Quote from another thread:

don’t forget Rolf Harris was convicted entirely on the weight of accusation. No DNA, no witnesses other than the accusers who couldn’t confirm dates or locations etc. None of the individual counts would have been enough to convict – in fact the main count involving his daughters former friend had been turned down by the CPS already.

…and yesterday the ‘Fareham’ conviction was quashed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42012064

Have got the biscuits in for this one..

Does make you think however..

Just leave it Rolf, go and live in a big house in the middle of nowhere and stay out of the public eye.

One down, 11 to go.

Oh hang on…

Announcing their decision on Thursday, Lord Justice Treacy, Mrs Justice McGowan and the Recorder of Preston, Judge Mark Brown, refused to give Harris permission to appeal against the rest of the convictions.

They ruled that “stepping back and looking at the totality of the evidence” on those remaining counts, “we find nothing that causes us to doubt the safety of those convictions”.

I recognise my usual Harris rant there.

I’m not saying he’s innocent (mostly it seems to be because to question a ‘Paedo’ conviction is tantamount to claiming you are one these days) but I’ve always had deep reservations about his convictions.

As I’ve said a few times before, and I’ve looked past just the headlines with this.

He’s always maintained he’s innocent, he’s a free man now, served his time, and got more than enough money to last the rest of his life – there’s not material reason why at the age of 87 he’d want to drag all this through the court again.

is he still here ? i thought brexit means we can send convicted immigrant criminals home 😕

P-Jay – Member

I recognise my usual Harris rant there.

I’m not saying he’s innocent (mostly it seems to be because to question a ‘Paedo’ conviction is tantamount to claiming you are one these days) but I’ve always had deep reservations about his convictions.

As I’ve said a few times before, and I’ve looked past just the headlines with this.

He’s always maintained he’s innocent, he’s a free man now, served his time, and got more than enough money to last the rest of his life – there’s not material reason why at the age of 87 he’d want to drag all this through the court again.
Possibly to restore his good name and not be labelled a paedophile and thus be able to walk down the street without being threatened, spat on etc? (only If ALL the convictions are quashed and he’s found not guilty after all).

P-Jay there are an awful lot of people out there who feel uncomfortable with the consensus on Jimmy Saville too. And others. It is hard to prove and I do not believe in the concept of no smoke without fire. I remain agnostic on his guilt or innocence, and that of Harris and others. I have not seen the evidence, they may well be guilty, importantly I am not going to join the pile on.

only If ALL the convictions are quashed and he’s found not guilty after all.

Is this not the OPs point in a nutshell? Given that it was the number of accusations that convicted him rather than discrete evidence of each one, how many more would need to be quashed for the remainder to be found insufficient? Out of 13 accusations, 11 now stand. What if 1, 2, 3 or 6 more were found to be dubious – would the whole conviction fall apart?

Exactly, that is what I don’t like. Just because lots of people make separate allegations, given the nature of the accused it makes it all the more dubious.

Yep, innocent

It is well know that the letter referring to 1986 pointedly puts him in the clear of assault as she was over 16 then.
If it was my daughter I would be pissed off true, but its not illegal.
I remain skeptikal… I have no axe to grind, other than seeing truth come out. In fact I find Rolf irritating and pretty awful anyway, you kind of had to watch him for the cartoons, but I remember wishing he would shit up and just let as see the good stuff.

It is well know that the letter referring to 1986 pointedly puts him in the clear of assault as she was over 16 then.

What about the bit immediately preceeding the reference to 1986?

Nothing took place in a physical way until we had moved to Highlands. I think about 1983 or 84 was the first time.

I can pinpoint a date, 1986, because I remember I was in pantomime at Richmond.

P-Jay there are an awful lot of people out there who feel uncomfortable with the consensus on Jimmy Saville too.

+1

I read about half the reports by the hospitals on Savile. (Each hospital he’d worked at/attended wrote a report.) Based on that I share your concern.

What about the bit immediately preceeding the reference to 1986?

typo – I meant the 1983 date. As i understand it his defence was relying on the letter to exonerate him, as usual the way the media reports things it was seen as an admission..

