life.

eta... Thinking about It, how about stiffer penalties for the one's who have been proved lying to the police? Last time I looked, Freddie Star was suing the woman who went to police about him. In the William Roache trial, one woman said he had groped her In his Silver Shadow Rolls Royce In the 1960's but he was able to prove beyond doubt that he did not acquire the Rolls until the mid 70's. I don't see them prosecuted for Attempting to Pervert The Course of Justice.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:10 pm

The verdict wasn't based on what a few papers reported or what a nice guy old Rolfie was on that pet show. It was after 6 weeks of evidence before a jury with the judge giving guidance. We don't know the intricacies of the evidence, whether there was patterns to his misdemeanours, it wasn't 'showgirls' that could look after themselves, it was young girls that he sexually abused, not simple 'accidentally brushing' breasts.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:29 pm

Bruv;1458767 wrote: The verdict wasn't based on what a few papers reported or what a nice guy old Rolfie was on that pet show. It was after 6 weeks of evidence before a jury with the judge giving guidance. We don't know the intricacies of the evidence, whether there was patterns to his misdemeanours, it wasn't 'showgirls' that could look after themselves, it was young girls that he sexually abused, not simple 'accidentally brushing' breasts.

Do you actually read posts? I said:

"Regardless of evidence heard by the jury which we don't know In full. I learned that lesson after 4 days In court during my trial and what was actually said compared to that of which some novice hack wrote"

I agree with you. My own personal experience saw me reading utter codswallop In newspapers when only those In court and myself know exactly what was said. eg... I have It on damn good authority after my trial, one police officer was heard saying ' well, what do you know... they were lying all along'... That's because they were In court... BUT It's not what one newspaper reported.

That's what I was saying to Gill... we don't know what the Jury heard only what the tabloids and TV are reporting.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:41 pm

Oscar Namechange;1458771 wrote: Do you actually read posts? I said:

It's not all about you.

Did my post say it was in direct response to yours?

You could have just said.... nothing or......I agree

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 2:57 pm

Bruv;1458773 wrote: It's not all about you.

Did my post say it was in direct response to yours?

You could have just said.... nothing or......I agree That's code for:

Bugger, I never read what she wrote In the first place'

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:19 pm

Oscar Namechange;1458775 wrote: That's code for:

Bugger, I never read what she wrote In the first place'

It's code for

It wasn't addressed to you......or as I said .....It's not all about you.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 3:32 pm

Bruv;1458777 wrote: It's code for

It wasn't addressed to you......or as I said .....It's not all about you. So ner

I just wonder what real reason they waited so long for. The Savile scandal ?

The trouble with anything like this, Is It's of course, just an opinion but I agree with Gill, there should be some time limit.

What many people who have never been through accusations, false or true or a trial Is the effect on family.

At the time of the alleged offence, a man may be single, In his prime etc but going after him 50 years later when he's 75 like William Roache and 85 like Harris, Is that you don't just punish the act and the person who committed the act. They have wives, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren who could also have their lives destroyed along with their marriages. Look at Freddie Star... he was not allowed to be alone with his own children while police Investigated the lies.

In the sense of common decency and the effect It will have on the family and wives and children of the accused, I would be In favour of a time limit.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jun 30, 2014 6:58 pm

Already it seems to be a case of refusal to believe because he seemed like such a nice man - something that everyone said about Dr Harold Shipman. He's just not the type....

From what I can make out from the newspaper item in the original link at the beginning of this thread, it appears that it wasn't just hearsay evidence, but documentary evidence, going back to the 70s, made by one of his victim's therapists. There also seems to have been video evidence during the recording of a TV interview. Claims that he refuted ever having been in Cambridge until years after the alleged event were shown to be false by photographs of him appearing in a show at the time specified. All these are just a few of the items of evidence raised, and you can be sure that during a 6 week trial there would have been a lot more evidence than that.

I agree that hearsay evidence, without hard evidence should be thrown out of the Court before it even gets to reach the Jury, as there will always be someone who will make unfounded claims out of mere malice, and even get their friends to back them up, quite possibly in the hope of getting some compensation.

