Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

From a victim impact statement:



So how much therapy should she be compensated with? A £1000 worth? £2000? Just because Rolf Harris is wealthy you think he shouldn't have to compensate his victims? He used his fame and fortune and abused trust placed in him to assault these girls and they shouldn't be entitled to compensation even when suffering severe psychological injury? As for what they spend it on would you accept someone telling you what you should spend your compensation on?

Firstly, the compensation should continue to be paid to the medical practitioner directly until couselling is no longer deemed necessary.
Secondly I would have reported the alleged abuse at the time....not possibly decades later.

I don't think he should be exempt because of status, but nor do I think he should be penalised financially for the same reason.

He was tried. He was convicted. He was sentenced and he has been imprisoned.

Anything further is greed...the desire for a piece of someone else's wealth which is not deserved imo.
 
Quote:
"If it turns out that Brittain is a sex offender, I hope the courts will deal with him appropriately. I'm not up to date with this news story".


I'd tread carefully there. The poster definitely said Benjamin Britten. Not to be confused with any ex politician of a similar name in any news story with which you're not keeping up to date.

Wow, a comedian.
 
You compare a sex offender and a homosexual. Societies views on homosexuals have, thank goodness, changed. Societies views on sex offenders has not changed.

If it turns out that Brittain is a sex offender, I hope the courts will deal with him appropriately. I'm not up to date with this news story.


I'm afraid that's an open goal! I have tried to point out the ever-changing zeitgeist of society, but you're quite happy that this week's, this society's view is the only one and the correct one!

Society's views on what constitues "sex offending" have certainly changed enormously, even if you haven't noticed it! May I point out that there was only thirty years difference between Jerry Lee Lewis and Bill Wyman marrying their child brides but society, as lead by the media, viewed the two very differently!

And society's views on sex offence could change again! If you read some of the newpapers, they tell you that this week in sub-Saharan Africa, homosexuality is illegal in July 2014 and punishable by death. And that twelve year old girls are old enough to be married off to old men - after they've been circumcised, of course.

And the same newspapers will tell you that all those people are coming here soon! So if they do, and they bring their values with them and they democratically change the law of this land, will you change with that change of law?

By the way, Lord Benjamin Britten died in 1976 and I don't believe he was ever even questioned over his well documented sexual interest in young boys, at least one of whom described him as being a very kind man! So according to you, was he any sort of sex offender? Were Wystan Auden or Allen Ginsburg?

In which case, what about Sir Jimmy Saville who died in 2011 with his reputation intact and who was never convicted of any sexual inpropreiety?
 
Last edited:
And worse, I suspect. He was pretty much hounded to death.

b****r! are we not allowed to do that any more?
I guess that's because they are now known as "white witches"? ;)

FYI ... "White" witch is a term that's been latched onto by the media. As a percentage, only a very small number call themselves "white" witches :)
 
Quote:
"If it turns out that Brittain is a sex offender, I hope the courts will deal with him appropriately. I'm not up to date with this news story".


I'd tread carefully there. The poster definitely said Benjamin Britten. Not to be confused with any ex politician of a similar name in any news story with which you're not keeping up to date.

I also left out two apostrophes, which actually annoyed me more.
 
FYI ... "White" witch is a term that's been latched onto by the media. As a percentage, only a very small number call themselves "white" witches :)

Voice of experience?
 
FYI ... "White" witch is a term that's been latched onto by the media. As a percentage, only a very small number call themselves "white" witches :)
I guess that burning the rest is still deemed illegal though :(
 
Firstly, the compensation should continue to be paid to the medical practitioner directly until couselling is no longer deemed necessary.
Secondly I would have reported the alleged abuse at the time....not possibly decades later.

I don't think he should be exempt because of status, but nor do I think he should be penalised financially for the same reason.

He was tried. He was convicted. He was sentenced and he has been imprisoned.

Anything further is greed...the desire for a piece of someone else's wealth which is not deserved imo.

