Forum menu
...the alleged facts
So what did the jury find him guilty of then, "an unwanted slap on the bum" or that he "touched someone inappropriately" which apparently is different.
EDIT : According to a CPS factsheet :
[i]Those accused of child rape can no longer argue that the child consented. Any sexual intercourse with a child under 13 will be treated as rape.[/i]
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 apparently.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/
My wife seemed upset, childhood hero and all that but couldn't actually tell me what he has done, does anyone know?
It's predominantly sexual assaults - groping for want of a better word - mostly on teenage girls, one charge related to a 7 or 8 year old. There was also the ubiquitous 'performed a sex act' which is more than groping, less than intercourse.
one charge related to a 7 or 8 year old
That puts it in a completely different category to 13-16, which is bad, very bad, but 7-8 is off the scale imo.
The charges are available on line along with the details thereof. He has been found gilty in a court by a jury and as such any doubt is now effectively eliminated. He needs a custodial sentence and that's an end to it.
Ernie - useful. The law has clearly been refined since I last looked at criminal stuff (at law school) 15 years ago.
ernie,
As the offences predated the 2003 Act he was tried for Indecent Assault under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (it was repealed by the 2003 legislation, which replaced it) – not that it makes a huge difference, I don’t think.
It's not just the law that's changed, society has too. Judging people for what they did back then by today's standards is unfair. Words that were in common use back then are now totally unacceptable and would result in prosecution for racism. Remember the Benny Hill show, Dave Allen etc. It was a very different world.
Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13-year-old cousine in the 50s (whilst still married to his second wife). In Spain the age of consent was finally raised from 13 to 16 last year, the minimum age for marriage went from 14 to 16. Every "male" workplace one walked into in the seventies had the Pirelli calendar and the playboy centrefold on the wall, whilst the sixteen-year-old tea girl was the butt of sexist jokes. Or have those on here who were there conveniently forgotten?
Notions of what constitutes sexual assault, sexual harassment, consensual sex, pimping and many other crimes have changed. This was the "entertainment" of the day:
[url=
Hill[/url]
Edukator,
Judging people for what they did back then by today's standards is unfair
I can assure you that many victims of sexual assault do not consider the invasion into their being to be entertainment in any shape or form - no matter what age/era it was perpetrated in.
Racism was institutionalised in the early 60s, tolerated for another decade or so and eventually became both illegal and socially unacceptable. Should we prosecute everyone who called a black a ... in the 60s? My first toy was a Golliwog, a few years later I had the whole Robertson's jazz band - guilty as.
I'd get my face justifiably slapped if I danced a slow the same way today as we did in the 70s, times have changed. As for the way my girlfriend danced to Brass in Pocket, she'd get arrested for soliciting these days.
Calling someone a name, even a racist one, isn't really on a par with sexually assaulting children.
Edukator,
Your examples are totally out of context and wholly irrelevant.
Piteous, tasteless trolling or brazen ignorance, either way you won’t draw me in any further.
So, anyone heard anything about that paedophile ring involving MPs and other establishment figures recently?
Not since the last time you banged on about your conspiracy theories.
I'll save you the bother and post your favourite picture
[img] 
[/img]
Plus one to remind everyone that Prince Charles is also in on it.
[img] 
[/img]
If that isn't proof of an establishment paedophile ring then I don't know what is.
Edukator, one of his victims was 7.
And if you think the sexual assualt of children was acceptable or condoned in 60's Britain then you're deluding yourself.
You attempt to play down the seriousness of sexual assault on children every time you contribute to the topic, as far as I can remember.
Very kind of you Ernie, saved me the trouble...
[url= http://www.exaronews.com/content/child-sex-abuse-fernbridge-and-fairbank-exaro-story-thread ]anyhow, being as you evidently want some investigative material[/url]
alternatively,
[url= http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse ] if you're feeling too lazy for all of that, here is the crux of the matter
[/url]
I don't play it down, I state that I'm in favour of prescription and doubt the safety of prosecutions based on witness statements on events alleged to have taken place 40 years ago.
A claims culture has developed in the UK in which car park nudges result in whiplash claims, idiots that drive through standing water without walking through it first win claims against the council, and every rich and famous person is a potential target for gold diggers. 12 of the 13 cases against DLT were thrown out, what's happened to the remaining one? DLT has suffered enormously both mentally and finacially, guilty by media for emotive crimes that are being thrown out of court, and it isn't over for him yet.