As for his age - one must ask if the fact that he's got away with things for so long exempt him from paying the same penalty as if he'd been prosecuted at the time, or should we follow suit as with the Americans with a Statute of Limitations, whereby if they aren't caught within 3 years, they can't be prosecuted, except in the case of a Federal Crime (which this sort of case may well be), which has no limitation.

The whole thing is now going to be a Catch 22 situation. If he's given a jail sentence, there is bound to be a humanitarian outcry for putting a person of his advanced years behind bars, while if he is given probation, or similar, there will be an outcry of his having got off lightly because of his Celebrity Status.

Quite frankly, I reckon he'd probably be better off in prison, as he will always be considered fair game to all & sundry as the target for attacks, both physical & mental. You can be sure that despite his personal phone numbers being kept ex-directory, they will soon become Public Domain. His calls will (allegedly) be tapped by the media. He won't be able to go anywhere for fear of rebuke, and his career as a performer will most certainly be over, and shamed for the rest of his life.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:19 am

I agree with some of your post Fourpart.

However, as for the damning evidence where he gave evidence to say he'd never been on that show and then evidence he had was shown to the jury, does not necessarily mean he was guilty of sexual assault. The woman still could have made that up. That's guilt of not being able to remember the show not necessarily that he acted Inappropriately while he was there.

After all, we are talking about an 85 year old man who probably made more TV and personal appearances than he can remember over his very long career. Proving someone was there does not prove he committed a crime.

It depends entirely on a persons memory and no-one should be found guilty just because they can't remember something. They should only be found guilty should the actual offence alleged be proved beyond any doubt.

It was a year between my arrest and trial... just one year. Yet, my defence lawyer had to repeatedly say to prosecution witness's ' If you can't remember, just say so, don't make It up as you go along'. The arresting officer forgot to bring her pocket book and notes from the time of the Incident. First of all he told me that during his almost 20 years as chief police prosecuter for Greater Manchester Police, he had never witnessed a police officer ' forgetting ' to bring their pocket book to court. He also believed no police officer would ever do that. eta, neither did anyone else believe It judging from the hoots of derision comeing from the public gallery and press gallery. Also she appeared to be unable to remember a great deal surrounding the circumstances and details of my arrest which led ultimately to her being Investigated by the IPCC and that going In my favour.

My own husband who witnessed the entire episode could not recall details In court. Defence and prosecution witness's could not remember some things. Even other elected Councillors called for the defence could not remember certain things. Other Police Officers called by my defence lawyer could not remember some details when cross examined by my lawyer, although I must state, at least they told the truth which helped the defence.... Yet me, I not only told the truth even admitting to the judge what I had accepted I had done but I was able to recall every minute detail, which he believed and covered In his full summing up. We are talking there about just one year time lapse... so I see your point as more of a failure of memory than actual proof of an Indecent act taking place.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 7:47 am

As an American, this is very confusing to me.

Isn't there a statute of limitations?

According to what I've read (which may not be the whole story) these alleged acts took place decades ago. Why didn't the "victims" come forward then?

I have little doubt that the guy - excuse me, the bloke - excuse me again, the mate (or is it mite) - is a dirty old man and was previously a dirty young man. Still, he gave the world the wobble board, shouldn't that count for something?

To hear the board at its best, listen to "It is He" on George Harrison's Dark Horse album.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:12 am

Mark Aspam;1458809 wrote: As an American, this is very confusing to me.

Isn't there a statute of limitations?

According to what I've read (which may not be the whole story) these alleged acts took place decades ago. Why didn't the "victims" come forward then?

I have little doubt that the guy - excuse me, the bloke - excuse me again, the mate (or is it mite) - is a dirty old man and was previously a dirty young man. Still, he gave the world the wobble board, shouldn't that count for something?

To hear the board at its best, listen to "It is He" on George Harrison's Dark Horse album. You raise a whole new ballgame when It comes to time limits.

