teasel – Member

Ernie also has so far avoided commenting on whether or not it’s still a ludicrous notion that kids reporting sexual assault would be dismissed by parents or adults.

Because I can’t be bothered to engage in an argument about a comment that I made several pages ago, which you have just recently brought up, presumably cause you fancy having an argument with me, and which you deliberately choose to misrepresent the point I was making.

OK I will.

Of course when children, and for that matter sometimes also adults, make allegations of sexual assault those allegations are often not taken seriously enough, everyone knows that to be a fact and it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. It is one of the big problems specifically associated with sex crimes.

And just like domestic violence, racism, etc, the judicial system today is far more sensitive to the needs of the victims of childhood sexual abuse than it was say 30 years ago. But that’s a long way from saying that 30 or 40 years ago sexual assault against children was tolerated.

The mechanism for prosecuting Rolf Harris existed within the judicial system 30 years ago. In fact as has been pointed out on this thread by Deluded Harris was found guilty under legislation dating from that time.

So it’s “ludicrous” to claim that 30 or 40 years ago sex crimes against children were deemed in some way acceptable, they weren’t. Otherwise the prosecution against Harris would have failed.

HTH but I suspect it probably won’t.

Imagine if all this bickering energy was channeled into pressuring the establishment into providing full and transparent answers!!

Contact your MP to ensure this doesn’t slip by unchecked

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5284/every-mp-asked-to-back-inquiry-into-organised-child-sex-abuse

HTH but I suspect it probably won’t.

It does; I understand your viewpoint a lot clearer now. Don’t agree with some of it but thanks for taking the time to elaborate.

*morbid thought*

I wouldn’t be surprised if Harris commits suicide before his sentencing tomorrow.

84 years old and convicted of sexual assaults on children. A nonce then.

If he gets 8 years, he’ll serve 4. It won’t be in a cat. Z prison will it? He’ll be in amongst some bad cheese.

He’ll likely perish in prison so maybe he’d rather take the last steps over his threshold on his own terms?

I don’t think he’s up to hearing those fateful words – “take him down.”

derek_starship – Member

*morbid thought*

I wouldn’t be surprised if Harris commits suicide before his sentencing tomorrow.

No morbid thought here as in life the only certainty is death, the only difference is the way we die.

Well, he is 84, enjoyed his life, wealthy, rather healthy but took the gamble to indulge in his habits in his younger days then they come back to haunt him near the sunset of his life. If he wishes to commit suicide then I guess he is taking the easy way out. I suppose you can say that he has achieved everything in his life so nothing else to look forward to if that is the case? The question is what sort of person is he? A person with strong principle? With pride and dignity? Proud or inherently evil in disgust? Either way we shall know …

😯

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. 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 » 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. 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 »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 the first line 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 think it’s time to leave this thread alone.

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.

Attorney General ?@AGO_UK: We confirm Rolf Harris’s sentence has been referred to us under the unduly lenient sentence scheme.

Is that real wwaswas? Who would have referred him – there’s no adjudicator or yet time for public outcry? The prosecution?

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

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.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rolf-harris-sex-abuse-vanessa-feltz-and-linda-nolan-claim-entertainer-groped-them-live-on-tv-and-backstage-at-concert-9587707.html

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 :

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 🙂

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rolf-harris-not-the-nine-oclock-news-childsnatching-sketch-makes-bbc-producer-john-lloyds-blood-run-cold-looking-back-now-9589966.html

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.