Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

gramps

gramps

Suspended / Banned
Messages
44,805
Name
'Gramps'
Edit My Images
No
Expected more TBH.
 
MWHCVT said:
If I'm not mistaken didn't they have to sentence based on the sentence structure at the time of the offence? This maybe explains the sentence duration :(
Click to expand...

yes and lets face it, he is probably going to die there anyway, and if he doesn't, where can he go? He can't hide he is too well known, which in itself is in effect a life sentence anyway.
 
It's really depressing to see the dark side of these guys who I was a fan of in my childhood. What's more depressing is that we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
 
Yv said:
yes and lets face it, he is probably going to die there anyway, and if he doesn't, where can he go? He can't hide he is too well known, which in itself is in effect a life sentence anyway.
Click to expand...

:agree:

PatrickO said:
It's really depressing to see the dark side of these guys who I was a fan of in my childhood.
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Steve Smith said:
Expected or hoped?
Click to expand...

Why would I hope ... he means nothing to me!

Bearing in mind he pleaded not guilty and even at the sentencing 'of the day', reportedly there was a maximum of around 15 years just for two of the offences.
 
PatrickO said:
What's more depressing is that we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

What's more depressing is that it's still going on today, it's 100% guaranteed that the rich/famous as still taking advantage of the young.

I can only hope that in the digital era it will be easier to get evidence so behaviour like this can be stopped after the initial victims, it's really sad to see a catalogue of abuse going back decades due to lack of proof :(
 
MWHCVT said:
If I'm not mistaken didn't they have to sentence based on the sentence structure at the time of the offence? This maybe explains the sentence duration :(
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I really understand the logic of sentencing based on when the offence was done. It's kind of saying "I wouldn't have committed the crime if I'd known it was going to be such a harsh sentence", which implies that they did something knowing it was illegal but thinking that it was worth the risk of getting caught - very cold and calculating in a case like this.
 
judge could have ordered that he served them consecutively could he not ? . and no he wont die in prison ,, they'll let him out when his layers say he's just about to die ,,,then when he gets out he will make a miraculous recovery ,,,,( was it e saunders who got better from an incurable disease when he got out of prison ? )
 
PatrickO said:
It's really depressing to see the dark side of these guys who I was a fan of in my childhood. What's more depressing is that we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I really looked forward to watching his shows on TV as a kid, especially his large brush paintings - 'can you tell what it is yet?'
It's difficult to comprehend that he was up to things like this.
 
The bit I don't get is that he is not going to have to pay compensation to the victims, so there'll still be all those millions when he gets out in under 3 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28163593

Harris is likely to serve half the sentence in prison and was told he would not have to pay compensation to his victims. However, the judge said he could have to pay the costs of the prosecution.
 
Peter B said:
The bit I don't get is that he is not going to have to pay compensation to the victims, so there'll still be all those millions when he gets out in under 3 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28163593

Harris is likely to serve half the sentence in prison and was told he would not have to pay compensation to his victims. However, the judge said he could have to pay the costs of the prosecution.
Click to expand...

They will bring private cases, and they will win.
 
mrgubby said:
What's more depressing is that it's still going on today, it's 100% guaranteed that the rich/famous as still taking advantage of the young.
Click to expand...

What, all of them? :rolleyes:

I would imagine there's far more fathers / brothers "uncles" and friends at it than famous faces.
 
viv1969 said:
They will bring private cases, and they will win.
Click to expand...
And thats what saddens me, to think that that the compensation culture would be fuelling a private prosecution :(

viv1969 said:
I would imagine there's far more fathers / brothers "uncles" and friends at it than famous faces.
Click to expand...
I was also about to add that "Uncle Bob" scenario's are also possibly common.
We never or rarely get to hear about those cases because they are not famous and no where near as news worthy
as the Celebs.

And indeed private prosecutions (retrospectively I mean ie from the era these cases are from)
Are rarely bought against the the perpetrator, because they have little funds
with which to "compensate" their victims.

Yes I guess I am a little cynical.
 
viv1969 said:
What, all of them? :rolleyes:

I would imagine there's far more fathers / brothers "uncles" and friends at it than famous faces.
Click to expand...

That sometime is the very sad part,theses people will very rarely reach any headlines or have any Justice,and their battle for survival can be on an daily basis,if the the parent is the abuser :(
 
I don't think he's likely to die in jail at all. He's 84 and he'll do 4 years max of the sentence. 88 isn't exactly guaranteed death age.

I think he should have got longer
 
There is every chance he could saerve as little as 22 months in a nice D-cat somewhere without needing to be at deaths door.
 
Update on the BBC website: The sentence of five years and nine months has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme".
 
PatrickO said:
It's really depressing to see the dark side of these guys who I was a fan of in my childhood. What's more depressing is that we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

yeah I was gutted when I found out Morph was a playdoughphile :LOL:
 
its appalling to see all these people we of a certain age/generation watched avidly and looked up to on TV day in day out as kids/young adults.
the difference between then and now is these people were adored and worshipped. think the chances of it happening now though are far less simply because of the technology and media availble. Just look at what happened to John Leslie and that was with a consenting adult ( abby titmus ). Tv perosnalities of today dont have the status symbol they had in the 60,70s and 80's. instead now we are inundated with the likes of boy bands and the like.
saddens me to feel that my childhood idols and heroes have all turned out to be villains.
 
