Rolf's officially been charged :(

omens said:
The problem I have with all of this is that a lot of went on was "the norm". Not saying it was right, but as an example, people eg rock stars would possess cannabis and other drugs back in the 70s. You don't now go back and prosecute someone for possession in the 1970s (at least it's unheard of). So why has this all blown up suddenly? IMO something is amiss.
Click to expand...

Young pop/rock stars back in the day maybe - but are you seriously suggesting there were 14 year old "groupies" hanging around for a 56 year old Rolf Harris?

These cases, as with Stuart Hall, King, Glitter, Savile et al are nothing to do with "predatory" children - they are everything to do with abusive adults who were in positions of power or authority and who knew they could get away with what they were doing.
 
i'm guilty of kicking you in the nuts for no reason from the moment I do it ... I just can't be legally punished for my action until a court decides I'm guilty of assault.
Click to expand...

No, it makes you 'guilty' of kicking me in the nuts. It does not make you guilty of assault. If it did, you could not ever be found to be innocent.

The system we have means until either you admit, plead guilty to assault, or are found guilty of it, you are innocent. By pleading to it, your status changes, but at that point only. By being found guilty it means that the evidence has been presented, defences considered and the points needing proving have been found to exist.

Until that point, the public, who in the main, as shown time and time again by the public on here who are often ignorant of evidence and law on the subject, is an irrelevance, the accused remains innocent.
 
PsiFox said:
That is the big problem with "trial by Internet" Gary. Innocence as well as innocent until PROVEN guilty seems to be just an inconvenient delay for the lynch mob mentality.
Click to expand...

I`m innocent but I am not getting dragged up over similar charges ;) Same as the rest of them. Next you are going to tell me people have it in for him and want to cash in on it:shake::shake::shake: You believe what you want to and let others do the same :thumbs:
 
Bernie174 said:
The first part is correct, the second is not. it is for the Courts to decide guilt, and until they have done so he is innocent. It's not a matter of opinion, I'm afraid it's a matter of fact.
Click to expand...

Thank you Bernie!

For the rest of you "he's guilty lets hang him" crowd, for gods sake grow up! I read the same misguided claptrap time and again on this forum and every single one of you without exception would be kicking and screaming if it was you at the sharp end of the accusations. You had all better hope that in the event you were ever charged with a crime, people like you are not picked for the Jury.
 
Steep said:
Thank you Bernie!

For the rest of you "he's guilty lets hang him" crowd, for gods sake grow up! I read the same misguided claptrap time and again on this forum and every single one of you without exception would be kicking and screaming if it was you at the sharp end of the accusations. You had all better hope that in the event you were ever charged with a crime, people like you are not picked for the Jury.
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying hang him, but everybody is entitled to an opinion just like yourself.
 
Bernie174 said:
No, it makes you 'guilty' of kicking me in the nuts. It does not make you guilty of assault.

.
Click to expand...

that's what I said :thinking:

but everyone who saw me do it , or you told about me doing it would have a perfect right to say "hell yeah he's guilty"

just as my friends would have the right to say " dude, it was totally justifiable"

Point being yes courts decide on legal guilt or innocence - but we have freedom of speech and the public (not involved in the trial) have a perfect right to say whether they think someone is guilty or innocent before the trial, and indeed regardless of its verdict.

And as to the "he must be guilty" people needing to grow up - they have no more need to do this than "the he must be innocent" crowd - neither side knows for sure , but everyone is allowed their opinion so long as they don't state it as a fact

(also on the " a court decides on your guilt or innocence " - remember Barry George ? A court decided that he killed Jill Dando - but he was innocent, despite the court finding him guilty - Guilt or Innocence is a fact determined only by whether you actually commited the act - a Courts opinion of it only determines whether you are punished)
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but, it seems people are almost backing up for a P**** in here! :o

I'm sure they have damn good grounds for the accusations. We should feel sorry because he was a lame childhood 'star'? I never liked him or any of these other old creeps much anyhow, if what's been "alleged" is true - then shame on anyone who's feeling miffed about it. These were kids, and it was rape.
 