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
Evidence and defence was put to a jury and they came back with Rolf is guilty, evidence and defence was put to the jury with DLT and he was found not guilty of all but one charge, system seems to be working. CPS think they have a good case so a retrial on the one charge.
Whether DLT should of been named is a different discussion completley as is should a innocent man be compensated for the money he has spent defending himself.
Edukator, one of his victims was 7.
And if you think the sexual assualt of children was acceptable or condoned in 60's Britain then you're deluding yourself.
+1.
12 people, having listened to all the evidence, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Unless it's being suggested that he was fitted up, that's the end of the matter.
[i]Edukator - Troll[/i]
don't engage people.
Judging people for what they did back then by today's standards is unfair...
...which is why he was tried under the criminal law in force at the time.
I've got a new favourite picture...
[img] 
[/img]
[url= http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-jimmy-savile-day-3791043 ]It appears evidence has emerged of Rolf attending Broadmoor with Savile, which is backed up by the NHS inquiry [/url] 😯
and lets not forget Jersey...
What truly baffles me is how Harris's wife and daughter where there to support him throughout his trial.
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10936837/Rolf-Harris-daughter-said-inheriting-his-11-million-would-be-like-winning-lottery.html ]Daughter said that inheriting his 11 million would be like winning the lottery.[/url]
[i]What truly baffles me is how Harris's wife and daughter where there to support him throughout his trial. [/i]
He's clearly very capable of manipulating people and he's had a lot of time to do that with his close family.
I think also, for some families of people like this, they *want* to believe that the person they've loved and invested their lives in isn't the person that it's claimed.
If someone accused your partner of a crime like this (and you genuinely had no idea if it had happened or not) who would you side with - the accuser who you may feel has other motives or your partner. If you went with the former and the prosecution didn't go ahead or they were found not guilty how would you feel. He's slightly unusual in that he admitted some of the things he was accused of but others have denied them all.
Seems like I am the only one who agrees with Edukator then ..
All seems like a witch hunt to me. With compensation pay outs being sought by alleged victims.
I do find it hard to believe that there can be such a difference between some people's public persona and what they're really like.
While I do have some sympathy with Edukator's point of view as memory is a very fragile and easily corrupted thing, if 12 people all found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt there must be something in it other than some mis-remembered past meetings.
I can only think that most people of a wide spectrum of ages up to the point of him being arrested only thought well of Rolf and it must have been very hard for them to convict him. Without being there we'll never know.
A sad day, whatever actually happened.
All seems like a witch hunt to me. With compensation pay outs being sought by alleged victims.
Nothing "alleged" about it. He's been found guilty.
He's guilty as charged by the British Judicial system. Agree or don't it makes no difference. The fact is he's a loathsome human being as, it appears were many of his cohorts. If this affects your fond memories of him as a child that's just tough. If he had his hand down your pants when you were 7 you might not remember him in such a glowing light. I just wonder how many more are waiting to be uncovered. The Bryn Estyn homes enquiry gets a bit too close to powerful people to ever get a satisfactory outcome.
All seems like a witch hunt to me.
How is prosecuting a pedophile like hunting witches ?
Are pedophiles a much maligned group of people who are misunderstood and unfairly persecuted by society ?
It's not a witch hunt - that's going after someone with no interest in whether or not they've done wrong. And so what if it was 20/30/40 years ago. This sort of thing can screw people up for decades - see the friend of his daughter who has been telling psychiatrists/counsellor about this abuse for the last 15 years. That was a factor in the jury assessing the truthfulness of her evidence, and whether she'd just jumped on the supposed post-Saville bandwagon as some imply. Clearly not the case once all the evidence was put before the court. Common sense says there must be a balance struck between how long ago a crime occurred and whether or not it is prosecuted, but the severity of the incident is the issue there, the effect on the victim being one factor for consideration.
Notions of what constitutes sexual assault, sexual harassment, consensual sex, pimping and many other crimes have changed.
Thankfully you are still there to tell us all what is acceptable to do with a 7 year old and what is not.
Its a fairly insensitive subject to troll on tbh
It was illegal then it is illegal now and you really need to find a better hobby.
