Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

[Garry Edwards]

I'm guessing that juries may be unduly influenced by the fact that the trial is taking place at all, i.e. "No smoke without fire". This could possibly lead them to feel that the person has a high likelyhood of being guilty and that the police and CPS "know" that they are guilty even if the evidence isn't as strong as it should be.

I say this because a lot of cases are thrown out by the CPS (which must be extremely frustrating for the police) because the CPS don't feel that there is the almost certain prospect of success that they set as a minimum standard for charging. The CPS are extremely cautious in this respect - normally. There was a very serious case recently where a gang of asian men groomed young girls, raped them etc repeatedly but the CPS wouldn't charge them simply because they had a perception that it was too racially sensitive to do so. The only reason that the case eventually did go to trial was that the head of the CPS, who was himself south asian, had the guts to push it through. There are a lot of people who believe that the CPS isn't fit for purpose.

But, it seems to me (as someone who has absolutely no inside knowledge) that these "Operation Yewtree" cases are different, and that they go forward almost regardless of the quality of the evidence. And, as I say, I think it possible that this may influence juries.

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.

I doubt whether even male chauvinists would think that sexual misconduct towards children can ever be acceptable.
From various of your posts, I do think it's possible that you hold pretty strong views on feminism - which of course you are entitled to do. But we should all try to make sure that our personal views don't allow our judgement to be clouded.

 

[Laudrup]

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.

"I carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life, it took away my childhood."

So what price are you putting on a childhood? As for them speaking out it's a free country so why can't they?

 

[viv1969]

"I carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life, it took away my childhood."

So what price are you putting on a childhood? As for them speaking out it's a free country so why can't they?

But not a free interview, apparently.
I get that they carry the memories but I do not believe that monetary awards can make up for it AT ALL. If they wish to receive expert counselling, then by all means the Harris coffers should foot the bill.
But cash? No.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

But not a free interview, apparently.
I get that they carry the memories but I do not believe that monetary awards can make up for it AT ALL. If they wish to receive expert counselling, then by all means the Harris coffers should foot the bill.
But cash? No.

Problem is, what else is there? I completely agree that if you are that emotionally scarred, no amount of cash will ever make up for it, but what else can the courts do? What can they offer?

 

[Garry Edwards]

"I carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life, it took away my childhood."

So what price are you putting on a childhood? As for them speaking out it's a free country so why can't they?

Which victim was this?
Was it the one who sold her story to a newspaper for £33,000 before the trial or was it the one who tried to extort £25,000 from him with the threat of going to the press if he didn't pay up?

I don't have any problem with people speaking out AFTER conviction, but there have been some very suspect behaviour from a couple of these victims.

 

[viv1969]

Problem is, what else is there? I completely agree that if you are that emotionally scarred, no amount of cash will ever make up for it, but what else can the courts do? What can they offer?

Monetarily they don't need to offer anything.
The man was found guilty and incarcerated.
In the law, justice was served.
Campaign for a longer sentence by all means, but Trial - Guilty - Imprisoned. Done.
And I do understand emotionally scarred; but I also understand taking control of your life back into your own hands and taking back control. Money can't do that either.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Monetarily they don't need to offer anything.
The man was found guilty and incarcerated.
In the law, justice was served.
Campaign for a longer sentence by all means, but Trial - Guilty - Imprisoned. Done.
And I do understand emotionally scarred; but I also understand taking control of your life back into your own hands and taking back control. Money can't do that either.

I completely agree Ruth, so apologies if that didnt come across in what I had posted. Unfortunately, its indicitive of the compensation culture we live in today.

Im not, for one moment, trying to play down what some of these people have been through, but im also pretty sure that most, if not all of them (if being completely honest), have been seeing £ signs in front of their eyes throughout.

 

[Laudrup]

But not a free interview, apparently.
I get that they carry the memories but I do not believe that monetary awards can make up for it AT ALL. If they wish to receive expert counselling, then by all means the Harris coffers should foot the bill.
But cash? No.

