Rolf Harris guilty of indecent assaults

[Halibut]

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.

 

Is apologising for paedophiles a new hobby, or have you been doing it for a while?

[yellowperil]

So you think it wont be mentioned?

They phones are ringing now with people coming forward after the verdict.

I think it depends on your definition of victim.

Remember its only indecent assault were talking about which sounds terrible in black and white but in reality can be much less than it sounds.

I think ill have to agree to disagree with the majority so far.

 

You can get done for indecent exposure and put on the sex offenders register for peeing in the street the same as if you were a flasher!

 

Definitions are blurry.

 

---------- Post added 30-06-2014 at 23:45 ----------

 

Is apologising for paedophiles a new hobby, or have you been doing it for a while?

 

Wondered how long youd take to surface for a feed.

Im not excusing anything, just questioning the validity of the verdict under the circumstances.

Edited June 30, 2014 by yellowperil

[Halibut]

So you think it wont be mentioned?

They phones are ringing now with people coming forward after the verdict.

I think it depends on your definition of victim.

Remember its only sexual assault were talking about which sounds terrible in black and white but in reality can be much less than it sounds.

I think ill have to agree to disagree with the majority so far.

 

You can get done for indecent exposure and put on the sex offenders register for peeing in the street the same as if you were a flasher!

 

Definitions are blurry.

 

---------- Post added 30-06-2014 at 23:45 ----------

 

 

Wondered how long youd take to surface for a feed.

Im not excusing anything, just questioning the validity of the verdict under the circumstances.

 

Why are you so wilfully blind to the idea that the verdicts were correct?

Are you going to indulge in the traditional victim blaming that usually accompanies this kind of tripe?

 

Oh, I see. You already did. You said ''it's only sexual assault'' as if implying that these girls and women shouldn't make such a fuss about it.

 

You think it ''depends on your definition of victim''. It's fairly clear who you think the victim is in this case.

 

Attitudes like yours make it easier for paedophiles to operate and harder for vulnerable girls and women to come forward.

[yellowperil]

Its not actually sexual assault even, its indecent assault as it goes.

 

The comment i made was a full sentance, not just the bit you highlighted for dramatic effect. It also had a statement about being done for indecent exposure for taking a pee in the street. Its a pretty broad definition was my point.

If you take it to the extreme then weve all been sexually assaulted at one time or another.

 

I dont want it to be harder for victims to come forward at all, i think the ones who are doing the most damage to the seriousness of the crime are the ones making false allegations which has happened in lots of these cases.

They should be doing the same amount of time as the person would have if found guilty.

 

If when you were 15 rolf harris squeezed your arse inbetween takes in the 1970s and thats as far as it went,would you really class yourself as a victim.

There must be ageing rockstars having sleepless nights these days.

Serious assault is way different to the accusations that have been made here.

 

Everyone is up for a hanging based on what?

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2014 at 00:47 ----------

 

Ill edit my post to reflect its indecent assault and not sexual assault as i was wrong.

I stand by what i said about it though.

Edited June 30, 2014 by yellowperil

[ronthenekred]

Remember its only sexual assault were talking about which sounds terrible in black and white but in reality can be much less than it sounds.

I think ill have to agree to disagree with the majority so far.

 

.

 

You've really done yourself no favours with the above statement. Harris's victims were as young as 13 and continued for years after.

 

"Only sexual assault" is the worst form of sexual predator apology anyone could make. In your quest to involve compensation in order to somehow divert his actions as something less is apologising. What you are attempting to do and failing miserably is deflecting the severity of child abuse as somehow less than the more evil crime of compensation seeking..non of which you have any evidence of, especially evidence that the victims are lying in order to do so.

 

For the record, whether it helps them or not financially or psychologically, I hope they take him for every asset he has.

 

His victims were children, he was an adult, stop being a dick and aligning yourself with him.

Edited June 30, 2014 by ronthenekred

[yellowperil]

Its been edited as ive said.

Sexual assault can be having your arse felt and thats it.

Indecent assault can be even less.

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2014 at 01:16 ----------

 

There is no deflecting the severity of child abuse in its true sense i agree. Even your term " child abuse" can mean going to the bingo and leaving the kids alone!!

This is where im coming from,the definitions are very all encompassing and sometime make things sound much worse than they are.

 

 

The count for jimmy savilles alleged victims is over 500! Do you think all of those are genuine?

