Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

Matt said:
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
Click to expand...

It's all changed now, for ever.
1. Standards of behaviour have changed (dramatically) since the 60's/70's
2. The internet means that things can't be swept under the carpet any more
3.Mobile phones, with video, cameras and sound recording means that misconduct is now very likely to end up on the internet
4. The police now actually listen to complaints about rape, sexual assault and so on

So, although it's reasonable to assume that there's a % of people who would like to behave badly and who would like to use or abuse their positions to do so, the chances of getting away with it are now much lower, so hopefully they will behave much better.
 
I don't think there will ever be zero % of people of fame / power carrying out these sorts of offences, simply because I think in their own minds,they believe that their position and standing will somehow protect them.
 
I don't think there will ever be zero % of people of fame / power carrying out these sorts of offences, simply because I think in their own minds,they believe that their position and standing will somehow protect them.
Click to expand...

I don't think thats the reason, if it were those at the bottom of the humanity pile wouldn't do it, but they do.

If thats the sort of things that fire their neurons, then thats what they will no no matter what their position is in life.
 
Bernie174 said:
I don't think thats the reason, if it were those at the bottom of the humanity pile wouldn't do it, but they do.

If thats the sort of things that fire their neurons, then thats what they will no no matter what their position is in life.
Click to expand...

I don't always agree with you Bernie, but I think we have consensus here. People who feel a compulsion, urge, or whatever the hell you want to call it, to do this sort of thing will continue to do so. Most criminals don't really expect to be caught and convicted, or they wouldn't commit the crime in the first place, but I think Ruth is also correct in saying that people in powerful, privileged, positions probably do develop a perception that they enjoy some sort of immunity.
 
Yes sorry, my comment was only regarding the so called "great and good", not your non-famous variety of pervert.
 
Garry Edwards said:
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.
Click to expand...

His reputation was destroyed by himself. He destroyed the lives of every victim. He earned his money as an entertainer because he was portrayed as a character he certainly was not.

Poor old guy in prison you say. What do you say to his victims?
 
Matt said:
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
Click to expand...

Also sad that good people who are not perverts will never again be given the same level of trust afforded to Mr Harris.
 
A SEVEN YEAR OLD CHILD.

What if it was YOUR child? Then how would you feel? Any talk of leniency for Harris is misplaced.
 
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...

It is no knee jerk response. This has been going on for years. Not just celebrities. Look at the Catholic church.

if you mean, "Awww, but he made such pretty pictures, so he can't have been ALL bad", try telling that to a victim or a victim's family.
 
JennyGW said:
His reputation was destroyed by himself. He destroyed the lives of every victim. He earned his money as an entertainer because he was portrayed as a character he certainly was not.

Poor old guy in prison you say. What do you say to his victims?
Click to expand...

His age is irrelevant, culpability isn't mitigated by advancing age and the passage of time.

I don't know if there's anything you can say to his victims. Probably not, apart from platitudes and the usual assurances that 'this can never be allowed to happen again'.
 
JennyGW said:
It is no knee jerk response. This has been going on for years. Not just celebrities. Look at the Catholic church.

if you mean, "Awww, but he made such pretty pictures, so he can't have been ALL bad", try telling that to a victim or a victim's family.
Click to expand...
The Catholic church is just another example of power and priviledge, where abusers have got away with it because the people who SHOULD have protected the victims failed in their duty, time and time again.

I'm not defending abuse. I'm just wondering why people whose knowledge of the crimes, the victims and the perpetrators is limited to what they've read assume that the Judge, who has listened to all the evidence and who has been able to assess all those involved, has got it wrong when it comes to sentencing.
 
Matt said:
this was the interesting article. **note: im not saying he shouldnt have been prosecuted or investigated!**
http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt
Click to expand...
I read that before, and its quite thought provoking.
We have no idea what took place in court, only the Judge, legal team from both sides
and of course the "12 good men and true" know that for sure.

To my mind this is always a problem or indeed a factor that cannot be dismissed in any high profile case :-
Again, we don’t know what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is
an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating
evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused
Click to expand...
 
Matt said:
this was the interesting article. **note: im not saying he shouldnt have been prosecuted or investigated!**

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt
Click to expand...

That's a powerful article, Matt and rather more convincing than the CAPITAL LETTER hysteria in the post immediately above it!

This weekend the press is reporting that Leon Brittan has been questioned about an alleged rape of an adult woman some forty years ago. It's been a diffcult week for Lord Brittan; I think it might be about to get more difficult for him, but whoever the acused, how can sexual consent from forty years ago conceivably be proved or disproved? No chance whatsoever, not even with a Lewinsky schmutter in the cupboard!

Still as long as we have 'sinister groupthink' and capital letter online hysteria, who needs evidence!?

On the other hand, Chadders [?] linked to the article I read in detail, of a woman's affidavit alleging enormous cover up of systematic North Wales child abuse. It is both madly paranoid and totally plausible! If, as I have already commented, the level of cover up is so extensive, how can we believe anything that we're being told from "through the looking glass"?