So the newspaper or magazines can use their story to make money selling copy but not the people who actually suffered? If Rolf Harris didn't want to lose a significant chunk of his estate then don't seriously sexually assault young girls.

 

[MartynK]

Are we even discussing compensation, which is normally applied to quantifiable loss or harm, or punitive damages?

 

[gramps]

im also pretty sure that most, if not all of them (if being completely honest), have been seeing £ signs in front of their eyes throughout.

Interesting conclusion - I assume that you also feel that someone who damages your car and is charged with 'driving without due care and attention' should not have to pay the costs to repair the damage, as he/she will suffer the penalty imposed by the court?

 

[Cobra]

So the newspaper or magazines can use their story to make money selling copy but not the people who actually suffered? If Rolf Harris didn't want to lose a significant chunk of his estate then don't seriously sexually assault young girls.

I would suggest that if a newspaper wants to pay the "victims" after the trial for their "story" to sell even more papers,
that, I think would be slightly more acceptable than people taking out a private prosecution (whatever the term is)
For as much as they can get from the estate of any accused / sentenced Celeb.

As I have said before had it been "your average Joe"
then no such litigation would take place.

 

[Cobra]

Interesting conclusion - I assume that you also feel that someone who damages your car and is charged with 'driving without due care and attention' should not have to pay the costs to repair the damage, as he/she will suffer the penalty imposed by the court?

But that's tangible damage that's why we have to have insurance to drive on the roads.

Edit, maybe celebs should take out "professional indemnity" Ins.

 

[gramps]

As I have said before had it been "your average Joe"
then no such litigation would take place.

Is that because of not being a 'celeb' or because of being a poor chance of getting any reasonable damages from someone with limited resources?

 

[gramps]

But that's tangible damage that's why we have to have insurance to drive on the roads.

So do you believe that it's not possible to cause 'damage' through sexual exploitation/abuse?

 

[BillN_33]

Can you take a "class action" in the UK

i.e. a group of people using one law firm to sue another under civil law

That maybe a sensible way to go

 

[Cobra]

Is that because of not being a 'celeb' or because of being a poor chance of getting any reasonable damages from someone with limited resources?

Both, with the latter being most poignant I would suggest.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

Interesting conclusion - I assume that you also feel that someone who damages your car and is charged with 'driving without due care and attention' should not have to pay the costs to repair the damage, as he/she will suffer the penalty imposed by the court?

Completely different scenarios. Im not sure you can liken sexual abuse to driving offences.

 

[gramps]

Can you take a "class action" in the UK

i.e. a group of people using one law firm to sue another under civil law

That maybe a sensible way to go

That's the sort of way it will go

Both, with the latter being most poignant I would suggest.

I would have no issue with chasing someone with resources for compensation for the physical/emotional damage they caused me but I wouldn't bother chasing someone who had no money ... pointless, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[gramps]

Completely different scenarios. Im not sure you can liken sexual abuse to driving offences.

Different offences but the principle is exactly the same ... recovery for damage caused ... one to metal, the other to mind or whatever.

 

[Nikon_Nick]

So do you believe that it's not possible to cause 'damage' through sexual exploitation/abuse?

In the main, I would say that any lasting damage caused by abuse would be mental in the main. The compensation would be awarded for the mental strain/anguish this long after the act.

 

[Cobra]

So do you believe that it's not possible to cause 'damage' through sexual exploitation/abuse?

I honestly don't know, I'm not psychiatrist.

What I was referring too, was the fact that "material damage" (The car in the instance you quoted) is
can easily be "priced up".
And not going to court to "see what you can get"

You may have also missed my edit, where I said
"maybe celebs should take out "professional indemnity" Ins".

 

[Nikon_Nick]

^This^

Someone hit my car about 6 months ago, and my overriding emotion was anger, not how much I could get out of them in court.