I'm not going to bang on further after this but as a good example, during my trial, evidence was overwhelmingly testified that another had been In the act of criminal damage as the Judge acknowledged In his full summing up. My Lawyer following the trial Insisted by the full evidence heard In court by Independent witness's, that, the person be arrested and charged with criminal damage. The reply we finally got hinged on this.

"Where a police decision maker considers there may be sufficient evidence to charge they will assess the key evidence to ensure the appropriate Test can be met before proceeding to charge or referring the case to a prosecutor. If the Test is not met and the case cannot be strengthened by further investigation the police will take no further action unless the decision requires the assessment of complex evidence or legal issues."

He also called for the that person to be charged with making a false police statement after getting his chief witness to admit under oath In cross examination that they had both lied and lied to police. The chief witness's evidence under oath meant that the other had also lied under oath In court.

That was met with this:

"the justification for treating the case as an anticipated guilty plea suitable for sentence in a magistrates’ court (where that is a requirement);

the reason why the public interest requires prosecution rather than any other disposal."

The CPS : Prosecution Policy and Guidance

That was deemed ' Not In the public Interest' and dropped and we were advised that 2 years would have passed since my case began.

However, historic sex crimes and murders do not have the same rules... It's a farce.

Post by **Peter Lake** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:21 am

Television companies during the sixties and seventies were reliant on big names as cash cows and feared upsetting them for losing them and ensuing ratings. I believe that this created a culture of almost secrecy and protection for those big names. Indiscretion of that nature were deemed harmless and par for the course but that's just indicative of the times. The same culture during those times was also prevalent in the police force and armed forces yet we rarely see the cull that we are experiencing today and that for me, smacks of a witch hunt given the amount of high profile celebrities that have been proved innocent. The example of William Roache is a prime indication of that given that on one of the charges, it would have been an easy task for police to verify when he acquired the car and simple to verify it was a decade after the woman alleged but he was still charged. It appears charging him and rushing to the media took precedent over common sense.

I agree with Oscar that until you've stood in a courtroom under oath in front of a judge, packed press and public gallery where your brain freezes, it's not so black and white. That's why for one reason, i also agree with Gilly that there needs to be time restraints on some crimes as memory can't be as reliable or as sharp.

The woman in the Harris case may or may not be making it up off the back of the Savile exposure, There was a culture back then where celebrities enjoyed protection from the television companies and with a household name, they believed at the time, they'd not be taken seriously so in that respect, many who suffered dreadfully at their hands remained silent until others came forward. Having said that, i can't find any purpose in prosecuting an eighty five year old man. If it was serious violent rape, then by all means, hang him but blame must be applied to the culture of those times and the very people who gave high status celebrities carte blanche to continue in that manner. There is something rather distasteful at using an eighty five year old to shoulder the entire blame of those who stayed silent and the culture they created. As the smug crawl out of the woodwork in glee to offer the media tittle tattle of how they always knew he was a bit like that, then they are equally compliant in the misery of those who really did suffer at the hands of celebrities.

There may be genuine victims of Harris, we don't know but i also believe far thorough investigation is needed before fifty year old charges are brought and media informed. Look at the alleged victim and how they have lived their lives over the past fifty years and weigh up the impact of the allegation on their life. If they've seemingly coped very well, is it fair to prosecute and totally destroy the lives of the accused family when he's now eighty five, may die soon, leaving his children and their children to deal with the humiliation and aftermath even possibly affecting their livelihood and social standing for the rest of their days? I don't think that's common sense nor in the public interest. It's all very well those who sneer now but if you've ever been alone with anyone in your life and you become famous, it could happen to you in a heartbeat. I see prosecuting Harris as causing far more detriment to his family than any justification of being in the public interest simply because they couldn't get Savile.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:42 am

Oscar Namechange;1458771 wrote: Do you actually read posts?

Bruv;1458773 wrote: It's not all about you.

Take care of that good lady of yours, Peter and treat her well!!! Bruv's got some funny ideas and he might be sniffing round your farm one day soon, wearing a soppy smile.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 11:02 am

High Threshold;1458822 wrote: Take care of that good lady of yours, Peter and treat her well!!! Bruv's got some funny ideas and he might be sniffing round your farm one day soon, wearing a soppy smile.