Cagey75 said:
Sorry, but, it seems people are almost backing up for a P**** in here! :o

I'm sure they have damn good grounds for the accusations. We should feel sorry because he was a lame childhood 'star'? I never liked him or any of these other old creeps much anyhow, if what's been "alleged" is true - then shame on anyone who's feeling miffed about it. These were kids, and it was rape.
Click to expand...

No. I for one am certainly not backing him, or anyone else, if indeed he is guilty of whatever he has been charged with.

What I and others are saying is that the fact that someone has been charged with an offence does not indicate guilt, all that it indicates is that the police feel that the person should be charged and that the CPS feel that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

But I think we all know that the police make mistakes (as do we all) and the CPS can get it wrong too. Witnesses sometimes lie.

Because of this, I choose not to assume guilt until that guilt has been proved in Court. In what way is this
almost backing up for a P**** in here!
Click to expand...
?
 
Cagey75 said:
Sorry, but, it seems people are almost backing up for a P**** in here! :o

I'm sure they have damn good grounds for the accusations. We should feel sorry because he was a lame childhood 'star'? I never liked him or any of these other old creeps much anyhow, if what's been "alleged" is true - then shame on anyone who's feeling miffed about it. These were kids, and it was rape.
Click to expand...

IF he's found guilty. The only thing I and most others are saying here is let the courts decide, you don't know whether he's guilty or not unless you have access to evidence that the rest of us don't have.
 
I'm with Gary on this, Although I started the thread, it was literally a concern that he's been charged. If he is found guilty (upon good grounding evidence) then I think people can get the pitch forks out etc but at the moment he is ''Innocent until proven guilty''.

Same goes for Jim Davidson (He lives in my village and is a good laugh at the local pub) He was stung by Op Yewtree but he was proven innocent, I think Op Yewtree is down to a collective of a few snitches just mentioning names etc. I'm probably totally wrong but it seems to be odd that a few historical celebs are being raised under suspicion etc.
 
Steep said:
IF he's found guilty. The only thing I and most others are saying here is let the courts decide, you don't know whether he's guilty or not unless you have access to evidence that the rest of us don't have.
Click to expand...

But neither do you so insisting he's innocent is equally silly
 
u8myufo said:
Nobody is saying hang him, but everybody is entitled to an opinion just like yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't deny it, but some posters here are not posting 'opinion' they're making unfounded statements. If we let that kind of thing go unchallenged it won't be long before we do see lynch mobs.
 
Steep said:
I don't deny it, but some posters here are not posting 'opinion' they're making unfounded statements. If we let that kind of thing go unchallenged it won't be long before we do see lynch mobs.
Click to expand...

Where ? - Ive not seen anyone in this thread say he's definitely guilty

I said If he carried out the assault then he's guilty whatever a court says just as if he didn't he'd be innocent regardless of what the court found
 
big soft moose said:
But neither do you so insisting he's innocent is equally silly
Click to expand...


It's a fundamental part of our law that he is innocent until he's proven guilty, something that you would be very happy about if it were you in a similar situation. If a court finds him guilty I'll be happy for them to throw away the key.
 
But very unhappy about if you were the victim

If someone is raped - they were raped the moment it happened, their mental trauma and suffering doesn't simply go on hold until someone is convicted of the offence and if the perp is found innocent it doesn't unrape the victim

And anyway its a legal thing - he's legally innocent until proven otherwise... but he's actually only innocent if he didn't do it regardless of what is proven or not , and the only people who can say for sure are him and the girl concerned
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
the fact that someone has been charged with an offence does not indicate guilt, all that it indicates is that the police feel that the person should be charged and that the CPS feel that there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
Click to expand...