Any compensation will be fully deserved. They didn't ask to be sexually assaulted by Rolf Harris, he decided to abuse them and inflict serious psychological damage and he will pay the price in the criminal and civil courts. If he doesn't like it then don't sexually assault people.
 
b****r! are we not allowed to do that any more?
I guess that's because they are now known as "white witches"? ;)

Just call them paedophiles and you can continue torching / stoning as normal :)
 
Any compensation will be fully deserved. They didn't ask to be sexually assaulted by Rolf Harris, he decided to abuse them and inflict serious psychological damage and he will pay the price in the criminal and civil courts. If he doesn't like it then don't sexually assault people.

He has paid the price in the criminal court. ...I take it you've been paying attention.

And compensation will be far from deserved.; but sadly these days, reparation is counted in pounds rather than proportional.
 
He has paid the price in the criminal court. ...I take it you've been paying attention.

And compensation will be far from deserved.; but sadly these days, reparation is counted in pounds rather than proportional.

Yes and now comes the civil case. Why you seem to be bitter about it I don't know, it isn't money coming from your pocket but from a convicted sex offender who wouldn't even have had a career if he was prosecuted at the time. If he had committed these crimes today he could have been looking at a maximum of life in prison so he's got off lightly so far in the criminal courts. I hope the victims are successful in suing him and they spend it as they see fit.
 
Yes and now comes the civil case. Why you seem to be bitter about it I don't know, it isn't money coming from your pocket but from a convicted sex offender who wouldn't even have had a career if he was prosecuted at the time. If he had committed these crimes today he could have been looking at a maximum of life in prison so he's got off lightly so far in the criminal courts. I hope the victims are successful in suing him and they spend it as they see fit.

You need to check the definition of bitter.
What irks me is when "victims" see the monetary gains more important than the conviction. A means to an end.
Your last comment alone displays such shallowness as to be pitiful.
 
Yes and now comes the civil case. Why you seem to be bitter about it I don't know, it isn't money coming from your pocket but from a convicted sex offender who wouldn't even have had a career if he was prosecuted at the time. If he had committed these crimes today he could have been looking at a maximum of life in prison so he's got off lightly so far in the criminal courts. I hope the victims are successful in suing him and they spend it as they see fit.

Got off lightly? He was punished based on the sentencing available at the time of the crimes.

He is now a sex offender in prison, he has lost his luxury lifestyle for the next 3 years or so, his wife could die while he is in prison, he will struggle to go out in public again, he will never again be on TV or earn money from what he does, he will have lost the majority of his friends.... If that is got off lightly then what else is there!
 
You need to check the definition of bitter.
What irks me is when "victims" see the monetary gains more important than the conviction. A means to an end.
Your last comment alone displays such shallowness as to be pitiful.

Bitter: Marked by resentment or cynicism. Seems apt enough given you seem to resent them for daring to launch civil action in case they used it to go on holiday. As for what irks you given you don't know much about the victims then your complaints are based on pure conjecture. Even when you keep using quotation marks around "victims" it is trying to belittle the scale of the offending.
 
Got off lightly? He was punished based on the sentencing available at the time of the crimes.

He is now a sex offender in prison, he has lost his luxury lifestyle for the next 3 years or so, his wife could die while he is in prison, he will struggle to go out in public again, he will never again be on TV or earn money from what he does, he will have lost the majority of his friends.... If that is got off lightly then what else is there!

From the BBC:

His sentence has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme".
 
He has paid the price in the criminal court. ...I take it you've been paying attention.

And compensation will be far from deserved.; but sadly these days, reparation is counted in pounds rather than proportional.

It is clear that Harris was gaining pounds whilst duping everyone that he was a nice guy. To lose those pounds is entirely fitting, both as a penalty and as he didn't deserve to earn them in the first place.
 
May I point out that there was only thirty years difference between Jerry Lee Lewis and Bill Wyman marrying their child brides but society, as lead by the media, viewed the two very differently!

Well, Lewis's cousin, Myra Gale Brown, was only 13 when she married him, while Mandy Smith was 18 years old when she married Wyman, which may explain much or all of the difference in contemporary public perceptions of the two.
 
It is clear that Harris was gaining pounds whilst duping everyone that he was a nice guy. To lose those pounds is entirely fitting, both as a penalty and as he didn't deserve to earn them in the first place.

