Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

Would they have been charged, brought to court, imprisoned and disgraced in the same way at the time they committed the offence, and would the punishment have been the same?

It would appear that there were "cover ups" by the establishment, the police, etc., in certain cases at the time the offences were comitted …….. and this my be brought to light further in the Leon Brittan missing dossier on VIP child abusers enquiry.

Obviously perpetrators are brought to court but aren't there others who aided these "cover ups"

Quote from the Mail online

"A dossier detailing explosive claims of sex abuse by paedophiles within Westminster has gone missing. Given to Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983, the files allegedly exposed a vile network at Parliament and Whitehall"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-1980s-files-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html

not at all new and there were strong rumours at the time and even when LB was in Brussels
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
Obviously perpetrators are brought to court but aren't there others who aided these "cover ups"
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure that "others" must have known, and even possibly aided the crimes.
Even if it was a brag around a card table or the like at the time.
A few drinks the odd reefer here and there, were all common place in the 60's (Allegedly)
And things like that will always loosen the tongue ;)
 
I think one of my points would be:

Obviously what they have done was a crime at the time they did it - but I would be interested in views as to what the it is felt that the punishment would have been at the time versus what is happening today
 
Wasn't there a comment in the thread that they are being charged under the law of the day?
Or did I miss-read that bit?
 
I'm not sure to be honest about all of this, honestly it makes me feel sick that this happens at all, and with under age children people need to get more than just a prison sentence.

But

Lets just think this through, some of these offences were over 20 years ago and there is no actual physical evidence to back them up. Dave Lee Travis has been hauled up because one of the girls said he "Giggled my Breasts" while she was 15 and in his changing room. Now come on, really 15 and in a radio 1 stars changing room, surely there is a duty of care on both sides here. What the hell was she doing there and to be in that position. It mystifies me sometimes.

I am not saying these people are wrong to have come forward or these guys don't deserve a punishment, but if the offence was so disgusting and degrading then after this amount of time I'm sorry to say I think this is all about money and the publicity bandwagon, pushed on by people just like Rebecca Woods. Who despite there being evidence of knowing that phone hacking going on was let off and will now share in pot of 11m ? The world has truely gone mad, and yes this is the tip of a very large iceberg that we will be hearing about for another 10 years.

aaaaaaand Relaaaaaax
 
BillN_33 said:
Would they have been charged, brought to court, imprisoned and disgraced in the same way at the time they committed the offence, and would the punishment have been the same?

It would appear that there were "cover ups" by the establishment, the police, etc., in certain cases at the time the offences were comitted …….. and this my be brought to light further in the Leon Brittan missing dossier on VIP child abusers enquiry.

Obviously perpetrators are brought to court but aren't there others who aided these "cover ups"

Quote from the Mail online

"A dossier detailing explosive claims of sex abuse by paedophiles within Westminster has gone missing. Given to Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983, the files allegedly exposed a vile network at Parliament and Whitehall"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-1980s-files-Westminster-paedophile-ring.html

not at all new and there were strong rumours at the time and even when LB was in Brussels
Click to expand...


Just Google Elm Guest House, assuming Google haven't been asked to remove all references. The "vile network" was not just confined to Parliament and Whitehall.
 
Not sure tge Mail would be my "go to" source for facts :-)
 
viv1969 said:
Not sure tge Mail would be my "go to" source for facts :)
Click to expand...

You don't need to go to the Mail for those facts…it's all over the news. :sneaky:
 
chadders said:
Just Google Elm Guest House, assuming Google haven't been asked to remove all references.
Click to expand...
It has a bit of a chequered history looking at the "results"!
 
BillN_33 said:
Viv, why do you think that I emphasised explosive claims and vile network?
Click to expand...

Well Bill, if you were trying to be ironic, it got very lost in the post.
 
viv1969 said:
Well Bill, if you were trying to be ironic, it got very lost in the post.
Click to expand...

No irony at all, is that how you read it, it is more serious than that

The emphasis was to indicate how the Mail reports news - unless they have access to "the dossier" it is difficult to accept what they say as fact

But clearly lost on you and rather sad really when you cannot see that it agreed with your point
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
No irony at all, is that how you read it, it is more serious than that

The emphasis was to indicate how the Mail reports news - unless they have access to "the dossier" it is difficult to accept what they say as fact

But clearly lost on you and rather sad really when you cannot see that it agreed with your point
Click to expand...

It couldn't be that your actual points tend to get overwhelmed by the rest of the post could it?
I mean, why use four words when thirty will do :-)
 
Cobra said:
It has a bit of a chequered history looking at the "results"!
Click to expand...

Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal


BillN_33 said:
No irony at all, is that how you read it, it is more serious than that

The emphasis was to indicate how the Mail reports news - unless they have access to "the dossier" it is difficult to accept what they say as fact

But clearly lost on you and rather sad really when you cannot see that it agreed with your point
Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem and the reason Saville, Harris et al got away with it for so long. "You" and others find it difficult to believe without "proof". That was probably the attitude that any of the their victims met with if they reported their assaults.
 
chadders said:
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal




And therein lies the problem and the reason Saville, Harris et al got away with it for so long. "You" and others find it difficult to believe without "proof". That was probably the attitude that any of the their victims met with if they reported their assaults.
Click to expand...

I don't disbelieve it at all - in fact I remember the Leon Brittan "situation" quite well ……… it is just that we all know how National Newspapers can embellish information and this really does not help anything.

I would think at the time it was not a matter of the Police etc., not believing the complainants against Saville, it was more that they "turned a blind eye" because of who he was and their connections with him. The same with Politicians and other "powerful" people. It is the "oldest" story in the book, happens all the time and will continue to happen. Just look at the world today and the current acts that come to light.

Facts/Evidence - at the end of the day that's the way English law works….. is there a better system?
 
Last edited:
chadders said:
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elm_Guest_House_child_abuse_scandal
Click to expand...
I did read that :thumbs:

This one (LINKY) prompted the "chequered history" comment
the abridge version:-

<Snip> Elm Guest House was raided by police and its owners, Haroon and Carole Kasir, were convicted at the Old Bailey of running a brothel.</Snip>

<Snip>The Kasirs had allowed a small industry to bloom in their establishment. Male prostitutes had found it a convenient place to take clients </Snip>

<Snip> Cyril Smith, the late Liberal MP, accused since his death in 2010 of being an inveterate child abuser, is said to have regularly visited the property. Other names, some household figures, swirl around the internet.</Snip>

the list goes on :(
 
Tomorrow's headlines look interesting. Labour peer being questioned about historic abuse.
 
"A party was raided by the "police" (my italics) in 1982, following which 12 boys gave evidence that they had been abused by men at the house. Kasir was convicted of the charge of running a disorderly house, but allegations of abuse against children, and a subsequent reported investigation in 2003, were apparently not pursued". i.e. presumably the men in the house with the children at the time were not charged…why? Carole Kasir died, in what many considered unusual circumstances, in 1990.

Note Anthony Blunt is mentioned. This may lead you to suspect that the security services might be involved in some way. You might suspect that "but I couldn't possibly comment". Note that says "male prostitutes took their clients….". Those so called "male prostitutes" were under age boys taken from a local children's home against their will.

20 - 30 years ago this sort of thing could be easily hidden. Today with modern communications it's much harder to keep a lid on this kind of thing forever.

BillN_33 said:
Facts/Evidence - at the end of the day that's the way English law works….. is there a better system?
Click to expand...

No, there isn't a better system. However, that system depends upon a willingness to investigate properly and thoroughly, to obtain the evidence and prosecute where necessary. It appears that so far only the small fry in this sordid case have been brought to book.
 
Last edited:
"A party was raided by the "police" (my italics) in 1982, following which 12 boys gave evidence that they had been abused by men at the house. Kasir was convicted of the charge of running a disorderly house, but allegations of abuse against children, and a subsequent reported investigation in 2003, were apparently not pursued". i.e. presumably the men in the house with the children at the time were not charged…why? Carole Kasir died, in what many considered unusual circumstances, in 1990.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the evidence may not have been sufficient to charge, it often isn't.
In the 70's/80's and obviously before that, we wouldn't charge if the victim's evidence was contraditory and there was nothing supporting it.
So a rape allegation that changed from the first telling to the second and so on, even if there was forensic evidence to say sex had taken place wouldn't be persuaded. I don't know what was in those statements, obviously, but it wouldn't be a surprise if it wasn't as complete as you'd like. Obviously thats not something the press want to report.

No, there isn't a better system. However, that system depends upon a willingness to investigate properly and thoroughly, to obtain the evidence and prosecute where necessary. It appears that so far only the small fry in this sordid case have been brought to book.
Click to expand...

It also relies on the evidence being there to collect. Sometimes it isn't, and so prosecutions are a no go. In those cases as we used to say, "He'll come again", and you have to hope they will.
 
viv1969 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Somehow I think that any money they make will not be anywhere near close to that made by Harris.
 
DLT is to face a retrial on two charges according to BBC records.
 
JennyGW said:
Somehow I think that any money they make will not be anywhere near close to that made by Harris.
Click to expand...