This above :thumbs:

I bet there are thousands of people who have been charged with a crime, and then gone on to be found not guilty, it's amazing he's been banged up here before his trial, and been compared to the likes of Glitter, who was a convicted P****, i have to admit when i first heard rumours of this a while back, i really hoped it wasn't true, and i still do, as i like many others would be really disappointed, however if it is well then he deserves everything he gets, but let's not tighten the noose just yet aye.
 
And the difference with Glitter was that the filthy B**tard was still carrying on the offences to almost rub the law's face in it whilst abroad thinking he was out of Jurisdiction. Thank god he finally got caught though!
 
Cagey75 said:
Sorry, but, it seems people are almost backing up for a P**** in here! :o

I'm sure they have damn good grounds for the accusations. We should feel sorry because he was a lame childhood 'star'? I never liked him or any of these other old creeps much anyhow, if what's been "alleged" is true - then shame on anyone who's feeling miffed about it. These were kids, and it was rape.
Click to expand...

Really? I've only seen charges for indecent assault mentioned, not rape.

How come you are so well informed?
 
Indecent assault could also mean a number of things, i.e. a person may have tried to rape but didn't get that far, like hurting a person before committing the act. Rape also comes under a lot of things also, it doesn't actually mean to forcefully procreate.
 
Flightphoto said:
Indecent assault could also mean a number of things, i.e. a person may have tried to rape but didn't get that far, like hurting a person before committing the act. Rape also comes under a lot of things also, it doesn't actually mean to forcefully procreate.
Click to expand...
If he was suspected of rape he would be charged with rape, not indecent assault.
Indecent assault, sexual assault and rape are different legal entities.
Rape requires penetration of the vagina, anus or mouth.
 
Last edited:
Flightphoto said:
Indecent assault could also mean a number of things, i.e. a person may have tried to rape but didn't get that far, like hurting a person before committing the act. Rape also comes under a lot of things also, it doesn't actually mean to forcefully procreate.
Click to expand...

Rape is very, very specific. Namely:

1 Rape
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.
Click to expand...

OSA 2003
 
KeithW

Not enough evidence for a realistic chance of a conviction does not equate to being proven innocent.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Simply because he does not have to prove innocence, the Crown have to prove guilt. He is therefore, was and remains innocent.

As, at the moment does Rolf Harris.

Before everyone gets excited, ok, it's too late for that, but now you've had a chance to read what rape is, and what RH has been charged with isn't, go and look at the definition of that. It can and does mean many things. For example, patting someone on the backside, something that happened in the pre 70's, died out but still went on in the 80's.
Do any of you know what extent this indecent assault allegation is, or was? No, you don't.
So, why don't you take a leaf from the Courts books and judge on evidence, not from the safety of an anonymous Internet forum where in reality no one has the faintest idea what he did, or didn't do?
 
Bernie174 said:
KeithW

No, it doesn't. Simply because he does not have to prove innocence, the Crown have to prove guilt. He is therefore, was and remains innocent.

As, at the moment does Rolf Harris.
Click to expand...

Despite the textbook definition of "innocent until proven guilty" I think you'll find Mr Harris will employ a raft of top defence lawyers to "prove" his innocence.
 
Bernie174 said:
KeithW



No, it doesn't. Simply because he does not have to prove innocence, the Crown have to prove guilt. He is therefore, was and remains innocent.............. etc..
Click to expand...

Yes, Bernie - quite right. The way some of the posts are going is very reminiscent of the old Western movies where we see a suspect being caught and facing lynching when a pleading voice is heard to say "He deserves a fair trial". Then a voice from the mob replies "Yes, give him a fair trial then hang him".

There should be no speculation on guilt or innocence. It is all a matter for judicial process where the evidence will be tested in court and a decision reached by those appointed to decide.
 
arclight said:
It is all a matter for judicial process where the evidence will be tested in court and a decision reached by those appointed to decide.
Click to expand...

If it were only that perfect a system.
 
I am quite willing to post on an internet forum my sadness that Rolf Harris, who for decades presented an endearing persona in the world of entertainment and was an attractive figure, had - or possibly did not have; we do not yet know - feet of very bad clay!

