Rolf Harris guilty of indecent assaults

[JFKvsNixon]

We could also stop the press printing stories, no one would have known about this if not for the press.

 

I think that it's important that people know how much of a monster Harris is, to counterbalance those that seem to, for one reason or another, empathise with his plight.

[loraward]

I think that it's important that people know how much of a monster Harris is, to counterbalance those that seem to, for one reason or another, empathise with his plight.

 

You accuse him of harassing his victims by writing a song which no one would have know about if not for the press and then support the press for printing it.

 

He has an opinion which you can't change, allowing him to express that opinion is the only way he can harass his victims, therefor the best approach is to stop him expressing his opinions, at least whilst he is in prison.

[Mr Bloke]

We could also stop the press printing stories, no one would have known about this if not for the press.

... or if the 'friend' had kept the contents of a private letter to themselves.

 

It makes you wonder if the 'friend' was genuinely shocked by the letter, in which case by releasing it to the press is it not the 'friend' that is responsible for any 'harassment'?

 

Or was it a deliberate plot by all concerned to 'leak' the letter as some form of revenge?

[Anna B]

No need for the rubbish attempt at sacrasm. I remember the day when folk were polite to people. Just learn some manners!

To answer your question he works in the field and has done for a long time. Hes worked very closely with several governments both labour and tory and now tory/libdem. He retires in 2 years and says hes going to write a book. From what ive seen and ive seen only snippets its explosive stuff and assuming its all true (i have no need to think it isnt and he has never told me a lie or a half truth) it will open a can of works so large it will change a few rather important peoples lives for ever. Cyril Smith is small fry, Leon Briton is just the tip of a huge and murky iceberg.

 

I hope he makes lots of copies and ups his life insurance...

[The Joker]

I see Harris has penned a song while at her Majesty's pleasure denouncing his victims as 'festering money grabbers' and 'perfumed sultry wenches'

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/rolf-harris-writes-vile-song-describing-his-victims-woodworms-1506018

 

He said that he will set the lyrics to a record 'as soon as he gets out of prison'.

 

Totally repulsive

 

All the more reason to keep him inside for ever then. He didn't have that great a music career, did he?

 

"I'm Jake the peg, diddle diddle diddle dum"

"With my extra leg, diddle diddle diddle dum"

[rollwithit]

I'm still sceptical about these celeb trials/verdicts. I thought prosecution had to present factual evidence, but a lot of it was: victim's storey V Rolf's Storey and the jury had to decide which one was more plausible.

 

Whilst the trials were on going we didn't hear hard evidence from witness' about in appropriate touching. At one point one plaintiff couldn't even give the correct year. Yes they found Rolf on It's a knock out in that decade so they decided it happened then.

 

These were not hard facts being used to remove someone's civil liberties.

 

Yes, many would argue that such perpetrators limit exposure to witness'

 

But without hard evidence, how many other celebs that are totally innocent could possibly be locked up in future.

 

The only thing they had evidence for was Rolf's affair with his daughters friend. But they could only use it as supporting evidence about his behaviour and not include it in the charges because it happened in Australia.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 00:16 ----------

 

Adding to the celeb stuff.

The Rotherham child sex ring still hasn't gone anywhere yet.

They'l be plenty of evidence for that from eye witness', social worker records, police records etc. Yet nothing is being done about that, at least not up front so the public knows about it. Also, most of the incidents are only 15 years ago at the most, not 40 years ago.

[mafya]

I'm still sceptical about these celeb trials/verdicts. I thought prosecution had to present factual evidence, but a lot of it was: victim's storey V Rolf's Storey and the jury had to decide which one was more plausible.

 

Whilst the trials were on going we didn't hear hard evidence from witness' about in appropriate touching. At one point one plaintiff couldn't even give the correct year. Yes they found Rolf on It's a knock out in that decade so they decided it happened then.

 

These were not hard facts being used to remove someone's civil liberties.

 

Yes, many would argue that such perpetrators limit exposure to witness'

 

But without hard evidence, how many other celebs that are totally innocent could possibly be locked up in future.

 

The only thing they had evidence for was Rolf's affair with his daughters friend. But they could only use it as supporting evidence about his behaviour and not include it in the charges because it happened in Australia.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 00:16 ----------

 

Adding to the celeb stuff.

The Rotherham child sex ring still hasn't gone anywhere yet.

They'l be plenty of evidence for that from eye witness', social worker records, police records etc. Yet nothing is being done about that, at least not up front so the public knows about it. Also, most of the incidents are only 15 years ago at the most, not 40 years ago.

 

My bold=

A major trial is due to start later this year so yes it has gone somewhere...= http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/major-trial-into-rotherham-child-sexual-exploitation-offences-to-start-in-sheffield-later-this-year-1-7321031

[rollwithit]

My bold=

A major trial is due to start later this year so yes it has gone somewhere...= http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/major-trial-into-rotherham-child-sexual-exploitation-offences-to-start-in-sheffield-later-this-year-1-7321031

 

Thanks pal. Just had a read.

[Eater Sundae]

I'm still sceptical about these celeb trials/verdicts. I thought prosecution had to present factual evidence, but a lot of it was: victim's storey V Rolf's Storey and the jury had to decide which one was more plausible.

 

Whilst the trials were on going we didn't hear hard evidence from witness' about in appropriate touching. At one point one plaintiff couldn't even give the correct year. Yes they found Rolf on It's a knock out in that decade so they decided it happened then.

 

These were not hard facts being used to remove someone's civil liberties.

 

Yes, many would argue that such perpetrators limit exposure to witness'

 

But without hard evidence, how many other celebs that are totally innocent could possibly be locked up in future.

 

The only thing they had evidence for was Rolf's affair with his daughters friend. But they could only use it as supporting evidence about his behaviour and not include it in the charges because it happened in Australia.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2015 at 00:16 ----------

 

Adding to the celeb stuff.

The Rotherham child sex ring still hasn't gone anywhere yet.

They'l be plenty of evidence for that from eye witness', social worker records, police records etc. Yet nothing is being done about that, at least not up front so the public knows about it. Also, most of the incidents are only 15 years ago at the most, not 40 years ago.

 

Re bib.

 

it's still requires a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict, so it's a lot more than just "more plausible". It has always been difficult to achieve convictions in old sexual abuse cases because of the difficulty of proof in a he said - she said situation. I don't see that anything's really changed in that respect.

 

The only change seems to be the use of multiple witnesses, all telling a similar story, which gives additional credence to each one.

[rollwithit]

Re bib.

 

it's still requires a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict, so it's a lot more than just "more plausible". It has always been difficult to achieve convictions in old sexual abuse cases because of the difficulty of proof in a he said - she said situation. I don't see that anything's really changed in that respect.

 

The only change seems to be the use of multiple witnesses, all telling a similar story, which gives additional credence to each one.

 

The only trouble is, the police go public with these cases as soon as the defendant is charged which opens the floodgates to more reports. However, that to me just prejudices the current evidence. Many of those reports could be fictitious made up by unscrupulous people. It can and does happen. How many times have people served life sentences to be proven not guilty in the end.

 

The perpitrators ID should be kept confidential until investigations are completed. or even until a verdict is made.

 

Look at the corri actors who where proved innocent yet their professional credibility has been totally destroyed whilst the reporter has the right to keep their identity a secret. So so wrong.