Rolf Harris 5yrs 9months

could you amend the Thread Title and include "but out in three"

is that "fair"

maybe that's what needs changing?
 
Yves Geza said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yip, I raised this earlier (Post 169). The flaw is where liability is determined by ability to pay, so a wealthy corporation or individual stands to be 'punished' more than one of limited means.
 
MartynK said:
Yip, I raised this earlier (Post 169). The flaw is where liability is determined by ability to pay, so a wealthy corporation or individual stands to be 'punished' more than one of limited means.
Click to expand...

Sorry Martyn, I hadn't read every post in detail and I just repeated exactly what you had already said!
 
MartynK said:
Yip, I raised this earlier (Post 169). The flaw is where liability is determined by ability to pay, so a wealthy corporation or individual stands to be 'punished' more than one of limited means.
Click to expand...

Well of course our previous administration wanted to implement that punishment philosophy some years back. I couldn't help but feel at the time the philosophy was wrong. A's fine is greater than B's fine because A is better off…even though the offence is identical.
I can see how, in some quarters that idea might be appealing, but it isn't "justice".
 
Yves Geza said:
Sorry Martyn, I hadn't read every post in detail and I just repeated exactly what you had already said!
Click to expand...

Ah well, great minds and all that..................we'll forget about the other adage!
 
chadders said:
Well of course our previous administration wanted to implement that punishment philosophy some years back. I couldn't help but feel at the time the philosophy was wrong. A's fine is greater than B's fine because A is better off…even though the offence is identical.
I can see how, in some quarters that idea might be appealing, but it isn't "justice".
Click to expand...
Doesn't that depend if you see the amount awarded as just a monetary value or a proportion of the person's wealth. If compensation was awarded to two people as a percentage of their wealth wouldn't that be fair? and stop rich people just thinking "well I can afford to pay that if I get caught"?
 
Unfortunately "fair" and "the law" have never been in synch
 
TopBanana said:
Doesn't that depend if you see the amount awarded as just a monetary value or a proportion of the person's wealth. If compensation was awarded to two people as a percentage of their wealth wouldn't that be fair? and stop rich people just thinking "well I can afford to pay that if I get caught"?
Click to expand...

Well suppose we weren't talking about a fine. A & B commit an identical offence, punishable by a custodial sentence. A is wealthier than B so gets a longer sentence. And whilst we are at it why not then say " Well A is a lot younger than B so we'll give him A ten years and B three years for that same offence". Fair and or just, do you think?

Prevailing attitudes today are that everything has a monetary value and all ills can be cured by throwing money at them.
 
In the distant past the poor were hung and the rich got away with it ……… at least we have progressed …….. the poor are no longer hung
 
'Compensation' isn't a fine or punishment.
 
Attributed to Aesop I think... We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.

Nothing really changes does it?
 
the bottom line is that he is already one foot in the grave and hardly poses any more danger. There is the sentence he deserved although quite a bit too late...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Garry Edwards said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

No, I am not a feminist. Is this how you deal with arguments you don't like? Find some reason to undermine?

I am unclear why you are defending Harris, do you have some motive?

On the one hand you say that we should trust the judges decision and on the other that the process is overly influenced by outside pressure. You can't have it both ways.

I don't like that you are becoming rude and attacking me personally.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
No, I am not a feminist. Is this how you deal with arguments you don't like? Find some reason to undermine?

I am unclear why you are defending Harris, do you have some motive?

On the one hand you say that we should trust the judges decision and on the other that the process is overly influenced by outside pressure. You can't have it both ways.

I don't like that you are becoming rude and attacking me personally.
Click to expand...
I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just wondering about your impartiality, based on nothing more than other posts that you've made.

I am 100% NOT defending Harris, he is a convicted criminal and I have no reason to believe that the verdict was anything other than correct - if I had actually been there and heard all of the evidence I may or may not have had a different view, but I wasn't so I haven't.

If you actually read what I said, I think it clear that my view is that
1. The jury were best placed to decide on his guilt or innocence
2. That the Judge was best placed to decide on his punishment.

But, that the system, like all systems, isn't in itself perfect.
And FWIW I have personal experience of how some men are able to groom girls and then cover their tracks, relying on the fact that most young girls will withdraw their complaints, that some police officers are (or in the past have been) less than keen to help them and/or to investigate properly. I once had a business arrangement with someone who thought it was perfectly OK to groom and then sexually abuse young girls, and there was absolutely nothing that I could do about it, other than end that relationship, which of course I did.
 
