Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

donut said:
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"
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

From vague memory, although I can't quote any examples, I think that there are other examples of retrospective law too.
 
Judging by the information appearing about Operation Fernbridge and that conveniently lost dossier then there are a lot more that could be seeing the inside of a cell. If a loved children's entertainer can be brought to a successful prosecution then I think anyone can.
 
I always wonder why no "pop" groups have been named or mentioned
 
JennyGW said:
I seriously hope so. Perhaps this is specifically why the court did not make awards.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the courts should have awarded "appropriate" compensation sums, instead of the millions they will now be vying for.
 
BillN_33 said:
I always wonder why no "pop" groups have been named or mentioned
Click to expand...

Exactly. Are you telling me that some of the bands of the 60s and 70s didn't sleep with underage girls and the like. What about charlie Chaplin or bill wyman for example?
 
viv1969 said:
I disagree. I think the courts should have awarded "appropriate" compensation sums, instead of the millions they will now be vying for.
Click to expand...

"now be vying for" .. through the ermm ..oh yeah, courts :)

How about freezing his assets? In every sense ....
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
"now be vying for" .. through the ermm ..oh yeah, courts :)

How about freezing his assets? In every sense ....
Click to expand...

Yes, through the civil courts; who will no doubt award ridiculous amounts of compensation.
 
BillN_33 said:
I always wonder why no "pop" groups have been named or mentioned
Click to expand...
Gary Glitter was probably the fore runner to all this.
Although he did seem to source his perversion from out of state as they say.

viv1969 said:
Yes, through the civil courts; who will no doubt award ridiculous amounts of compensation.
Click to expand...
And as I mentioned before about that, compensation fuelled litigations
are far too common these days :(
 
BillN_33 said:
I always wonder why no "pop" groups have been named or mentioned
Click to expand...

We where talking about this the other day, BUT came to the conclusion that the pop groups had the girls themseves flung at them, not them going after the underage girl. It was probably cudos at school on monday morning saying you sh***** but some pop idol or another.

Garry Glitter went looking for underage girls to prey on, thats what he got done for not all the teen boppers of the 70's he probably eagerly bedded when they came to his room willingly after a night of screeming at him in the audiance for a couple of hours
 
Cobra said:
And as I mentioned before about that, compensation fuelled litigations
are far too common these days :(
Click to expand...

Yes. I think a lot of this originated in the US, where the courts show a far greater willingness to award massive punitive damages on top of compensation, and contingency fees can be around 30% of the total. Their juries tend to take this into account too, and increase the award to cover the claimant's litigation 'costs'. The UK follows a different approach, but people read about these awards and it sets up unrealistic expectations.
 
SpikeK6 said:
Garry Glitter went looking for underage girls to prey on, thats what he got done for not all the teen boppers of the 70's he probably eagerly bedded when they came to his room willingly after a night of screeming at him in the audiance for a couple of hours
Click to expand...
Not arguing that point all I was saying was that he was "probably" the first one to be prosecuted.
Bill Wyman was probably the most famous (Infamous?) star from the 60's that seemed to make no secret of his "love" of young girls.

Which sorta brings the discussion full circle as to what was and what was not acceptable 50 years ago.
 
Cobra said:
Not arguing that point all I was saying was that he was "probably" the first one to be prosecuted.
Bill Wyman was probably the most famous (Infamous?) star from the 60's that seemed to make no secret of his "love" of young girls.

Which sorta brings the discussion full circle as to what was and what was not acceptable 50 years ago.
Click to expand...


Oh sorry what I posted was not in answer to anything you posted, it was a follow on to what you said sort of thing, and you are right there have been a fair few over the years that have dabbled in this useing fame and notroiety to fuel it.
 
So "Didgeridoo is now Didgeridon't", just another famous perv amongst the few that have been caught.
 
SpikeK6 said:
Oh sorry what I posted was not in answer to anything you posted, it was a follow on to what you said sort of thing, and you are right there have been a fair few over the years that have dabbled in this useing fame and notroiety to fuel it.
Click to expand...
No problem :)
And yep absolutely!
 
PatrickO said:
Is he likely to go straight to a D-cat? I hope not.
Click to expand...
Nope. He's off to Wandsworth prison which isn't renowned for its pleasentness. He will be in with people with nothing to lose who will all want to be the ones who "got Rolf". He will be under protection but in prison prisoners usually get the nonces. For Rolf this is a death sentence probably.

The prison service always put its prisoners in a high security jail with inmates in for the full range of crimes before farming some out to less security jails with old inmates or those in for non violent crimes.

Rolfs a dead man...
 
Last edited:
Just out of morbid curiosity I went looking for names of people detained / questioned under operation Yew Tree.

Looks like there are 17 up until April this year,
inc. one that I'd not heard the news of Paul Gambaccini (radio presenter for those that don't know)

The List is HERE
 
ST4 said:
Nope. He's off to Wandsworth prison which isn't renowned for its pleasentness. He will be in with people with nothing to lose who will all want to be the ones who "got Rolf". He will be under protection but in prison prisoners usually get the nonces. For Rolf this is a death sentence probably.

The prison service always put its prisoners in a high security jail with inmates in for the full range of crimes before farming some out to less security jails with old inmates or those in for non violent crimes.

Rolfs a dead man...
Click to expand...

Well for what it's worth no one goes directly from court to D cat. But he'll be there within weeks.
 