Incidentally, when I was a university student in the 1970s I remember hearing [in common student gossip and conversation] the names of two notorious sexual predators. One was Jimmy Saville, the other was a pop star who allegedly liked "little girls in leather" and whose name I've not heard mentioned once in modern times connected with historic sexual abuse. Why not? Because the gossip was wrong? Because it never happened? Because he has been protected? Or because his "little girls" are still besotted, in awe or in fear of him? Could be any one of those, couldn't it?
 
Many years ago in my mis spent youth I used to drink in a local pub frequented by Gary Glitter, to be fair he was always very pleasant and I
never gave a thought as to why he was so friendly and helpful to the local young girls, who idolised him, we all know why now, and yet
I can't remember much being said about his exploits at that time.
As has been said many times, it was a different world, these things were so well known about, and often these young girls were willing
victims
 
JennyGW said:
It is no knee jerk response. This has been going on for years. Not just celebrities. Look at the Catholic church.

if you mean, "Awww, but he made such pretty pictures, so he can't have been ALL bad", try telling that to a victim or a victim's family.
Click to expand...

The knee jerk reaction comment was in response to your earning money under false pretences claim. No one made comments that he wasn't bad, that's just your moral outrage.
What I find interesting is people trying to outdo each other with the moral outrage stakes which seems prevalent on the internet these days. The keyboard warriors escalating the response.

I'm curious. Did you know these people?
 
One was Jimmy Saville, the other was a pop star who allegedly liked "little girls in leather" and whose name I've not heard mentioned once in modern times connected with historic sexual abuse. Why not? Because the gossip was wrong? Because it never happened? Because he has been protected? Or because his "little girls" are still besotted, in awe or in fear of him? Could be any one of those, couldn't it?
Click to expand...

If thats the same one I have heard tales of, then he's probably jumping at shadows, can't be much of a holiday for him at the moment.

On the other hand, Chadders [?] linked to the article I read in detail, of a woman's affidavit alleging enormous cover up of systematic North Wales child abuse.
Click to expand...

Not too sure about her. I did a bit of research and some of what she claims isn't true, albeit about herself, rather than the 'cover up'.

I know there's been a lot of talk about people, certainly when I was old bill we heard stories, but the common thread was proof or rather a lack of it.
 
I've heard a lot of those tales too, Bernie, but "little girls in leather" certainly didn't feature in any of those! This pop star is completely different ... enormous in the 70s not a whiff of sexual scandal at the moment!
 
To be fair, I think it's about to become open season. Rightly or wrongly. Your point earlier about how do you prove there was no consent (where the girl was an adult) 40/50 years later is well made. I understand there's been a number of people who have leaped on the bandwagon already, and that's only going to make matters worse.
 
Byker28i said:
The knee jerk reaction comment was in response to your earning money under false pretences claim. No one made comments that he wasn't bad, that's just your moral outrage.
What I find interesting is people trying to outdo each other with the moral outrage stakes which seems prevalent on the internet these days. The keyboard warriors escalating the response.

I'm curious. Did you know these people?
Click to expand...

My "moral outrage". Wasting my breath.
 
Garry Edwards said:
The Catholic church is just another example of power and priviledge, where abusers have got away with it because the people who SHOULD have protected the victims failed in their duty, time and time again.

I'm not defending abuse. I'm just wondering why people whose knowledge of the crimes, the victims and the perpetrators is limited to what they've read assume that the Judge, who has listened to all the evidence and who has been able to assess all those involved, has got it wrong when it comes to sentencing.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because appeals regularly view the original judges sentences as light and the sentences are extended?
 
MartynK said:
His age is irrelevant, culpability isn't mitigated by advancing age and the passage of time.

I don't know if there's anything you can say to his victims. Probably not, apart from platitudes and the usual assurances that 'this can never be allowed to happen again'.
Click to expand...

I was making a retort in my reply to someone who referred to his age. I agree, it is irrelevant.

The assurances that it will never happen again are given as regularly as it happens again.
 
Perhaps because appeals regularly view the original judges sentences as light and the sentences are extended?
Click to expand...

To be fair, as far as I recall, the appeal, which is actually referring an unduly lenient sentence has only extended that sentence one, in Stuart Halls case. So, it's not regular at all.
 
JennyGW said:
Perhaps because appeals regularly view the original judges sentences as light and the sentences are extended?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the safeguard built into the system, it's there in case the Judge gets it wrong, or is perceived to have got it wrong.

But that doesn't alter the fact that the Judges are far better placed to decide on these things than people whose sole claim to an opinion is that they have an internet connection...
And it gets worse, some of these internet warriers have their own agendas, such extreme feminist views, jealousy of successful people etc
 
They will be bringing civil cases for damages, not private prosecutions. He can't be prosecuted again.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that thats what private caes means. It's almost impossible to bring private prosecutions nowadays, which is what you mean, as the CPS just take it over and drop it.
 
It always seems to be men who commit such crimes - rich or poor, famous or not!