JennyGW said:
No, I am not a feminist Is this how you deal with arguments you don't like? Find some reason to undermine?

I am unclear why you are defending Harris, do you have some motive?

On the one hand you say that we should trust the judges decision and on the other that the process is overly influenced by outside pressure. You can't have it both ways.

I don't like that you are becoming rude and attacking me personally.
Click to expand...


Jenny, you're guilty of, shall I call them in this context "ad feminae" attacks too! And you've just posted the lowest, crudest, simplest, nastiest one! [my underlining]

I don't seek to defend Rolf Harris, although if I can find it, I'll scan and post here the picture we found recently of him with his arm round my mother! She was only seventy something at the time! I don't defend Harris, but I do think that serving half of a six year sentance will be quite strong enough punishment for an 84 year old deaf 'beast' to serve in any HM Prison! And I do accept the published publicity that the sentance could well be more than enough for his infirm and arthritic wife. Or do you think she deserves more punishment too?

When the verdict was first delivered, and the great British public called for more blood from Rolf and for his life's past works to be destroyed, I tried to think of an analogy. Of course it was Yv, who's a wise moderator, who found the perfect reference.

So what is your view of Oscar Wilde? He was convicted and imprisoned for a crime against the sexual mores of the time and received the same sort of public outrage!
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
I'm not attacking you personally, I'm just wondering about your impartiality, based on nothing more than other posts that you've made.

I am 100% NOT defending Harris, he is a convicted criminal and I have no reason to believe that the verdict was anything other than correct - if I had actually been there and heard all of the evidence I may or may not have had a different view, but I wasn't so I haven't.

If you actually read what I said, I think it clear that my view is that
1. The jury were best placed to decide on his guilt or innocence
2. That the Judge was best placed to decide on his punishment.

But, that the system, like all systems, isn't in itself perfect.
And FWIW I have personal experience of how some men are able to groom girls and then cover their tracks, relying on the fact that most young girls will withdraw their complaints, that some police officers are (or in the past have been) less than keen to help them and/or to investigate properly. I once had a business arrangement with someone who thought it was perfectly OK to groom and then sexually abuse young girls, and there was absolutely nothing that I could do about it, other than end that relationship, which of course I did.
Click to expand...

You are just rude and insulting and it is pointless arguing with you.
 
Yves Geza said:
Jenny, you're guilty of, shall I call them in this context "ad feminae" attacks too! And you've just posted the lowest, crudest, simplest, nastiest one! [my underlining]

I don't seek to defend Rolf Harris, although if I can find it, I'll scan and post here the picture we found recently of him with his arm round my mother! She was only seventy something at the time! I don't defend Harris, but I do think that serving half of a six year sentance will be quite strong enough punishment for an 84 year old deaf 'beast' to serve in any HM Prison! And I do accept the published publicity that the sentance could well be more than enough for his infirm and arthritic wife. Or do you think she deserves more punishment too?

When the verdict was first delivered, and the great British public called for more blood from Rolf and for his life's past works to be destroyed, I tried to think of an analogy. Of course it was Yv, who's a wise moderator, who found the perfect reference.

So what is your view of Oscar Wilde? He was convicted and imprisoned for a crime against the sexual mores of the time and received the same sort of public outrage!
Click to expand...

You compare Wilde with Harris? Crikey. I can't argue with broken logic like that.
 
JennyGW said:
You compare Wilde with Harris? Crikey. I can't argue with broken logic like that.
Click to expand...

I assume you're trying to say that this week's zeitgeist is the only right zeitgeist, eh? Old groupthink ain't nothing compared to modern groupthink - hasn't been since Blair told us about it in that novel he published in 1948!

If you want another comparison, what's your view of Benjamin Brittan?
 
JennyGW said:
You are just rude and insulting and it is pointless arguing with you.
Click to expand...

Cheer up Garry that makes two of us...

JennyGW said:
Is this how you deal with arguments you don't like? Find some reason to undermine?.
Click to expand...

:D

Sorry, but the only one appearing to get carried away here is you. The rest of us are trying to have a reasonable discussion.
 
BillN_33 said:
Unfortunately "fair" and "the law" have never been in synch
Click to expand...
Our system may have faults but I doubt there are better systems in place across the globe. The law is fair the majority of time.
 