One would hope so.
You clearly think that any compensation awarded should "clean him out".
 
Bernie174 said:
The problem is that the evidence may not have been sufficient to charge, it often isn't.
In the 70's/80's and obviously before that, we wouldn't charge if the victim's evidence was contraditory and there was nothing supporting it.
So a rape allegation that changed from the first telling to the second and so on, even if there was forensic evidence to say sex had taken place wouldn't be persuaded. I don't know what was in those statements, obviously, but it wouldn't be a surprise if it wasn't as complete as you'd like. Obviously thats not something the press want to report.



It also relies on the evidence being there to collect. Sometimes it isn't, and so prosecutions are a no go. In those cases as we used to say, "He'll come again", and you have to hope they will.
Click to expand...


Well there was apparently enough evidence to charge the owners of the guesthouse, and people who supplied the the boys. It's strange that the undercover officers inside at the time seemed to have botched things up. I'm sorry, but when one looks at those allegedly involved you can only assume that it was not considered expedient to press charges. Having said that, there are many still living, so given what's currently happening with the likes of Harris and Hall, I anticipate it's only a matter of time before these men are up before a judge. Assuming there is the will. See today's BBC news page.
 
you can only assume that it was not considered expedient to press charges
Click to expand...

There's a problem with assumption, which is all you have and that is it is often wrong.

What you are saying is there was a massed conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Unlikely, someone would have spilled the beans. Had they done so, then many more people's heads would have been put on pikes.

Looking at the information on line, it seems to me that it's all hearsay, people saying they were told by someone, who is no longer alive, and videos and note books exist.

No one has produced those as of yet.

I don't doubt something was going on, but proving to the level required by the courts it is a different matter
 
Last edited:
chadders said:
Well there was apparently enough evidence to charge the owners of the guesthouse, and people who supplied the the boys. It's strange that the undercover officers inside at the time seemed to have botched things up. I'm sorry, but when one looks at those allegedly involved you can only assume that it was not considered expedient to press charges.
Click to expand...


The internet is the home of paranoia and hysteria - you only have to read some TP membes' posts in this thread to see that!

However, if you read the rumours and some of the names and alleged photographs that relate to the Elm Guest House case, it's not beyond the realms of belief that there was a full-blown "spooks'" cover up of some very unpleasant goings on in the heart of the establishment! Far, far nastier and more significant than anything minor entertainers have been convicted of recently!
 
viv1969 said:
One would hope so.
You clearly think that any compensation awarded should "clean him out".
Click to expand...
Why? I have no desire to become totally compensation obsessed like the states. You do your crime and you get the punishment the court dishes out. Just because he is rich or famous should not change that. I had my bike stolen this week, do you think that if caught I will get compensation off them, of course not. Appreciate the fact it's totally different crimes but do u think the last rapist to be convicted was cleaned out? The law has to apply to everyone equally.

Is his punishment lenient. Hardly fair if in 2030 they make it illegal to take any naked pics of kids and then prosecute me for pics I took of bath time in 2009. Also, I am sure that there are many people jailed recently who are far more of a risk to the public who get similar sentences. Prison should be there to a) punish and b) protect the public. As his last offence was in 1986 I don't see him as a risk. While each case is different, this one from my local rag - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cam...king-young-girls-locked-up-20140307063000.htm - similar crime and sentence.
 
Cobra said:
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
Click to expand...


I was merely giving an example of how certain sectors of society are viewed differently to others, and are allowed to get away with behaviour which would see the rest of us facing lengthy prison terms.
 
cambsno said:
Why? I have no desire to become totally compensation obsessed like the states. You do your crime and you get the punishment the court dishes out. Just because he is rich or famous should not change that. I had my bike stolen this week, do you think that if caught I will get compensation off them, of course not. Appreciate the fact it's totally different crimes but do u think the last rapist to be convicted was cleaned out? The law has to apply to everyone equally.

Is his punishment lenient. Hardly fair if in 2030 they make it illegal to take any naked pics of kids and then prosecute me for pics I took of bath time in 2009. Also, I am sure that there are many people jailed recently who are far more of a risk to the public who get similar sentences. Prison should be there to a) punish and b) protect the public. As his last offence was in 1986 I don't see him as a risk. While each case is different, this one from my local rag - http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cam...king-young-girls-locked-up-20140307063000.htm - similar crime and sentence.
Click to expand...

That's why I've previously posted that I think any monetary compensation should have been decided upon and awarded at the time of sentencing.
These women have stated that no amount of money can compensate for what happened, but you can bet they'll go after every penny they can get, and that has nothing to do with justice, only greed.

IMO, those victims who have waived their anonymity to speak out have done so with only one thing in mind. Revenue.
 