:yh_youkid:yh_youkid

:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 12:48 pm

Mark Aspam;1458809 wrote: As an American, this is very confusing to me.

Isn't there a statute of limitations?

According to what I've read (which may not be the whole story) these alleged acts took place decades ago. Why didn't the "victims" come forward then?

No, the U.K. doesn't have a statute of limitations, and even if it did I understand there are certain 'Federal' offences that even in U.S law fall outside of it, and I think Sexual Assault is one of them.

I was never too happy about the point of trying Jimmy Saville post-mortem. Not only does it make no sense to me, but even in the light of overwhelming evidence, I always thought that under U.K. law everyone has the right to face their accusers & defend themselves. Obviously this could never have been the case.

As for the claims that he wasn't in Cambridge at the time specified, this would not have been an on the spot denial, as the charges would have included the incident & its locality from the start, and even a newly qualified Legal Aid lawyer would have made sure of checking out the facts before making a public defence of absentia. He would, therefore have known for certain that he was there at the time, and any claims to the contrary would be blatant perjury, and nothing to do with the failing memory of an aged man - besides, it's always seemed to me that despite his age, RH has certainly still got all his marbles.

If the case had simply been that of unsubstantiated accusations, I very much doubt it would ever have reached the courts. And now, I hear, there are at least 4 other similar offences he's to be charged with.

I have no doubt that he is guilty of the charges in question, but my main concern is still how standards of acceptability of behaviour have changed over the years - after all, in the same sort of era the claim "I drive better once I've had a few drinks inside me" might even have been socially acceptable, and even earned no more than a nominal slap on the wrist fine, or even a simple caution. As we are all aware, though, the identical offence these days, would incur far greater penalties as well as social exclusion.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:06 pm

FourPart;1458837 wrote: No, the U.K. doesn't have a statute of limitations, and even if it did I understand there are certain 'Federal' offences that even in U.S law fall outside of it, and I think Sexual Assault is one of them.

I was never too happy about the point of trying Jimmy Saville post-mortem. Not only does it make no sense to me, but even in the light of overwhelming evidence, I always thought that under U.K. law everyone has the right to face their accusers & defend themselves. Obviously this could never have been the case.

As for the claims that he wasn't in Cambridge at the time specified, this would not have been an on the spot denial, as the charges would have included the incident & its locality from the start, and even a newly qualified Legal Aid lawyer would have made sure of checking out the facts before making a public defence of absentia. He would, therefore have known for certain that he was there at the time, and any claims to the contrary would be blatant perjury, and nothing to do with the failing memory of an aged man - besides, it's always seemed to me that despite his age, RH has certainly still got all his marbles.

If the case had simply been that of unsubstantiated accusations, I very much doubt it would ever have reached the courts. And now, I hear, there are at least 4 other similar offences he's to be charged with.

I have no doubt that he is guilty of the charges in question, but my main concern is still how standards of acceptability of behaviour have changed over the years - after all, in the same sort of era the claim "I drive better once I've had a few drinks inside me" might even have been socially acceptable, and even earned no more than a nominal slap on the wrist fine, or even a simple caution. As we are all aware, though, the identical offence these days, would incur far greater penalties as well as social exclusion.

Again I agree with part but the example of William Roche not having had the car and police not Initially checking out when he got the car Is an example of how easy It Is to assume that everything Is done correctly In an arrest and to the letter.

I really didn't want to bang on again but believe me, It wasn't until I stood on trial for 4 days that I saw another side to the legal system. Emergency calls that would have helped the defence, a witness that would have helped the defence... both ' lost ' and never once mentioned In my Interviews by the police until my lawyer did his own searching. Facts being left out to use the ' shock and awe ' tactic In court ie catch you off guard as did my defence lawyer use with the police he called to testify.