I guess we'd better get back the money he helped raise for charity then, since that must have been done under false pretences too :rolleyes:
 
If he had committed these crimes today he could have been looking at a maximum of life in prison so he's got off lightly so far in the criminal courts. I hope the victims are successful in suing him and they spend it as they see fit.

Actually, that would be very very unlikely. The maximum is almost never given for any offence.

From the BBC:

His sentence has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme".

That does not mean it will be increased.
 
From the BBC:

His sentence has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme".


which isn't the same as actioned under that scheme. All the means is one other person agrees with you
 
The words of one victim:

She said: "I didn't want to break up a marriage, I didn't want to have a terrible effect on his career, and also I thought it wasn't that serious: after all I'd managed to stop it in the nick of time."
 
It is clear that Harris was gaining pounds whilst duping everyone that he was a nice guy. To lose those pounds is entirely fitting, both as a penalty and as he didn't deserve to earn them in the first place.

So surely that should apply to everyone, if a teacher is convicted of the same then they should lose assets like house as well as cash and pension.
 
So surely that should apply to everyone, if a teacher is convicted of the same then they should lose assets like house as well as cash and pension.

If someone claims compensation then he will lose assets if such assets exist and are a suitable subject for seizing - the issue is whether or not there are assets that make such a claim worthwhile. Bear in mind that if no assets or insufficient assets exist it could cost the victim dearly in costs ... who would want to risk that?
 
I just dont think it's fair that 2 people can do the same crime yet 1 is punished far worse than the other just because they are rich.
 
I just dont think it's fair that 2 people can do the same crime yet 1 is punished far worse than the other just because they are rich.
Punishment is the result of criminal law, compensation is the result of civil law (in the main).
Anyone can be subject to a compensation claim, rich or poor, but few victims will be foolish enough to make a civil claim against someone who has insufficient assets to meet the claim ... they would suffer financial loss which could be devastating.
 
The punishment of a fine of £1000 to a poor person is much more than that same fine to a rich person. The only thing that is equal is loss of time. To have the same effect on quality of life you have to fine the rich person more otherwise it isn't actually the same punishment in the first place.

I just dont think it's fair that 2 people can do the same crime yet 1 is punished far worse than the other just because they are poor.

It works both ways.
 
The punishment of a fine of £1000 to a poor person is much more than that same fine to a rich person. The only thing that is equal is loss of time. To have the same effect on quality of life you have to fine the rich person more otherwise it isn't actually the same punishment in the first place.

It works both ways.

That would be a dangerous precedent, tailoring punishment to fit the person rather than the crime.
As I said earlier, where do you stop. A get more years in jail just because he is younger than B? If there is a punishment tariff for a particular offence then that must apply equally to all offenders.
 
"means tested" justice or punishment…………. an interesting concept?

but a slightly different concept - payments to the victim are used to compensate the family and lighten the sentence in other parts of the world……… but I would not think that such would be at all acceptable in our "civilised" society.
 
Last edited:
He has paid the price in the criminal court. ...I take it you've been paying attention.

And compensation will be far from deserved.; but sadly these days, reparation is counted in pounds rather than proportional.


Far from deserved........are you sure about that.
 
I guess we'd better get back the money he helped raise for charity then, since that must have been done under false pretences too :rolleyes:


Do you have proof of his fund raising, maybe some accounts?
 
"means tested" justice or punishment…………. an interesting concept?

but a slightly different concept - payments to the victim are used to compensate the family and lighten the sentence in other parts of the world……… but I would not think that such would be at all acceptable in our "civilised" society.

You are quite correct; it would not be at all acceptable. That is is using wealth to officially buy your way out of the consequences of your offence. That really would be one law for the rich and another for the poor.
 
Last edited:
In an "eye for an eye" world, if RH was in the main body of a prison for a fortnight, he would probably be violated as many times as he violated.

BTW, if anyone wants an RH print to burn, they can buy mine for £850.
 
Do you have proof of his fund raising, maybe some accounts?

Try doing a little reasearch on the charities he was involved with.
 
In an "eye for an eye" world, if RH was in the main body of a prison for a fortnight, he would probably be violated as many times as he violated.

BTW, if anyone wants an RH print to burn, they can buy mine for £850.

You'd still rather sell it and make money than burn it yourself though :lol:
 
Back
Top