Forum menu
Going back a few pages, my wife said so so something about an hour ago that hit me; with regard to consideration of his age when sentencing; did he consider the age of his victims when he sentenced them?
Think about that.
(I think you mean "did Harris consider the age of his victims when he assaulted them").
No I meant what I said. He "sentenced" them to the suffering they've carried with them since then.
Oh, I see.
And for Konabunny, the latest Sénat debate on préscription Sénat. You'll find all the justifications I posted for prescription in there, and more.
Thank you for that link. I am of course ignorant of French law and not so hot on the French language. However, with the assistance of google translate was able to skim the text.
I notice that the authors of my piece made pretty much the same point in respect of sexual offences and the passage of time that I did:
Ainsi la prescription serait la sanction de la négligence de la société à exercer l'action publique ou à exécuter la peine. Comme le soulignait Mme Dominique-Noëlle Commaret, avocat général à la Cour de cassation, « parce que tout temps mort excessif laisse présumer le désintérêt de la victime ou du ministère public et leur renoncement, dans un système marqué par le principe d'opportunité des poursuites, la prescription apparaît nettement comme la réponse procédurale apportée à l'inaction ou l'oubli, volontaire ou involontaire » 5 ( * ) . Cependant, cette justification peut s'apprécier différemment selon que la négligence est antérieure ou postérieure à l'engagement des poursuites. Selon M. Jean Danet, le principe selon lequel la prescription est une sanction de la négligence à exercer les poursuites engagées est parfaitement fondé et rejoint l'impératif de juger dans un délai raisonnable. [b]En revanche, la perte du droit de punir apparaît plus contestable lorsque les poursuites n'ont pas été engagées. Le contentieux des infractions sexuelles ou des violences conjugales témoigne d'ailleurs des difficultés des victimes à dénoncer les faits dans le temps de la prescription : « La sanction de la négligence de la victime ne peut être aujourd'hui acceptée comme fondement général de la prescription »[/b] 6 ( * ) .
Or in the slightly mangled but comprehensible translation of google:
And prescribing the punishment would neglect of the company to exercise public policy or to carry out the sentence. As pointed Dominique-Noëlle Commaret, Advocate General at the Court of Cassation, "because any time excessive death to suggest disinterest of the victim or the public prosecutor and renunciation, in an environment marked by the principle of opportunity system prosecution, the prescription clearly appears as provided for inaction procedural response or forgetfulness, voluntary or involuntary "5 ( * ). However, this justification can be assessed differently depending on whether negligence is before or after the commencement of proceedings. According to Jean Danet, the principle that the requirement is a penalty for neglect to exercise the prosecution is well founded and joined the imperative to judge within a reasonable time. [b]In contrast, the loss of the right to punish is more questionable when the proceedings have not been initiated. Litigation of sexual offenses or domestic violence also reflects the difficulties of victims to report the facts in the time prescribed: "The sanction of the negligence of the victim can not be accepted today as a general basis for the prescription »[/b]6 ( * ).
(I notice also it's not the text of a debate in the senate but actually a research note for a senate committee, but it feels churlish to point that out.) (but I will anyway).
I picked that Sénat document because it clearly stated the for and against for prescription in general with specific reference to the needs of people who suffer child abuse. Pretty much all of the propositions in that document were included in the changes in the law the Sénat recently approved including increasing the prescription time for sex crimes against children as I stated on page 10 of this thread. For child sex abuse prescription is now the victim's eighteenth birthday + 30 years. This is just clarification for Konabunny, guys.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-websites-indecent-images-children
he viewed porn of teens and searched for young girls. It was not brought up at he trial as
The images would "infect the rest of the case", the defence barrister, Simon Ray, told the court. Ray also argued that Harris's browsing showed "no obvious minors" and no evidence of deliberate intent, since many images of the youngest-looking models seemingly appeared unprompted on websites visited by the star.
Do you want him punished yet edukator or has he still suffered enough?
This is just clarification for Konabunny, guys.
Are other people allowed to read it too?
Read back, Junkyard. You normally go through threads to find half a dozen quotes, there's definitely one that answers your question.
I did not realise you had commented on news that only came out today.
Are other people allowed to read it too?
he made the beginners mistake of saying this at the end so by the time i knew it was to late and I have to confess to having read it
Are other people allowed to read it too?
I don't think that's what he's saying. I took it as an apology and attempt to explain the need for another tediously boring post concerning French law.
5years 9months
Well that's shite.
5yrs, 9 months prison.
One more time Edukator
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT FRENCH LAW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there a clearer way of putting it.
EDIT Awful sentence. Around 3 years actual then. Out when he's 87/88.