 

One of the girls in the harris case tried to blackmail him i understand and also approached the press with her story for cash before deciding to report him!

Were her actions to seek money or justice? Im afraid chasing compensation happens and needs to be considered as a motive in some cases rather than the seeking of justice.

 

There were two girls in the bill roache case that lied too, saying they went in his rolls royce with him, they were 100% sure of the year and month it happened too! It turned out it was a full year earlier that he had got rid of that car!

They were also sure that a certain actor told them at granada studios that they had to "watch him"! it was then proved that at the time the guy who "definitely" said that to them wasnt even in the soap!

They tried to change their stories but had obviously conspired together and lied, what was their motivation for that?

 

Youll excuse my scepticism when things like this are happening.

Its these people that are guilty for casting doubts about motives,not me.

 

There is no excuse as you say but lets be clear what we are actually talking about before we judge.

Edited July 1, 2014 by yellowperil

[ronthenekred]

Its been edited as ive said.

Sexual assault can be having your arse felt and thats it.

Indecent assault can be even less.

 

 

You can retract or back peddle as much as you wish, it doesn't remove what you said, and you know quite well this isn't an adult on adult touch a bottom at work scenario. What you believe can or can't be less or more, is irrelevant in this specific case.

 

As an adult and in one case a guardian to his friends children, he abused that unquestionable trust.

[yellowperil]

Its not back peddling is it.

I made a mistake about the terminology of what he was accused of and have admitted it was the wrong term and corrected it.

Ive changed the term but stand by the statements made.

[ronthenekred]

Its been edited as ive said.

Sexual assault can be having your arse felt and thats it.

Indecent assault can be even less.

 

---------- Post added 01-07-2014 at 01:16 ----------

 

There is no deflecting the severity of child abuse in its true sense i agree. Even your term " child abuse" can mean going to the bingo and leaving the kids alone!!

This is where im coming from,the definitions are very all encompassing and sometime make things sound much worse than they are.

 

There are no examples that have come to light so far in this case but time will tell im sure.

 

The count for jimmy savilles alleged victims is over 500! Do you think all of those are genuine?

 

One of the girls in the harris case tried to blackmail him i understand and also approached the press with her story for cash before deciding to report him! Were her actions to seek money or justice? Im afraid it happens and needs to be considered as a motive in some cases rather than any damage done to their wellbeing in the longterm.

 

There were two girls in the bill roache case that lied too, saying they went in his rolls royce with him and were 100% sure of the year and month, it was a full year before that he had got rid of that car, they were so sure it was a certain actor that told them at granada studios that they had to "watch him", it was then proved that at the time they saidcthis had happened that the guy who definitely said that to them wasnt even in the soap at that time!

They tried to change their stories but had obviously conspired together and lied, what was their motivation for that?

 

Youll excuse my scepticism when things like this are happening.

Its these women that have done it that are casting doubts about motives.

 

Are you suggesting that the case of Roach should have been considered while this specific case was in progress? People get convicted of murder are you suggesting other murderers shouldn't based on other guilty cases.

 

I wonder why you feel the need to entwine entirely different cases that have no connection.

[yellowperil]

They do have a connection, its all under operation yewtree.

 

Im arguing the point of view that the motive isnt always justice it seems.

A point that was raised.

 

You seem to want to attack me despite my comments that there is no excuse,you seem to just be concentrating on what you want to.

 

The problem is that we are judging past actions by todays standards and you just cant.

It was over 40 years ago, a different time with different values. Todays standards are different obviously.

If you want to do that then why arent we judging this by different countries ages of consent? It would be just as stupid to do that, in some eu countries there wouldnt even be a case to answer with the lower ages of consent! Its easier to get to these countries than go back in time 40 odd years!

You just cant judge things that way.

If we changed the speed limit on the m1 to 60mph tomorrow would it be right to fine everyone tht has ever gone over 60mph on it in the past?

No it wouldnt !

 

The definitions and terminology need to be clearer too.

Theres a knee jerk reaction when anyone says "child abuse" or "indecent exposure" ive demonstrated that it doesnt always mean what you assume.

People automatically jump to the worst case scenario and judge by what they believe it to mean and its not always what they assume it to be.

 

Those are the points im trying to make.

Lets have the true facts on the table before we judge.

Edited July 1, 2014 by yellowperil