PatrickO said:
It's really depressing to see the dark side of these guys who I was a fan of in my childhood. What's more depressing is that we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...


yep - It makes me sad that another child hood star has fallen this way
 
TopBanana said:
I'm not sure I really understand the logic of sentencing based on when the offence was done. It's kind of saying "I wouldn't have committed the crime if I'd known it was going to be such a harsh sentence", which implies that they did something knowing it was illegal but thinking that it was worth the risk of getting caught - very cold and calculating in a case like this.
Click to expand...

Not so.

The law changes and you cannot be expected to act upon the basis of legislation that does not yet exist, especially many years or decades into the future. The general principle of English law is that it cannot act retrospectively.

Otherwise, you could find yourself exposed to prosecution for things that weren't illegal at the time you did them, or subject to custodial sentence for something that only carried a financial penalty.

Before 1988 it was not illegal to carry a large knife in public.

Between 1988 and 1996, it was and Offence [to have] an article with blade or point in public place, subject to a maximum of a Level 3 fine (£400 in 1988) in a Magistrates' Court.

In 1996, the same offence became subject to a maximum penalty of two years in prison.

Since 2006, that same offence has carried a maximum penalty of four years in prison.

It would most be unreasonable to prosecute someone and send them to jail for four years under the 2006 legislation, for an offence committed in 1987 or 1995, for example. They had no expectation in either case that

a) what they were doing was illegal at all

b) they might spend any time in prison for it

You may be happy to serve time in prison in 2035 for dropping some litter on the street last Tuesday, because it will be made a custodial matter in 2033, but I certainly am not.
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
It's really depressing to see the dark side of these guys who I was a fan of in my childhood. What's more depressing is that we are probably only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
Click to expand...

One of Rolf Harris's victims appeared on TV news saying that she knew of a few others who were the same as him!
 
Jeeez. Just my luck to have asked Jim to fix it for me to appear on Its a Knockout with Rolf Harris!
 
I wonder if he would turn 90 in 5 years 9 months as it is a very specific sentence?
 
I wonder if the queen has put her foot through that portrait

Luckily I read that before I hit post , I'd missed the T off Foot :eek:
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
Is he likely to go straight to a D-cat? I hope not.
Click to expand...

As he's of little threat to the public, elderly and a poor flight risk, yes.
 
Musicman said:
Not so.

The law changes and you cannot be expected to act upon the basis of legislation that does not yet exist, especially many years or decades into the future. The general principle of English law is that it cannot act retrospectively.

.
Click to expand...
not quite true unfortunately.

"Consider the famous House of Lords case of R v R (1994). This concerned a man who raped his wife, and based his defence on the fact that for a man to rape his wife was not, in fact, illegal. It may be condemned, it may even be wicked, but it was not - at that time - illegal. If a man had approach a solicitor in 1990 and said 'Look, I'm thinking of raping my wife, is that illegal?' a competent solicitor may well have said: 'Well, of course I wouldn't condone it, but the balance of authority is that it isn't actually illegal'. He could have cited authorities going back to the 16th century to back this up. At this time, there was increasing pressure on Parliament and the courts to overturn this unedifying principle of law, but when R was heard, no action had been taken.
To cut a long story short, the House of Lords decided that marital rape was illegal, reversing a 400-year tradition. Everyone, with the exception of the defendant, heaved a sigh of relief. Later that year, the decision was put on a statutory basis, which appeared to settle the matter once and for all. The fly in the ointment is our old friend retrospectivity. The decision in R was not that marital rape was illegal, but that it had always been illegal. Again, the court had no power to decide otherwise. And this means that an octogenarian who raped his wife in the 1940's could now be prosecuted. You may feel that this is a just conclusion; you may feel that rapists should get their just deserts. However, the fact remains that we would be punishing a person for something which was not illegal at the time, and which he would have no way of knowing was ever going to be illegal. The social conditions of the time may not even have led our hypothetical defendant to think he was doing anything wrong. But he could still be prosecuted. This may sound far-fetched, but in fact within a year of the decision in R, cases were being heard in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). SW v United Kingdom (1995) concerned a man who was prosecuted in 1994 for a rape he had allegedly committed in 1990. If was far from obvious that marital rape was illegal in 1990. The ECHR upheld the criminal conviction, on the basis that when the rapes occurred, the defendants could have reasonably foreseen that the criminalisation of martial rape was likely. The problem with the decision in SW v UK is that it suggests that a person must govern his behaviour, not by what the law is, but by what he predicts it will be when any consequent prosecution is bought. So, not only is ignorance of the law no defence, but ignorance of the future development of the law is also no defence! None of the forgoing is intended to condone the practice of marital rape. Judicial retrospectivity presents the same kind of problem for any criminal offence, of any severity"
 
From what I learned from a now dearly departed prison officer golfing buddy.....

If sentence is <6 yrs then can get reduced terms... If 6 yrs +, whole of tariff applies...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top