It doesn’t matter to me other than the truth that is all. I don’t feel any of it was rigourous enough and as I said – given the status of the accused in these cases, there is added motivation to make accusations.

5plusn8 – Member
It is well know that the letter referring to 1986 pointedly puts him in the clear of assault as she was over 16 then.
If it was my daughter I would be pissed off true, but its not illegal.

“Arguably most damaging was a letter sent to the woman’s father in the mid-1990s, in which he confessed having a long sexual relationship with her, albeit one he said began when she was 18, not, as she said, 13.

During his long stint in the witness stand, Harris was questioned at length about why he expressed abject remorse to the father for his actions, offering a little more credible explanation than he felt ending the relationship had upset the woman.

What bolstered her case was evidence showing she had given a virtually identical story to a series of counsellors and therapists for more than 15 years, based on their professional notes she allowed the court to se.”

albeit one he said began when she was 18

exactly – the letter dates refer to when she was over 16.

What bolstered her case was evidence showing she had given a virtually identical story to a series of counsellors and therapists for more than 15 years, based on their professional notes she allowed the court to se

The case was based on her telling the same story over 15 years. I just don’t find that compelling.

Well I was present at Butlins in Bognor when he had a grope of my ex wife and a friend.

The case was based on her telling the same story over 15 years. I just don’t find that compelling.

However the jury which heard all the evidence found it not only compelling, but also sufficient to consider him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

However the jury which heard all the evidence found it not only compelling, but also sufficient to consider him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

Yet one jury carried out an unsafe conviction as ruled by the appeal court. Not all convictions are watertight. What makes you so sure?

You are still classed as a minor until you are 18 …so being 16 means nothing

Possibly to restore his good name and not be labelled a paedophile and thus be able to walk down the street without being threatened, spat on etc? (only If ALL the convictions are quashed and he’s found not guilty after all).

Yeah maybe, but in reality he’ll never been seen as anything but a wrong ‘un – he’s not safe to walk down the road, not in the UK anyway – he could, sell up and ship off somewhere quiet to enjoy his remaining years.

As for the accusations (god I sound like I’m defending him here, I’m not) whilst it’s “1 down, 11 to go” to terms of counts, it’s 1 accuser down (because of very dubious evidence from an unreliable witness) and 3 to go -12 counts, 4 victims.

Yet one jury carried out an unsafe conviction as ruled by the appeal court. Not all convictions are watertight.

I don’t see what the problem is. One of the multiple charges of which he was found guilty by the jury has been found to have been based on false (perjured?) evidence. You seem to imply that the jury was at fault for ‘carrying out an unsafe conviction’, but it wasn’t: it simply passed its verdict based on the evidence as presented to it. It has now been proven that the evidence for that particular charge was false, and the appeal court has consequently overturned the verdict. In that respect it seems to me that the legal system has worked.

What makes you so sure?

What makes you so sure that the jury got it wrong on the other charges?

so being 16 means nothing

Not in the uk. age of consent =16.
Fair enough it might still be sexual assault, but he got done for sexual assault of a child.

What makes you so sure that the jury got it wrong on the other charges?

Nothing.
You have utterly misunderstood everything I said.
I’m not sure they got it wrong, I am also not sure they got it right.
You tried to use the jury to undermine my own doubt, and now t you are saying its ok for the jury to get it wrong. Oh.

Age of consent..16 ( the key word here being consent ) and the age at which you are classed as a minor..up to the age of 18.. are two totally seperate things ..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_(law)

Makes no difference to sexual assault cases unless you are a teacher, copper, or some other person in a recognised position of trust. Celebrities have not had that established yet, although there are moves to change that.
Over 16 = legal to have consensual sex. There is no offence of sex with a minor over 16 in the UK.

You said yourself in a previous post that he ” got done for sexual assault of a child “
At the age of 16 you are still classed as a child

Me saying “sexual assault of child” does not make anyone guilty of anything, its actually wholly dependant on just what the law says and they consider offences to be against those under 16.

I’m not sure they got it wrong, I am also not sure they got it right.