It's a very very dirty game and we all like to believe that trials go fairly, openly and with justice... I did... until It happened to me.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:07 pm

On the basis of some of the views expressed here, how did we get rid of slavery ?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 4:05 pm

Bruv;1458844 wrote: On the basis of some of the views expressed here, how did we get rid of slavery ?
On that count I can answer, as a friend of mine from the choir has recently had his book published about his Great Grandmother (or something like that), Rosetta Thatcher, who was instrumental in getting the Slavery laws changed.

"Rosetta" - Colin Wilkinson

There are problems with the printing at the moment as the printers have apparently 'lost' all the data, which I am currently in the process of retrieving for him from a corrupted backup USB Stick.

Also, as another point of interest, the song, "Amazing Grace" (a version of which - "Grace" - we also do at choir) was written by John Newton, who was involved in the Slave Trade. He was inspired to write the song during a storm at sea & although continuing to be involved in the Slave Trade he later went on to actively campaign against it.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:28 pm

FourPart;1458837 wrote: ...I understand there are certain 'Federal' offences that even in U.S law fall outside of it, and I think Sexual Assault is one of them.I don't think that is correct, the only US criminal offences that I'm aware of that have no time limitations on prosecution are murder and war crimes.

Sexual assault committed years or even decades previous to complaint would be very difficult to prove, the criterion in the US being beyond a reasonable doubt.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 5:50 pm

Mark Aspam;1459099 wrote: I don't think that is correct, the only US criminal offences that I'm aware of that have no time limitations on prosecution are murder and war crimes.

Sexual assault committed years or even decades previous to complaint would be very difficult to prove, the criterion in the US being beyond a reasonable doubt.
Prosecution at Any Time

Aside from capital offenses,

16

crimes which Congress associated with terrorism may be

prosecuted at any time if they result in a death or serious injury or create a foreseeable risk of

death or serious injury.

17

Although the crimes were selected because they are often implicated in

acts of terrorism, a terrorist defendant is not a prerequisite to an unlimited period for

prosecution.

18

A third category of crimes that may be prosecuted at any time consists of various

designated federal child abduction and sex offenses.

19
Source = http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf (Page 5)

Earlier in the document it says 'some' sexual offences, but doesn't specify which ones.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 9:43 pm

FourPart;1459102 wrote: Source = http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31253.pdf (Page 5)

Earlier in the document it says 'some' sexual offences, but doesn't specify which ones.Thank you! I was not aware of that. As the document states, it was initiated in 2006, when I was living in Europe and somewhat out of touch with American goings-on.

It seems to pertain to sexual crimes committed during child abduction. I doubt that it could be applied to mere accusations such as those as leveled at Mr. Harris.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:12 am

Rolf Harris has been jailed for a total of five years and nine months for 12 indecent assaults against four girls - including one aged just seven or eight.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:49 am

Bruv;1459241 wrote: Rolf Harris has been jailed for a total of five years and nine months for 12 indecent assaults against four girls - including one aged just seven or eight. I have to admit that more and more seems to come out with each day. I can't excuse 7 and 8 year olds.... no way,

He'll be out In two years with good behaviour.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:42 am

Oscar Namechange;1459243 wrote: I have to admit that more and more seems to come out with each day. I can't excuse 7 and 8 year olds.... no way,

He'll be out In two years with good behaviour.

It was all out in the court I suspect, but not reported........just in case?

He is 85......even 2 years is a long time at that age.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:03 am

Plenty of time to play with his didjeridoo

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:12 am

Bruv;1459246 wrote: It was all out in the court I suspect, but not reported........just in case?

He is 85......even 2 years is a long time at that age. But as Peter pointed out, he's 85. He'll die soon leaving his generations of Innocent family with the aftermath and shame... He's had the good life and now his Grandchildren will suffer.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:17 am

Oscar Namechange;1459253 wrote: But as Peter pointed out, he's 85. He'll die soon leaving his generations of Innocent family with the aftermath and shame... He's had the good life and now his Grandchildren will suffer.

