Rolf's officially been charged :(

Speaking as a cartoonist myself and in my mid-40's, it is true that what Rolf had done was wrong, but I am disappointed more than anything.
I grew up with the likes of Rolf Harris and Tony Hart and thus they had an influence on my drawing style so this latest development regarding Rolf has come as a bit of a blow. I was hoping it was just the media stirring it all up but now it seemed to have become fact and I'm sad about that.
It's a bit like Michael Jackson, he will have fallen out of favour with a lot of people over the years, but dedicated die-hard followers will only remember him for his music anyway.
 
Last edited:
Like many, I grew up watching Rolf on TV and although he's nothing more than a celebrity figure, I have always liked and respected him. It's disappointing to hear that he's been charged with these offences.

(Worth emphasising that I'm not crying nor saying he's guilty of anything before anyone gets excited. ;) )
 
Last edited:
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.

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?
Click to expand...

Not often I agree with you, well said!
 
Jeeeez there's some reet bunched up knickers in this thread!
 
If patting a backside can now be classed as sexual assault I'm not really surprised that someone has reported Rolf for it.

He used to regularly be in a swimming pool with kids with them jumping all over him so no doubt at some point he will have made hand on body contact with at least one of them.

If viewing images on the internet is classed as making indecent images.

Wasn't there a thread on here recently (in the last few months) with some street photography from a foreign land where there were naked children in shot, would anyone who happened upon that thread be now guilty of making indecent images of minors??

^^^^
VERY serious question ???
 
Bernie174 said:
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.
?
Click to expand...

so everyone who doesn't get convicted is innocent ? really ??

So if someone burgles your house but never gets caught they are innocent of the crime, even though they committed it ?
 
Come on Pete, that is not what Bernie is saying, stop being so bleeding argumentative.................;)
 
big soft moose said:
..........

So if someone burgles your house but never gets caught they are innocent of the crime, even though they committed it ?
Click to expand...

Nope, but if they do get tried and found Not Guilty, then they are innocent in the eyes of the Law, simples!
 
BRASH said:
Why should he?
Click to expand...
Listen up, dog breath,i`ve had enough of your crap. Sharpen your knife all you want, lady boy, you`ll not get a chance to use anyway.When you go back to Scotland ,with you tail between your legs, you`ll look real funny trying to eat corn on the cob with no f***ing teeth.
 
Mikesphotaes said:
Nope, but if they do get tried and found Not Guilty, then they are innocent in the eyes of the Law, simples!
Click to expand...

indeed , but the point I was making is that innocent in the eyes of the law is not the same thing as innocent didn't do it.

Just as guilty in the eyes of the law isn't the same thing as guilty actually committed the act (viz Barry George and various other miscarriages of justice)

therefore its flawed reasoning to use how a court finds as the ultimate acid test of whether we believe someone is actually innocent or guilty
 
fracster said:
Listen up, dog breath,i`ve had enough of your crap. Sharpen your knife all you want, lady boy, you`ll not get a chance to use anyway.When you go back to Scotland ,with you tail between your legs, you`ll look real funny trying to eat corn on the cob with no f***ing teeth.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha you nugget. There can be only one (and it ain't you jobbie jabber):cool:
 
fracster said:
Listen up, dog breath,i`ve had enough of your crap. Sharpen your knife all you want, lady boy, you`ll not get a chance to use anyway.When you go back to Scotland ,with you tail between your legs, you`ll look real funny trying to eat corn on the cob with no f***ing teeth.
Click to expand...

you know the sooner you admit to yourself that you fancy him the sooner you'll be able to deal with your real feelings and put all this smoke screen animosity aside :lol:
 
big soft moose said:
you know the sooner you admit to yourself that you fancy him the sooner you'll be able to deal with your real feelings and put all this smoke screen animosity aside :lol:
Click to expand...

PMSL :lol:
 
The wee fairy will find out how much I like him when he is battered within an inch of his life and left for the badgers to eat next week.
 
fracster said:
The wee fairy will find out how much I like him when he is battered within an inch of his life and left for the badgers to eat next week.
Click to expand...

So funny. You're like a cartoon character :lol:
 
fracster said:
The wee fairy will find out how much I like him when he is battered within an inch of his life and left for the badgers to eat next week.
Click to expand...

Hah!!!! There'll be no Badgers where you're going my fellow m'lad just a life support machine, which'll be switched off by your nearest and dearest after they've said their last goodbyes. Trust!!!
 
BRASH said:
Hah!!!! There'll be no Badgers where you're going my fellow m'lad just a life support machine, which'll be switched off by your nearest and dearest after they've said their last goodbyes. Trust!!!
Click to expand...

Well that is utter claptrap, I have no "dearest" sunshine.
 
 
big soft moose

Correct, it's exactly what I am saying. You cannot be considered guilty until due process of law has taken place. It's written into the nearest thing we have to a constitution, the Magna carter (yes, I know it's probably spelt wrongly)

Crime, any crime is a state imposed concept, be that by act of legislation, or in UK law based countries, by tradition, or Common law.
We have a system whereby you are entitled to 1. test the evidence against you. and 2. put forward a defence to the evidence against you, for example in assault cases, self defence.
Until that trail takes places, there is no guilt.
It's not my opinion, so don't take the position of accusing me of it, it's the legal system in the UK.
Don't like it? Tough, it's the way it is.

Ruth
You can make all the silly and pointless comments you like. Clearly, like most people you don't understand the way the legal system works, don't feel bad about it most people don't. But there's no point in trying to take it out on me.
Now that RH has been charged, in theory it should not be discussed in a public forum. You'll notice that even the press now wont mention anything other than he has been charged. No opinion, nothing. Why? They don't want to appear in court to defend themselves from a contempt of court charge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top