The judges who quashed this conviction disagree with you.

I’m not claiming anyone to be guilty or innocent of anything ..
I’m only explaining that in the eyes of the law you are classed as a child up to the age of 18 ..so therefore if you have been charged of a sexual assault against anyone under that age it will be against a child.
I am fully aware that consensual sex can occur at the age of 16.

I’m only explaining that in the eyes of the law you are classed as a child up to the age of 18 ..so therefore if you have been charged of a sexual assault against anyone under that age it will be against a child.

Yeah but in the eyes of the law underage sex is under 16 only so you are just making up offences that do not exist. I am not really sure what you are trying to prove.

The judges who quashed this conviction disagree with you.

My statement was meant to be applied to the jury, not the judges.

I’m explaining to you that it was sexual assault against a child ..which you seem to have a real difficulty understanding .
Can I quote in full your reply to my first post ..
“Not in the UK age of consent=16.
Fair enough it might still be sexual assault but he got done for sexual assault of a child “
Which if she was 16 = a child ..what don’t you understand ?

I’m not sure they got it wrong, I am also not sure they got it right.

but you also say

I don’t feel any of it was rigourous enough

and yet

I have not seen the evidence, they [presumably including Rolf Harris] may well be guilty

I don’t really understand the point of your posts. We have a system of trial by jury, where the jury hears the evidence and is instructed only to pass a guilty verdict if it is sure beyond reasonable doubt. Very often in cases involving charges of sexual crimes like rape and indecent assault, the evidence will be one person’s word against another’s (which is presumably the reason for the low conviction rate for rape). In this case, the jury considered that the evidence from the prosecution witnesses was sufficient for a guilty verdict.

My statement was meant to be applied to the jury, not the judges.

The judges had new evidence showing that one of the accusers apparently lied. The jury did not hear that evidence, but I can see no reason to believe that if they had, they would not have found Harris not guilty on that particular charge.

hodgynd – Member
I’m explaining to you that it was sexual assault against a child ..which you seem to have a real difficulty understanding .
Can I quote in full your reply to my first post ..
“Not in the UK age of consent=16.
Fair enough it might still be sexual assault but he got done for sexual assault of a child “
Which if she was 16 = a child ..what don’t you understand ?

You are explaining it wrong, it is not in UK law, sexual assault against a child if the person is 16 or over. Whether or not there is some other definition of minor or whatever, it is irrelevant, I stated the charge under which he was prosecuted (well one of them).

You said yourself in a previous post that he ” got done for sexual assault of a child “
At the age of 16 you are still classed as a child

This is not correct in UK law. See below from Sexual Offences Act 2003.Note that 13-15 is “sexual activity with a child”, below 13 is “rape.”

Section 9: Sexual activity with a child,
“(1)A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally touches another person (B), (b)the touching is sexual, and (c)either— (i)B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or (ii)B is under 13.

So if the child was 16 or over, as Harris attempted to claim, it does not come under section 9 and is not the charge of “sexual assault against a child” >
It may well be sexual assault if she was 16 or over 16 and non consensual.

Slowster – it was a discussion about the state of the Uk legal system and its approach. I don’t agree with it, you were the one that brought the jury in to it, i don’t give ahsot what the jury thought or were directed to do. I don’t think its correct or compelling enough to prosecute on her testimony alone.
To contextualise that for you, it means I am unhappy with the judicial system.
You appear to feel that if the judicial system was followed then all is right with the world. In fact in history this has proven to be the route to tyranny. Which happily is why we have parliament and amendment to laws etc.

Ok ..I stand corrected on that point ..apologies .
It does however appear to throw up a bit of a discrepancy..

Ok ..I stand corrected on that point ..apologies .
It does however appear to throw up a bit of a discrepancy..

No problem. I agree it does seem weird, like voting, driving, drinking, and fags. And criminal responsibility.

I agree it does seem weird, like voting, driving, drinking, and fags. And criminal responsibility.

And pornography. I always found it weird that you can legally have sex at 16 but have to wait another two years before you can watch someone else doing it. You could’ve had two kids by the time you’re 18.