 

[Cobra]

That's the sort of way it will go
I would have no issue with chasing someone with resources for compensation for the physical/emotional damage they caused me but I wouldn't bother chasing someone who had no money ... pointless, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly my point.
See what *they* can get, monitory wise, 5 mins of fame etc etc.

 

[gramps]

In the main, I would say that any lasting damage caused by abuse would be mental in the main. The compensation would be awarded for the mental strain/anguish this long after the act.

Any damage awarded after deliberation by a judge and jury (or insurers, whatever) would have taken into consideration the likelihood and extent of damage, after hearing facts/evidence/reports ... hence better than a 'gut feeling' on a forum

I honestly don't know, I'm not psychiatrist.

What I was referring too, was the fact that "material damage" (The car in the instance you quoted) is
can easily be "priced up".
And not going to court to "see what you can get"

You may have also missed my edit, where I said
"maybe celebs should take out "professional indemnity" Ins".

Although not 'material', emotional damage etc can and is assessed and rightly so IMO.

 

[gramps]

Exactly my point.
See what *they* can get, monitory wise, 5 mins of fame etc etc.

Not necessarily at all ... it will be easier and less stressful to go to someone who is already dealing with the issue for similarly affected people than starting the whole thing off with the local High Street solicitor.

 

[Cobra]

Although not 'material', emotional damage etc can and is assessed and rightly so IMO.

Emotion is a personal thing to many people.
One persons emotion may well be different from another.

There are too many variables when dealing with the human conciousness.
I think that it would be very hard to prove either way, the emotional state of any given person at
any given time.

There are people out there that make millions ££ from that very "trait"
And they must be good or we wouldn't keep watching their films.

 

[gramps]

Emotion is a personal thing to many people.
One persons emotion may well be different from another.

Hence inappropriate to say everyone would be just seeking £££'s/fame/glory etc ... no doubt many will feel that they are due compensation for the 'damage' they suffered which could well have affected their lives right down to today.

There are too many variables when dealing with the human conciousness.
I think that it would be very hard to prove either way, the emotional state of any given person at
any given time.

Hard maybe but not impossible and 'hard' is not a reason to not do it

 

[Cobra]

Not necessarily at all ... it will be easier and less stressful to go to someone who is already dealing with the issue for similarly affected people than starting the whole thing off with the local High Street solicitor.

I'm not arguing that point,
but there is also a potential there for jumping on the band wagon jumping,
You only have to look at some of the evidence, especially the link that Matt quoted some way back.
People claiming "something" when in fact he was no where near the place.
So *Maybe* it did take place a year or so after, but if the memory isn't that strong,
obviously wasn't as traumatic as people like to make out.

I'm not saying what he did was right in the slightest,
he has been punished in accordance with the laws of the land,
that we as a (Supposed) civil society have evolved over many hundreds of years.

Sadly in the last 20 or so, compensation litigation seems to be the driving factor for so many.

 

[viv1969]

That's the sort of way it will go
.

Unlikely.
That kind of action is not often used in England / Wales.
More likely that each "victim" will retain their own counsel, and aim for the largest award possible individually.

 

[Cobra]

Hence inappropriate to say everyone would be just seeking £££'s/fame/glory etc ... no doubt many will feel that they are due compensation for the 'damage' they suffered which could well have affected their lives right down to today.
Hard maybe but not impossible and 'hard' is not a reason to not do it

I agree with the last statement, that hard is no reason not to try, unfortunately
its cases like this (and many others) its their motives that I question.

However, I gotta go do stuff now.
I hope to pick up later, but thanks for the debate

 

[BillN_33]

The, (any) legal process will take some time, especially civil.
If, as some have suggested and some hope, that he may die in prison then the Government would come around to collect their 40%, or will they?
Is Mr Harris UK tax resident?
Is Mr Harris liable to UK inheritance tax, (basically death duties), as there is no inheritance tax, (at the present time) in Australia and it is a country that others have moved to to avoid UK IHT, (Max Bygraves),
what is the value of his (UK), free Estate, where are his Royalties paid …………… it will be a complicated issue

i saw it reported that the value of his "paintings" have fallen by 80% since his conviction.

where is the majority of his wealth and estate kept, (I would image that he has employed the best tax lawyers), ……. any civil action(s) against him will need to get moving if they are to be effective.

