Oh Rolf :(

Cut ’em off and serve them to him with a nice Chianti, or even better leave out the Chianti.

Anyone guilty of non-consensual sex and with a minor it’s always non-consensual should have the same treatment.

Anyone guilty of non-consensual sex and with a minor it’s always non-consensual should have the same treatment.

Fair point but you do know that is not what he’s been convicted, or even accused, of right?

I post from a country where the per capita prison population is about half that of the UK. One of the main reasons is that sentencing is more based on protecting society and rehabilitation than revenge and making an example.

I think that the court case itself, the verdict and the media coverage is already a significant punishment, and jail sentence both expensive and pointless. A suspended sentence seems a reasonable response unless you’re into “an eye for an eye…”.

A quick check reveals les but not half:

Prison populations

Edit: don’t forget to add England, Wales Scotland, NI Jersey etc before comparing.

dont forget to just compare sexual offences and say what % of people convicted of 12 offences get sent time …you know compare like with like or make daft statements and then back them up with almost related points
Enough of this for me

Bets of luck getting a “debate”

Edukator, based on your reasonings I guess that the folk in your country like young kids to prey on then as it only attracts a suspended or rehabilitation sentence?

Well compare like with like then, Junkyard. In this case Rolf would have benefited from prescription laws in some other countries so there would’nt have been a case to answer. For example, if you made comments about what was under a girls jumper in France back in the seventies you can sleep on both your ears knowing nobody is going to arrest you for it.

What truly baffles me is how Harris’s wife and daughter where there to support him throughout his trial. They would have heard the same evidence as the jury, and even if they didn’t believe the evidence they must have surely have believed Harris when he freely admitted that he had a sexual relationship with his daughter’s friend, claiming only that he waited until she was no longer a minor before he had sex with her.

So as far as his wife was concerned that would have made him unfaithful and adulterous, why would she want to stand by him ? And as far as his daughter was concerned that would have made him a pervert, again, why would she want to stand by him ?

I know that it’s not unusual for women to be in denial over such matters but I just don’t understand it.

On the issue of whether he was truly talented it’s quite ridiculous imo to suggest that he wasn’t, on the basis it would appear that he has been found guilty of pedophilia. Of course Harris was a highly talented entertainer, that’s how he became wealthy, whether you personally liked his art, music, shows, etc, is irrelevant. Personally I thought ‘two little boys’ was utter shite.

You guess wrong, Suggsey. Attitudes are different but in a good way rather than a bad way.

Fair point but you do know that is not what he’s been convicted, or even accused, of right?

I thought the law stated that a minor lacked the legal authority give their consent to sex, so that sex with a minor was always non-consensual? I could be wrong on that.

I’m intrigued by the Country you say has better attitudes towards offenders and their rehabilitation Edukator. As for the acceptance of what her husband and Bindi what her father has done is not a surprise, money motivates all sorts as does misguided loyalty……………

He didn’t have sex with them. I don’t think.

Fair enough Tom, I took the term ‘sex attacks on girls’ as meaning that he had. I freely admit knowing very little about the case as I tend to avoid reading news stories which involve unpleasant experiences/cruelty to children, and cruelty to animals. I’d rather not know the details.

Even if he had not had penetrative sexual contact with a child what he did was indecently assault them…….they were children…….my mind boggles at the thoughts that some folk may be having over the rights and wrongs of his convictions. 🙄

I thought the law stated that a minor lacked the legal authority give their consent to sex, so that sex with a minor was always non-consensual? I could be wrong on that.

No. There’s no such concept of “statutory rape” as they have in the US. In England and Wales (not sure about Scotland), there’s a difference between those under 16 and those under 13.

Even if he had not had penetrative sexual contact with a child what he did was indecently assault them…….they were children…….my mind boggles at the thoughts that some folk may be having over the rights and wrongs of his convictions.

Indecent assault isn’t always what people think it is. It doesn’t always mean the perpetrator has “touched someone inappropriately” – an unwanted slap on the bum could count.

As always, it’s better to get a detailed understanding of the alleged facts and law. Something the media rarely bother with.

…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 :

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.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 apparently.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/sexual_offences/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rolf-harris-found-guilty-on-all-12-counts-of-indecent-assault-9573593.html

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:

Benny Hill

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

Plus one to remind everyone that Prince Charles is also in on it.

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…

anyhow, being as you evidently want some investigative material

alternatively,

if you’re feeling too lazy for all of that, here is the crux of the matter

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.

Edukator – Troll

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…

It appears evidence has emerged of Rolf attending Broadmoor with Savile, which is backed up by the NHS inquiry 😯

and lets not forget Jersey…

What truly baffles me is how Harris’s wife and daughter where there to support him throughout his trial.

Daughter said that inheriting his 11 million would be like winning the lottery.