I think that I only remember one case of a woman being prosecution on her own, several have "aided and abetted" but not many
 
BillN_33 said:
It always seems to be men who commit such crimes - rich or poor, famous or not!
Click to expand...
I'm sure it happens, But lets be honest about this,
how many young boys would actually complain about being seduced by an older woman? ;)
 
Cobra said:
I'm sure it happens, But lets be honest about this,
how many young boys would actually complain about being seduced by an older woman? ;)
Click to expand...

depends how old?

and I thought that the main thrust of the thread was moving towards perversion
 
Last edited:
BillN_33 said:
depends how old?
and I thought that the main thrust of the thread was moving towards perversion
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what "use" a woman would have for a pre-pubescent boy?
Although I guess thinking about it, Yes I suppose "he" would have his uses.

A boy can still hit sexual maturity before 12 years old, in body, but not necessarily in mind.
Still highly illegal, but that's more the age I was thinking, as a lot of the cases,
(Not only this one) seem to revolve around girls of a similar age, when they are starting to take on a "female form"

So yes I agree, both are perverted, but I'm still not sure that the boy would complain.
 
Matt said:
this was the interesting article. **note: im not saying he shouldnt have been prosecuted or investigated!**

http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt
Click to expand...

Well, I have just read that article, and it has completely changed my view of the the Rolf Harris convictions.
As a previous poster stated, we here on TP have no idea whether he did the things he is accused of.
However, it seems to me that it is extremely difficult to see how the case against him has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".


.
 
There is also the matter of the child porn on his computer.

Groping Vanessa feltz on live TV in 1996 and man handling Linda Nolan in the 70s doesn't really help the miscarriage of justice angle much either.

Reading the media reports you think its mild behaviour and a big misunderstanding but the judges summary is altogether different. I'd go with that as likely to be closer to reality.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, that's the safeguard built into the system, it's there in case the Judge gets it wrong, or is perceived to have got it wrong.

But that doesn't alter the fact that the Judges are far better placed to decide on these things than people whose sole claim to an opinion is that they have an internet connection...
And it gets worse, some of these internet warriers have their own agendas, such extreme feminist views, jealousy of successful people etc
Click to expand...

Let's get this into some perspective. Rolf Harris groped a seven year old child. Imagine it was your seven year old child. Harris gets 3 years for this and other offences. Even if he had been canonised, 3 years in jail is pathetic.

There is no way on this earth anyone can justify such a pitiful sentence for such a heinous crime. Or you feel I'm a nutty feminist/keyboard warrior?

By the same virtue as your argument, there are chauvinist perverts on the net who think that what Harris did is perfectly ok and will fight to defend him.

Jealousy of successful people? Certainly not where I am coming from, I can assure you. I liked Rolf Harris. He was a brilliant entertainer, his art was extremely clever. None of that mitigates that he was a raving pervert. What someone has done in the rest of their lives should not mitigate for anyone, regardless of circumstance, but it certainly seems to have swayed this judges sentencing.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
Let's get this into some perspective. Rolf Harris groped a seven year old child. Imagine it was your seven year old child. Harris gets 3 years for this and other offences. Even if he had been canonised, 3 years in jail is pathetic.

There is no way on this earth anyone can justify such a pitiful sentence for such a heinous crime. Or you feel I'm a nutty feminist/keyboard warrior?

By the same virtue as your argument, there are chauvinist perverts on the net who think that what Harris did is perfectly ok and will fight to defend him.

Jealousy of successful people? Certainly not where I am coming from, I can assure you. I liked Rolf Harris. He was a brilliant entertainer, his art was extremely clever. None of that mitigates that he was a raving pervert. What someone has done in the rest of their lives should not mitigate for anyone, regardless of circumstance, but it certainly seems to have swayed this judges sentencing.
Click to expand...

Firstly he was jailed for just under 6 years (yes, he will be out in 3 probably but was sentenced to just under six). Secondly, I would say compared to many, had he got longer it would have been unfair. You read about people with kiddie porn not going to jail, totally wrong IMO. By all means, up the sentencing across the board, the killer of teacher Philip Lawrence served just 15 years, personally he should have served at least double that. I think there is an issue with the length of sentences (generally not long enough) over many crimes and think that you should serve the time you are given.
 
PatrickO said:
Well, I have just read that article, and it has completely changed my view of the the Rolf Harris convictions.
As a previous poster stated, we here on TP have no idea whether he did the things he is accused of.
However, it seems to me that it is extremely difficult to see how the case against him has been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".


.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. In many cases I just don't see how you can prove rape or similar offences, it is just one word against another.
 
cambsno said:
Completely agree. In many cases I just don't see how you can prove rape or similar offences, it is just one word against another.
Click to expand...

Well Harris wasn't tried or convicted of rape. Which means no one made any accusations if any kind of penetrative abuse.

In a historical case such as this I would agree that rape allegations should be nigh on impossible to prove; however rape can be easy to prove with physical evidence. The damage to a woman's genitals, both externally and internally, can be horrific and permanently damaging. Couple that with clear defensive wounds and DNA evidence, and some rape allegations are easily proved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top