 

[Yves Geza]

I would have no issue with chasing someone with resources for compensation for the physical/emotional damage they caused me but I wouldn't bother chasing someone who had no money ... pointless, nothing more, nothing less.

So it's not about compensation to providei for psychiatric help or councelling for your distress, it's entirely about predatory opportunism and an extra punative punishment because someone else whom you dislike [probably rightly] has something you want!

Philosophically, where do you put that on your scale of abuse of another person?

 

[gramps]

So *Maybe* it did take place a year or so after, but if the memory isn't that strong,
obviously wasn't as traumatic as people like to make out.

Traumatic experience will not depend on recollection of dates.
When I was a youngster of around 11 at the local Saturday morning pictures, a man followed me into the cinema toilets ... fortunately I wasn't stupid and evaded him and reported it to the cinema staff.
I couldn't even tell you for sure what year it was but I have never forgotten the event, the way I felt when he approached me or the way that the cinema staff had no idea of what to do about it when I reported it to them.

 

[gramps]

So it's not about compensation to providei for psychiatric help or councelling for your distress, it's entirely about predatory opportunism and an extra punative punishment because someone else whom you dislike [probably rightly] has something you want!

Philosophically, where do you put that on your scale of abuse of another person?

I don't follow you

 

[viv1969]

When I was a youngster of around 11 at the local Saturday morning pictures, a man followed me into the cinema toilets ... fortunately I wasn't stupid and evaded him and reported it to the cinema staff.

Exactly. You did the right thing.

 

[Yves Geza]

I don't follow you

You don't? You posted it originally.

But to simplify, according to you "it's the poor as gets the pleasure, it's the rich as gets [extra] blame"

What I asked was, philosophically where do you pu the idea that you could and would seek an extra punishment from some convicted villains rather than others because of their circumstances? An abuse, if you like, of their weakness in terms of their succeptibility?

 

[gramps]

You don't? You posted it originally.

Okay, I didn't understand what you were getting at, I obviously understood what I had said ... no need for sarcasm!

But to simplify, according to you "it's the poor as gets the pleasure, it's the rich as gets [extra] blame"

What I asked was, philosophically where do you pu the idea that you could and would seek an extra punishment from some convicted villains rather than others because of their circumstances? An abuse, if you like, of their weakness in terms of their succeptibility?

Compensation is not 'punishment', punishment is applied for breach of the law, compensation is compensating someone for suffering or loss caused ... why would anyone seek compensation in a civil court from someone who didn't have the means to pay the compensation, simply a recipe for adding financial loss to the abuse you had suffered.

 

[Yves Geza]

Are you seeking comensation for a measurable loss or more general damages? I suspect that what people are really calling for are punitive damages - which effectively constitute an extra punishment over someone else convicted of the same offence.

 

[BillN_33]

Are you seeking comensation for a measurable loss or more general damages? I suspect that what people are really calling for are punitive damages - which effectively constitute an extra punishment over someone else convicted of the same offence.

agreed
or they just feel they need to take money from the guilty, especially when they have so much relatively …….. we can debate it as much as we wish here there and everywhere ………. but the law is the law and that's what will decide ……… good or not so good ….. there are so many examples of what could be deemed to be unfair decisions but "fairness" seems to be what most want.

 

[gramps]

I suspect that what people are really calling for are punitive damages - which effectively constitute an extra punishment over someone else convicted of the same offence.

You may "suspect" but you don't know how people have been affected by what happened to them ... 'punishment' may satisfy the law but it doesn't address the suffering of the individual, which is demonstrated by the existence of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

We deal with compensation claims from people who have been physically or mentally injured because they were the blameless victim of a violent crime in England, Scotland or Wales.

(bold mine)