You're right but isn't it sad that they should?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:21 am

theia;1459254 wrote: You're right but isn't it sad that they should?
Prison or not they're going to have to live with the family shame - probably for several generations to come.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:42 pm

Maybe we shouldn't convict anybody else ever...............if they have families.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 1:31 pm

Bruv;1459287 wrote: Maybe we shouldn't convict anybody else ever...............if they have families.

Don't be daft ! People are allowed to sympathise with the poor relatives who've been left to suffer the terrible shame, they were totally unaware of Rolf Harris's darker life, and he's effectively ruined what life those relatives of his have left. Whatever did you say that for, Bruv ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:01 pm

Bruv;1459287 wrote: Maybe we shouldn't convict anybody else ever...............if they have families. That's childish... People have to be convicted but It's just not always about the offender. Families do come In to It but If we lose sight of that and feel no compassion for them, then we lose sight of humanity. There are people believe It or not who do think of the Innocent families caught up In It before relishing In glee at the convicted.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:47 pm

I think it was intended as Tongue In Cheek.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:10 pm

FourPart;1459293 wrote: I think it was intended as Tongue In Cheek.

Thank you.

Earlier in this thread before the gravity of the deeds were known, sympathy was being shown for Mr Harris.

I have every sympathy for the sorry old man, and his ailing wife and the daughter.

The wife has the nice home to hide away, bought by Rolf's career. The daughter will get over it eventually.

The victims I suspect will never ever overcome the trauma of their experience.

I seriously sympathise with all parties involved, but part of the deterent is the fear of shaming your wife and family, the ones you love.

The outcome was always in the hands of Mr Harris.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:11 pm

[QUOTE from Bruv - Maybe we shouldn't convict anybody else ever...............if they have families. ]

[QUOTE from FourPart - I think it was intended as Tongue In Cheek. ]

But it's not the sort of subject to pass a facetious comment on is it ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 3:23 pm

G#Gill;1459295 wrote: But it's not the sort of subject to pass a facetious comment on is it ?

As this thread started many people were expressing sympathy for the poor old man, my first post said a short custodial sentence plus the shame involved would be the best outcome.

I would have cut the sentence, the shame to all the family will wreck his last few years.

I have at least been consistent

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:03 pm

Bruv;1459294 wrote: The daughter will get over it eventually.

. Are you kidding ?

Unless you have ever lived that experience, you can not be so flippant.

When something like this happens especially with an elderly Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, those people have had a lifetime of happiness with him. Now every happy memory of him Is trashed. A lifetime of loving him dearly Is trashed so In many respects their lives are ruined because they have lost the husband, the Father, the Grandfather they thought they knew. That can be worse than bereavement. They'll never get over It.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 4:17 pm

Oscar Namechange;1459297 wrote: Are you kidding ?

Unless you have ever lived that experience, you can not be so flippant.

When something like this happens especially with an elderly Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, those people have had a lifetime of happiness with him. Now every happy memory of him Is trashed. A lifetime of loving him dearly Is trashed so In many respects their lives are ruined because they have lost the husband, the Father, the Grandfather they thought they knew. That can be worse than bereavement. They'll never get over It.

I have every sympathy for the sorry old man, and his ailing wife and the daughter.

The wife has the nice home to hide away, bought by Rolf's career. The daughter will get over it eventually.

The victims I suspect will never ever overcome the trauma of their experience.

I seriously sympathise with all parties involved, but part of the deterent is the fear of shaming your wife and family, the ones you love.

The outcome was always in the hands of Mr Harris.

I have repeated what I considered to be a balanced answer, my sympathy goes out to everyone involved.......but mostly to the victims.

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:03 pm

'Victims' Bruv would include Rolf Harris's family and close relatives. They knew nothing of RH's dark behaviour and I would think that they would be as shocked about all this as if RH had died suddenly. That is probably what he has done, metaphorically, as far as his close relatives are concerned.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:19 am

Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan reveal assaults by Rolf Harris

Apparently Vanessa............... like her or loathe her has suffered a backlash for daring to speak.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:36 am

If I had been in her position & he had started touching me up, I would have slapped him there & then regardless of the cameras for all to see.