@JennyGW you state that the judge was best placed to ddecide the punishment, and yet you have repeatedly and heatedly made it clear that for you the sentence was far too lenient. You can't have it both ways and still expect to be taken seriously.

And this "business associate" you claim was grooming girls. In that situation it's your responsibility to report what you suspect to the authorities, not to simply cut your ties and walk away. I hope no one suffered more for your choice to just look the other way.
 
JennyGW said:
I am unclear why you are defending Harris, do you have some motive?
I don't like that you are becoming rude and attacking me personally.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I did not see that as a personal attack on you. If anyone is guilty of a personal attacks it seems to be you.
Your response is way OTT, and I think an apology should be in order for the insinuation behind that question.
 
Yves Geza said:
Jenny, you're guilty of, shall I call them in this context "ad feminae" attacks too! And you've just posted the lowest, crudest, simplest, nastiest one! [my underlining]
Click to expand...
Yves Geza said:
I don't seek to defend Rolf Harris, although if I can find it, I'll scan and post here the picture we found recently of him with his arm round my mother! She was only seventy something at the time! I don't defend Harris, but I do think that serving half of a six year sentance will be quite strong enough punishment for an 84 year old deaf 'beast' to serve in any HM Prison! And I do accept the published publicity that the sentance could well be more than enough for his infirm and arthritic wife. Or do you think she deserves more punishment too?

When the verdict was first delivered, and the great British public called for more blood from Rolf and for his life's past works to be destroyed, I tried to think of an analogy. Of course it was Yv, who's a wise moderator, who found the perfect reference.

So what is your view of Oscar Wilde? He was convicted and imprisoned for a crime against the sexual mores of the time and received the same sort of public outrage!
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't the victims seek compensation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
viv1969 said:
@JennyGW you state that the judge was best placed to ddecide the punishment, and yet you have repeatedly and heatedly made it clear that for you the sentence was far too lenient. You can't have it both ways and still expect to be taken seriously.

And this "business associate" you claim was grooming girls. In that situation it's your responsibility to report what you suspect to the authorities, not to simply cut your ties and walk away. I hope no one suffered more for your choice to just look the other way.
Click to expand...
I didn't need to report it, by the time I became suspicious one of the victims had already reported it to the police. They then spoke to me and I told them what little I knew, I then made my own enquiries and told the police what I had found, which went nowhere.

The fact that they only conducted the most cursory of enquiries and failed to interview other potential victims was beyond my control. The fact that, according to the girl who reported him, she was actively discouraged from taking it further was their responsibility, not mine. Having said all that, I fully accept that things have now changed and that the police now take this type of allegation seriously.

I cut my ties and walked away because I didn't want to be associated with him, a decision that cost me a great deal of money, I didn't look the other way and I didn't fail in my moral duty.

JennyGW said:
You are just rude and insulting and it is pointless arguing with you.
Click to expand...
So why are you continuing to argue with me?
 
Laudrup said:
What else could compensate them? And why shouldn't they seek compensation from a convicted sex offender?
Click to expand...

That's no reason at all.
Money cannot give them back what they claim to have lost.
Should they claim for psychiatric support etc., then fine, and such costs should be paid directly to the practitioner.
But I don't believe they should receive obscene amounts of punitive cash so they can holiday in the Maldives.
 
Well in this sad case compensation would not have had any effect.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-28195794

Interesting to note how it was a "friend" who went to police, and not the abuse victim herself. Whilst the blame for this ultimately rests with the abuser, I wonder if the "friend" will feel any remorse for that action? Or is the suicide of her/his friend just an unfortunate consequence?
I'm not trying to make any point with that question, I'm just wondering.
 
viv1969 said:
That's no reason at all.
Money cannot give them back what they claim to have lost.
Should they claim for psychiatric support etc., then fine, and such costs should be paid directly to the practitioner.
But I don't believe they should receive obscene amounts of punitive cash so they can holiday in the Maldives.
Click to expand...

From a victim impact statement:

The attacks that happened have made me feel dirty, grubby and disgusting. The whole sordid saga has traumatised me. I have panic attacks and suffer from anxiety. The effects of the abuse have been with me for many years. I started drinking at the age of 14 to 15 years old. This was to block out the effects of what he was doing to me.

