yellowperil Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Any evidence put forward can only have been circumstantial at the most. I think the media have had alot to do with this verdict and how theyve reported the letter he sent to his daughters friends father. He was apogising for a relationship the had together when she was of legal age and not a minor like it was insinuated by the press. Like has been said already, lets not forget what the term "sexual assault" covers. He has never come across as an arrogant or egotistical man in my opinion. Im sure he has good grounds for appeal but even if he wins he is ruined for the rest of his life now, mud sticks. I doubt the appeal will happen because i dont think he will be making it to the trial. At the time these offences took place a pat on the arse was the norm, youve only got to watch tv from the 70s to see that. You cant judge past actions by present standards,the time has moved on as have we as people. Saw the australian women on the news and she was smiling all over her face for some reason! Bewildering. And apparently the hotlines are lit up now hes been found guilty with more "victims" who havent come forward until the guilty verdict. The whole thing stinks if im honest. An unsafe verdict based on circumstantial evidence is all i can see so far but im open to be swayed by any real evidence. ---------- Post added 30-06-2014 at 20:00 ---------- Im sure ill get ripped to shreads for my opinion but youll have to forgive me for not grabbing my pitchfork and joining the crowd just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Any evidence put forward can only have been circumstantial at the most. I think the media have had alot to do with this verdict and how theyve reported the letter he sent to his daughters friends father. He was apogising for a relationship the had together when she was of legal age and not a minor like it was insinuated by the press. Like has been said already, lets not forget what the term "sexual assault" covers. He has never come across as an arrogant or egotistical man in my opinion. Im sure he has good grounds for appeal but even if he wins he is ruined for the rest of his life now, mud sticks. I doubt the appeal will happen because i dont think he will be making it to the trial. At the time these offences took place a pat on the arse was the norm, youve only got to watch tv from the 70s to see that. You cant judge past actions by present standards,the time has moved on as have we as people. Saw the australian women on the news and she was smiling all over her face for some reason! Bewildering. And apparently the hotlines are lit up now hes been found guilty with more "victims" who havent come forward until the guilty verdict. The whole thing stinks if im honest. An unsafe verdict based on circumstantial evidence is all i can see so far but im open to be swayed by any real evidence. ---------- Post added 30-06-2014 at 20:00 ---------- Im sure ill get ripped to shreads for my opinion but youll have to forgive me for not grabbing my pitchfork and joining the crowd just yet. he's a nonce - a common or garden child molester who , beyond his wildest dreams, got nicked. Women who he abused as girls had the guts and bravery to come forward and say he did that to me and , thankfully, the jury believed them. A pattern of using fame, wealth celebrity etc to abuse with (what he thought of as ) impunity was established by the prosecution and Rolf faces the justice of a jail cell. You're entitled to your opinion, not gonna rip you to shreds and leave your pitchfork in the cupboard, but don't mistake a celebrity image for a real person - rolf, like any performer was 'rolf harris' in public and a real person in life - in his case a dirty, paedophilic person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Ill bow to your greater knowledge, i wasnt aware you knew him personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Ill bow to your greater knowledge, i wasnt aware you knew him personally. He doesn't probably. On the other hand his victims have been found to not only know him personally but intimately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Trial by the media is more about sensationalism than justice unfortunately. Do you think none of the jury saw and media coverage about him? Its an unsafe verdict if they were swayed at all. They managed to convince the jury though, thats all they need to do isnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 Trial by the media is more about sensationalism than justice unfortunately. Do you think none of the jury saw and media coverage about him? Its an unsafe verdict if they were swayed at all. They managed to convince the jury though, thats all they need to do isnt it. the jury heard and saw a heck of a lot more evidence than will have been portyrayed via the media. on the basis of all they have heard they have made their decision and that is that rolf harris is guilty. i wonder what it is that makes that so hard to accept? that someone who appeared to all to be a nice bloke could possibly do such terrible and destructive things? like esther rantzen has said today on tv - "people are not abused by monsters....they are attacked by "nice" people." i'd suggest it's that that is most unsettling about this and other cases. it's the fact that even those who we personally consider as being nice COULD be capable of doing such evil. maybe our energies would be better spent thinking about that and the victims of abuse than arguing that the findings of a court are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 The esther rantzen that heard the jimmy saville allegations years ago and did nothing herself at the time. Its true he has been found guilty, im eagerly awaiting details of evidence to come forward before i make my own descision of the soundness of the verdict. Compensation needs to be taken out of these things in my opinion, no amount of money can change the past can it. A guilty verdict should be the justice you need for closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 with all due respect yellowperil a guilty verdict does not close the door on the past. it takes a lot more than that - or even compensation. i work closely with victims of abuse and you are right - no amount of money can change the past. however, i don't think it is beyond reasonable that the support / counselling that a victim may need to move towards recovery should be paid for by the perpetrator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted June 30, 2014 Share Posted June 30, 2014 Youre not naive enough to think thats the only motivation for compo im sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted June 30, 2014 Author Share Posted June 30, 2014 there has been no mention of compensation until you mentioned it so i have no idea if any of his victims are or are not wanting some. but i don't think it is unreasonable to get compensation if they are victims - which a court has found that they are. if someone can get compensation for a bump in the car they more than deserve it for being a victim of abuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now