Views have changed. That's why you won't find anyone getting done for saying 'nice tits' to a lass in a pub in 1980. That's why you'll almost certainly not see anyone getting done for slapping someone's bottom in the student union bar 20 years ago.
In the same way you won't see anyone getting prosecuted for calling someone a ni**er 10 years ago, but the men who murdered Stephen Lawrence were prosecuted and convicted almost 20 years after they killed him. It's the severity of the crime that justifies whether or not a prosecution is appropriate many years later. Slap on the arse, no, groping and having sex with children, yes. Ok there will be grey areas, but I'm struggling to see how anyone objects to a predatory serial sex offender facing justice even years after his offending.
[i]but the men who murdered Stephen Lawrence were prosecuted and convicted almost 20 years after they killed him[/i]
surely this was only because the police didn't bother investigating at the time rather than some delay in reporting it?
Society has moved on, thank goodness, but these things were always nasty and always illegal, and as someone who has to help mop up the pieces and deal with victims, it is good to see this result.
Mindless trolling by people who think that all crimes are equivalent, and murder should be forgiven if you don't go after apple scrumpers. 😕
I was wondering whether the same comment could be applied to saville, harris, hall, etc, etc Didn't some of the victims try reporting at the time?surely this was only because the police didn't bother investigating at the time rather than some delay in reporting it?
(not sure, I'm with ernie on avoiding details of the nasty stuff)
I'm struggling to see how anyone objects to a predatory serial sex offender facing justice even years after his offending.
Strange isn't it ? Perhaps it's because Rolf Harris looks like a funny and jovial version of Colonel Saunders with an excitable and amusing demeanor, and if he looked a little more like how a pervert should look like it would be more acceptable.
I mean it's almost like saying that anyone could be a pervert/child molester, even people who seem very nice. How scarey is that ?
google Owen Oyston if you think a grey beard guarantees innocence.Impeach the Colonel now...
RH always made my flesh creep on TV. Only met him once.
I think the reason there is even a debate here (there shouldn't be) is because the way the media has reported the case now, following the verdict, isn't particularly nuanced. He language used is hyperbole to some degree. If you were a child victim of rape by jimmy savile you might feel aggrieved if the media wasn't able to differentiate between what happeed to you and the teenage girl (or the 7/8 year old) that had her bottom fondled.
The debate isn't whether what Harris did was or wasn't utterly reprehensible because clearly it is. It's about whether what he did was as bad as what Savile did, to use a comparison. Savile raped children. Harris sexually assaulted them and in all but 11 of the 12 counts of that charge, the assulat was groping of a teenage, is post pubescent) girl.
Harris should get a custodial sentence in my view. But it shouldn't be as long as what Savile would/should have got and the language we use to describe these two should not be the same. There are degrees of wrong doing and I think the media is ignoring that in favour of headlines.
Enough of this sensible discussion, I've got some art to sell.. any takers?
[url= http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/dreweatts/catalogue-id-2864602/lot-14800501 ]http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/dreweatts/catalogue-id-2864602/lot-14800501[/url] - Mr J Savile by Mr R Harris.
wwaswas, perhaps not a great example because as you say, different reasons. My point was simply that the more severe the crime, the longer period of time a prosecution remains reasonable/in the public interest.
The debate isn't whether what Harris did was or wasn't utterly reprehensible because clearly it is. It's about whether what he did was as bad as what Savile did, to use a comparison.
That news to me. I haven't heard the debate about whether what Harris did was as bad as Savile. Such a debate is completely inappropriate and unhelpful imo.
What's most concerning is the current massive consumption/production of paedophile imagery and acts in the UK, deviant sexual predators don't have an obvious image, you would be shocked by just how many there are in your local areas who on the face of it appear to be ' normal' family men as well as others.
A ' troll' on this thread made some surprising statements regarding Spain and age of consent etc etc etc and I know in other foreign countries what is accepted there is abhorrent to some of us in the UK. Just shows how some folks minds work and what's acceptable and unacceptable/ justifiable to them.
The human race can be a sick, sad, bad group of animals, thankfully for every bad one there is a good one in existence!
It's not about the shape of a face (an assumption often reinforced by the movies, IMO - eg: Billy-Bob Thornton [i]looks[/i] "hard"), but the shape of a mind. Which remains hidden from most. In these cases, deliberately, by disguise.