This has had an effect on my relationship with my parents and people close to me. The slightest thing would upset me, I would get so angry, my reaction would be disproportionate and over the top. As a young girl I had aspirations to have a career, settle down and have a family. However, as a direct result of his actions, this has never materialised. I have never had a meaningful relationship whilst sober. I have also never been able to hold down a job. This was down to the need to block out what he had done to me through drink. Rolf Harris had a hold over me that made me a quivering wreck….He made me feel like a sexual object.

He used and abused me to such an extent that it made me feel worthless….. I suffered abuse at the hands of a person who thought he could get away with it. He made me feel that I would not be believed and as a result I suffered in silence. This has had a detrimental effect on my life and health outcome….”.
Click to expand...


So how much therapy should she be compensated with? A £1000 worth? £2000? Just because Rolf Harris is wealthy you think he shouldn't have to compensate his victims? He used his fame and fortune and abused trust placed in him to assault these girls and they shouldn't be entitled to compensation even when suffering severe psychological injury? As for what they spend it on would you accept someone telling you what you should spend your compensation on?
 
Yves Geza said:
I assume you're trying to say that this week's zeitgeist is the only right zeitgeist, eh? Old groupthink ain't nothing compared to modern groupthink - hasn't been since Blair told us about it in that novel he published in 1948!

If you want another comparison, what's your view of Benjamin Brittan?
Click to expand...

You compare a sex offender and a homosexual. Societies views on homosexuals have, thank goodness, changed. Societies views on sex offenders has not changed.

If it turns out that Brittain is a sex offender, I hope the courts will deal with him appropriately. I'm not up to date with this news story.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I didn't need to report it, by the time I became suspicious one of the victims had already reported it to the police. They then spoke to me and I told them what little I knew, I then made my own enquiries and told the police what I had found, which went nowhere.

The fact that they only conducted the most cursory of enquiries and failed to interview other potential victims was beyond my control. The fact that, according to the girl who reported him, she was actively discouraged from taking it further was their responsibility, not mine. Having said all that, I fully accept that things have now changed and that the police now take this type of allegation seriously.

I cut my ties and walked away because I didn't want to be associated with him, a decision that cost me a great deal of money, I didn't look the other way and I didn't fail in my moral duty.


So why are you continuing to argue with me?
Click to expand...

lol ... throw your bait somewhere else, I'm not biting.
 
Laudrup said:
From a victim impact statement:



So how much therapy should she be compensated with? A £1000 worth? £2000? Just because Rolf Harris is wealthy you think he shouldn't have to compensate his victims? He used his fame and fortune and abused trust placed in him to assault these girls and they shouldn't be entitled to compensation even when suffering severe psychological injury? As for what they spend it on would you accept someone telling you what you should spend your compensation on?
Click to expand...

Surely the fundamentals of justice should be that we are all treated equally regardless of creed, colour, sex etc... If we get convicted of a crime, we serve the same sentence in the same conditions... now obviously each case is different, but broadly speaking if say person A got 5 years for a crime, I would expect persons B, C & D to get a similar term, not 2 years or 10 years. Is it right that someone should pay twice (prison & cash) whereas if I was convicted of the same I would only pay (prison). Its almost a case of being punished twice for the same crime. Why should the rich get away with a lesser or worse punishment than Joe Public?
 
Quote:
"If it turns out that Brittain is a sex offender, I hope the courts will deal with him appropriately. I'm not up to date with this news story".


I'd tread carefully there. The poster definitely said Benjamin Britten. Not to be confused with any ex politician of a similar name in any news story with which you're not keeping up to date.
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
You compare a sex offender and a homosexual. Societies views on homosexuals have, thank goodness, changed. Societies views on sex offenders has not changed.

If it turns out that Brittain is a sex offender, I hope the courts will deal with him appropriately. I'm not up to date with this news story.
Click to expand...

But at the time a homosexual was probably classed as a sex offender - as you say, times change but at the time what he did was still an offence. It may be wrong in todays world but acceptable then - as was drowning witches a few hundred years ago!
 
cambsno said:
But at the time a homosexual was probably classed as a sex offender - !
Click to expand...
And worse, I suspect. He was pretty much hounded to death.
cambsno said:
- as was drowning witches a few hundred years ago !
Click to expand...
b****r! are we not allowed to do that any more?
I guess that's because they are now known as "white witches"? ;)
 
Dual post.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top