Bernie174 said:
There's a problem with assumption, which is all you have and that is it is often wrong.

What you are saying is there was a massed conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Unlikely, someone would have spilled the beans. Had they done so, then many more people's heads would have been put on pikes.

Looking at the information on line, it seems to me that it's all hearsay, people saying they were told by someone, who is no longer alive, and videos and note books exist.

No one has produced those as of yet.

I don't doubt something was going on, but proving to the level required by the courts it is a different matter
Click to expand...

We'll clearly have to disagree over this. Let's just wait and see what the coming days and weeks bring. Obviously this is not going away.
 
We'll clearly have to disagree over this. Let's just wait and see what the coming days and weeks bring. Obviously this is not going away.
Click to expand...

It's certainly not going to go away, but there's a difference between waiting for it to be investigated and finding guilt by assumption. Although it seems to be the way some think things should be.
 
viv1969 said:
One would hope so.
You clearly think that any compensation awarded should "clean him out".
Click to expand...

Yes. He is a fake. He totally abused his position of trust and earned every penny under false pretences and as such deserves none of it.
 
JennyGW said:
Yes. He is a fake. He totally abused his position of trust and earned every penny under false pretences and as such deserves none of it.
Click to expand...

Earned every penny under false pretences? A little strong, would you care to qualify that?
Are you thinking that he earnt his money through entertainment which he wouldn't because of his crimes if known? Entertainer for 50 years, convicted sex offender over 27 years. How about his art, was it only good because of his celebrity?

I don't agree with the sentence, thought it too lenient and doesn't give out the right message, but I think this knee jerk, keyboard warrior type response doesn't help or progress the argument
 
Bernie174 said:
It's certainly not going to go away, but there's a difference between waiting for it to be investigated and finding guilt by assumption. Although it seems to be the way some think things should be.
Click to expand...

That's the basic problem. After 30 years is it ever going to be investigated properly?
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
Yes. He is a fake. He totally abused his position of trust and earned every penny under false pretences and as such deserves none of it.
Click to expand...

If you can argue without the misplaced indignation and with valid points, let us know.
 
Byker28i said:
Earned every penny under false pretences? A little strong, would you care to qualify that?
Are you thinking that he earnt his money through entertainment which he wouldn't because of his crimes if known? Entertainer for 50 years, convicted sex offender over 27 years. How about his art, was it only good because of his celebrity?

I don't agree with the sentence, thought it too lenient and doesn't give out the right message, but I think this knee jerk, keyboard warrior type response doesn't help or progress the argument
Click to expand...
Was the sentence overly lenient?
The judge obviously thought it right, and he's the one with all the detailed info, not us.

I don't quite know where I stand on this subject. The public generally think that all sentences are too lenient. Victims of unintended consequences (for example death by dangerous driving) always seems to think that the negligent driver should have been jailed for life, because of the consequences of his/her actions and seem to lose sight of the fact that the sentence is for the offence, not the consequences.

And surely the sentence should relate to the criminal as well as to the crime?
A while ago, I saw a convicted thief sentenced to 28 weeks. This man had a string of convictions and was also in breach of various Court orders, i.e. ASBO, non payment of fines etc. Given his lifestyle, 28 weeks in gaol would just be a minor inconvenience and, once out again, won't affect his life in any way.

Rolf Harris is a very old man, he is now know to be a child abuser, his social position has gone for ever, his reputation has been totally destroyed and he will never earn another penny (except for royalties of course, earned from past work). ANY punishment will affect him far more than the average low life criminal.
 
There's is that of course Garry, along with his age. Possibly a reflection was that 7 of the 12 offences wee with the family friend who continued to have a relationship with him.

My problem with the 'clean him out' brigade, is that how does that affect his family. His estate is reputed to be £11m, some of which is in his artwork, the value of which has plummeted( although that hasn't stopped speculators trying to pick it up for minimal money),
Should the family lose their home etc?

I wonder how much he earnt through his artwork. I've seen paintings by him selling for tens of thousands of pounds.
 
Remember that those like Harris and Clifford have much further to fall than most people. They have gone from luxury lifestyle and adoration to zero. I would argue that a jail term for these us far worse than a similar term for a jobless offender.
 
i read an interesting article on the validity of convictions for Harris, i'll see if i can find it

its quite sad that some of the personalities of some of our youths are turning out not to be the people that we looked up to and admired. I wonder how many of the current crop of personalities will turn out to be perverts
 
It does seem to have been a commonly accepted practice, which makes you wonder about just who knew. This couldn't have happened without people noticing, there's just too many people around in a TV/radio environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top