They say he showed no remorse at all.
edit: ignore, I'd missed [s]the first line[/s] most of the report
edit: in my defence I'm tired.
the Sénat recently approved including increasing the prescription time for sex crimes against children as I stated on page 10 of this thread. For child sex abuse prescription is now the victim's eighteenth birthday + 30 years.
Press reports as to the timing and age of the victim in each of the assaults for which Harris was charged are (necessarily?) vague, but I see the assaults are said to have been committed between 1968 and 1986 ie between 46 and 28 years ago. This seems to suggest some or most of the offences could have been charged under French law just as under English law (had they been committed in France).
Does the fact that much the same thing would have happened in France as in England in this instance, and the fact that the English system does indeed have a way of addressing the fairness of criminal proceedings being brought after a significant interval, assuage your concerns about the English system being less fair than the French system?
I'm still here, I thought I'd gone. Sorry about the winter sport reference, Mods.
I think it's time to leave this thread alone.
Hopefully the dirty paedo will be introduced to boiling water and sugar and I don't mean for a nice cuppa
[i]I think it's time to leave this thread alone. [/i]
You're two days behind most people but well done for getting there in the end...
Awful sentence. Around 3 years actual then. Out when he's 87/88.
They say he showed no remorse at all.
That's outrageous. He'll do three at best.
I wonder what life will be like for him when he comes out 😈 😈
natrix - Member
I wonder what life will be like for him when he comes out
He will be a recluse in his own home until he dies. This won't be long at his age.
[i]Attorney General ?@AGO_UK: We confirm Rolf Harris's sentence has been referred to us under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.[/i]
Is that real wwaswas? Who would have referred him - there's no adjudicator or yet time for public outcry? The prosecution?
[i]Attorney General ?@AGO_UK:
It only takes one person to trigger the ULS process. Law Officers have until Friday 1 August to consider whether they wish to refer it.
Law Officers have not decided whether or not to refer to the CoA[/i]
It looks like a real twitter feed, they're not saying who's requested the review, though.
from the Beeb
Harris's sentence of five years and nine months has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme".A spokesman for the office said it "only takes one person to trigger the process", and the sentence must be considered within 28 days for possible referral to the Court of Appeal.
Now 52, Feltz, has described how Harris allegedly put his hand inside her knickers while she interviewed him live on TV during an episode of The Big Breakfast in 1996.
That's quite astonishing. Feltz was 34 in 1996 with her own TV show and had previously specialised in writing sex advice for the magazine Men Only, she was no confidence-lacking schoolgirl who could easily be manipulated by a 66 year old man, you would have thought. So why the **** did she leave it 16 years before reporting it ?
This I believe was the day the alleged incident occurred :
[img] 
[/img]
It must have taken quite a bit of fumbling on the part of Harris to "put his hand inside her knickers", and during a live TV interview apparently. Then she goes home and forgets it for 16 years ? ffs
Heard they're investigating The Chuckle Brothers now, the police have called it Operation To Me To Yewtree 😀
It must have taken quite a bit of fumbling on the part of Harris to "put his hand inside her knickers"
He was probably just doing the Crocodile Dundee test 🙂
Anyone else had the latest rumour pop up on Facebook yet ?
Oh go on then?
Not Noel Edmonds and/or Mr. Blobby this time, surely?!
Some stories about Sooty luring kids into his basket..
Though I believe Harry Corbett had a hand in it.
Some stories about Sooty luring kids into his basket..Though I believe Harry Corbett had a hand in it.
That's the sort of rumour you can't just sweep away. I imagine someone is going to sue.
[img] 
[/img]
Oh no, not the guy from Coast, surely?!
That's the sort of rumour you can't just sweep away. I imagine someone is going to sue.
[img]
[/img]RM
Did they ever solve Jill Dando's Murder?
Rolf Harris killed Jill Dando?
Jill Dando knew too much
[img] 
[/img]
Rumour has it Rolf + Jimmy weren't the only celebrities who liked 'young ones'
Anyhow, you'll have to excuse me, I'm going on a summer holiday...
Rumour has it Rolf + Jimmy weren't the only celebrities who liked 'young ones'Anyhow, you'll have to excuse me, I'm going on a summer holiday...
You've done a good job there staying on the right side of the libel laws. Congratulations.
I saw that rumour. How come no paper mention 'him' being arrested? They could get away with him arrested story. So I say bollocks on that rumour.
I saw that rumour. How come no paper mention 'him' being arrested? They could get away with him arrested story. So I say bollocks on that rumour.
Hora, are you aware of DA notices and gagging laws?
Or the work that PR agents (such as Max Clifford) do to keep news out of the papers?
You could use that same logic to prove Jimmy Savile was innocent until dead.
or that Tony Blair... oh, nevermind