Craig20264 said:
I don't think we should give it any more publicity. Just forget he existed. I'm only sorry the victims can't do the same.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I cannot agree with that. There is no point in sweeping this under the carpet. The almost certain fact is that there are many more people in public life who have abused and continuing to abuse their positions of trust and standing in the community. This should be kept in the public eye as long as it is necessary. Even now we are starting to hear more about a possible p**** ring that operated (and may still do) among the great and the good of this country.
 
ST4 said:
You reckon, isn't there association time etc where socks, snooker balls make good weapons.
Click to expand...

He can choose to spend time in general population if he wishes. He can also decline.
 
It is about time that these perverts are given a sentence that goes some way to matching the ruining of their victims lives. Time and time they are released and do the same thing all over again.

I'm sick of the needs of the pervert being put before the needs of the victim. There needs to be a zero tolerance policy.

The only method I can think of for truly protecting society is castration. And I am absolutely not kidding. Enough is enough.
 
JennyGW said:
It is about time that these perverts are given a sentence that goes some way to matching the ruining of their victims lives. Time and time they are released and do the same thing all over again.

I'm sick of the needs of the pervert being put before the needs of the victim. There needs to be a zero tolerance policy.

The only method I can think of for truly protecting society is castration. And I am absolutely not kidding. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...

And do you believe a ridiculous sum of money as compensation will make them feel better? I suspect it will.
One of them is already giving paid interviews.
 
ST4 said:
You reckon, isn't there association time etc where socks, snooker balls make good weapons.
Click to expand...

whilst in n way condoning violence...

Thwack! - "Rolf - can you tell what it is yet?"
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
He'll have immediate 'friends' inside who will be happy to be associated with him.
 
Cobra said:
Not arguing that point all I was saying was that he was "probably" the first one to be prosecuted.
Bill Wyman was probably the most famous (Infamous?) star from the 60's that seemed to make no secret of his "love" of young girls.

Which sorta brings the discussion full circle as to what was and what was not acceptable 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending Savile here by any means, but for those of us who were around in the 60's in Manchester and attended The Plaza, Belle Vue's Top Ten Club or The Wishing Well, will remember that young teenage girls were all over JS because he had access to their idols. Things went on back then, with lots of beat group members, that maybe 50 years later some of the fans wished they hadn't got involved in.
 
chadders said:
I'm not defending Savile here by any means, but for those of us who were around in the 60's in Manchester and attended The Plaza, Belle Vue's Top Ten Club or The Wishing Well, will remember that young teenage girls were all over JS because he had access to their idols. Things went on back then, with lots of beat group members, that maybe 50 years later some of the fans wished they hadn't got involved in.
Click to expand...

Oh there is no doubt in my mind that you sir, are correct!
You also only have to look at some of ToTP's from the early 70's, when he hosted it.
The girls were all "over him"
Double "prizes", being seen with a "pop celebrity" and on TV too!
 
Spot on.

You (well I, actually) can go back to 1st January 1964, it started then with them all over him on TotP. He was always out and about in MAnchester. I often used to see him out, either in his E-type or on his bike. People generally thought he was a good bloke and part of the "scene".

If I were any pop star (or even DJ) from the 60's, who has made a name for myself, I would be dreading the call from Operation Yewtree. Just on the offchance that one of those girls had been underage or had second thoughts after all these years. You make a good point about the Rolling Stones ex bass player. However, that was all in the open, if I remember her mother even went along with the association, and then he married the girl. Different times, and that would not happen today.
 
chadders said:
You make a good point about the Rolling Stones ex bass player. However, that was all in the open, if I remember her mother even went along with the association, and then he married the girl. Different times, and that would not happen today.
Click to expand...
And that's the rub as they say, different times, different culture.
No one can defend any of "their" alleged actions, and I am as appalled as the next right thinking person,

But the 60's were a different era all together.
"Free love" "flower power", LSD and various other things that were in vouge in the day.
However, I don't really remember it, does that mean I was actually there, after all?
(Some will get that some won't ;) )
 
cambsno said:
Exactly. Are you telling me that some of the bands of the 60s and 70s didn't sleep with underage girls and the like. What about charlie Chaplin or bill wyman for example?
Click to expand...


Possibly because they are regarded as being "cool", "edgy" and the like, and not "dirty old pervs with beards".
 
chadders said:
You make a good point about the Rolling Stones ex bass player. However, that was all in the open, if I remember her mother even went along with the association.
Click to expand...

That is even worse in my opinion, the fact that the mother "pimped" her daughter out to a famous rock star at the age of 14 (maybe younger).
That is quite sickening and was never acceptable behaviour.
 
andy700 said:
Possibly because they are regarded as being "cool", "edgy" and the like, and not "dirty old pervs with beards".
Click to expand...
I don't think you need a beard to be a pervert?
Savile never had one, nor did any of the others IIRC.

The only other bearded one was DLT, and he was acquitted back in Feb 2014
 
Times do certainly change.
When my mum and dad met (ballroom dancing), she was 13 and he was 20. They were initially put together as dance partners by the teacher. For a couple of years they were just that and then they started going on "dates" and were always chaperoned by her mum...right up till my mum was 17. This was of course in the early fifties!!
 
viv1969 said:
and were always chaperoned by her mum...right up till my mum was 17. This was of course in the early fifties!!
Click to expand...

And as per my post a few above, and then came the "liberated" 60's ;)
 
Cobra said:
The only other bearded one was DLT, and he was acquitted back in Feb 2014
Click to expand...

Isn't he facing re-trial on a couple of charges?
 
viv1969 said:
Isn't he facing re-trial on a couple of charges?
Click to expand...

The last I heard the jury were un able to reach a verdict on 2 cases.
So you may well be right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top