I'm also saddened by the angry aggression of one or two vigilantes here!
 
I want to know what he's accused of doing (because we do not know) and with whom (we do not know) and how often and under what circumstances.
I doubt I'll ever find out, but until then it's simply stupid to have either a damning or defensive opinion. Yeah I said STUPID.
One thing : he probably didn't rape anybody or he'd be charged with it, since that's the current fashion with these 1970/1980's celebs.
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
I want to know what he's accused of doing (because we do not know) and with whom (we do not know) and how often and under what circumstances.
I doubt I'll ever find out, but until then it's simply stupid to have either a damning or defensive opinion. Yeah I said STUPID.
One thing : he probably didn't rape anybody or he'd be charged with it, since that's the current fashion with these 1970/1980's celebs.
Click to expand...

:: Six counts of indecent assault relating to a girl aged between 15 and 16, from 1980 to 1981;

:: Three offences of indecent assault relating to a girl aged 14, in 1986;

:: Four offences of making indecent images of a child between March and July 2012.

How much more do you think you have a right to know right now? :thinking:

No rape charges.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So he has now been convicted as well as charged?
What on earth drives a man to assume guilt when even the law says that he is innocent?
Click to expand...

So very true

Can we not rip him to bits and cast him into boiling oil AS andWHEN he gets convicted and if not then reflect on what the Magna Carta set forth in the early 13th Century - that conviction without proof was a no no (albeit the purpose was to stop the monarch mistreating the Barons on a whim).

Essentially RH has to face a jury of his peers and that within the boundaries of a FAIR TRIAL. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution not the defendent.

At this point he is INNOCENT of anything until the result of an open trial. Irrespective of what Facebook or the Daily Mail may believe (I refuse to say THINK - in a world of "Me too's).

Summary Conviction was done away with a long time ago... never let it return.

S
 
Last edited:
No Viv, he employs a raft of Barristers, to put his defence to the allegations over and test that evidence in a way the Crown will not do.
That is not the same as 'prove' his case.
He has to prove absolutely nothing, assuming he pleads not. Of course he has a right to have a barrister speak on his behalf, or are you suggesting he should not have the right? Trust me, I've seen a lot of witnesses for the prosecution tell porkies in court. And no, not police officers, they don't often give evidence of offence, it's usually, as it will be in this case witnesses/alleged victims.
I'm sorry, but while everyone has a right to an opinion, in this, as in every one of these threads, that opinion has no substance. Worse, has anyone considered that those groundless opinions may influence people who may sit of a Jury? No, thought not.
 
It's been a long time since I had anything to do with trials in this country but, just as a matter of interest, does the accused have to be tried by jury in cases like this? Does he have the choice of electing trial by judge alone?
 
MartynK said:
It's been a long time since I had anything to do with trials in this country but, just as a matter of interest, does the accused have to be tried by jury in cases like this? Does he have the choice of electing trial by judge alone?[/QUOTE

Yes he can but I woould doubt that RH would want to and not have his defence team challenge the evidence directly thus placing his case "firmly". The adverserial system is the tenet of English law in that the prosecution must prove its case beyond "reasonable doubt".

This may help to lay out the process. As mentioned in my earlier post, Magna Carta has a major part to play in whrre we are today in the Judicial systrm.

http://www.bunker8.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/cjs/26905.htm

The government is, however, keen to reduce costs, speed up the process, and overcome th vagaries of juries. He might be offered such a juryless trial!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8453318.stm

Steve
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
I'm sorry, but while everyone has a right to an opinion, in this, as in every one of these threads, that opinion has no substance. Worse, has anyone considered that those groundless opinions may influence people who may sit of a Jury? No, thought not.
Click to expand...

You're correct, of course. We should all sit back and listen to your clearly superior knowledge and wisdom. To do anything else is folly. :shake:
 
Some of the comments on here beggar belief, trial by internet, i really thought we were better than facebook on here :shake:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top