Printable View
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561
Harris guilty of indecent assaults
Breaking news
Hard to believe really, isn't it? The guy has always had such a wholesome reputation for decades and now this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC (state) News
Rolf Harris being convicted of this to me is as shocking as it would be if the Chuckle Brothers were sent down for murder.
Thoughts?
I don't understand how an assault from so long ago can even have sufficient proof. I can't help but remain sceptical of the verdict for this and other reasons.
I am the same with all these sexual assaults, there's always doubt in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
I always have to remember that newspapers can only give you a snippet of information. A jury of peers listened to all the evidence - something we do not have access to - and found him guilty. To then say 'they're wrong' when we haven't had access to that evidence seems a bit silly to me.
I can't believe it, I use to really like watching Animal Hospital with him :(.
I'm not saying they're wrong, just with any crimes like this decades after: there's always doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
I accept the verdict from the jury, as much as I do not want it to be true.
Y'know, I can sort of understand how it was back then with 15 year olds and the entertainers (even if it is vile)... but a seven year old? Horrific.
Exactly, nobody wants it to be true because it is just so opposite of the image everybody has of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzinator
Reading the comments on the Daily Mail, and it's the same with everybody. Generations grew up with him and it has all just been a facade.
Can't get over this!! So disgusting.
How many more of these celebs dark pasts gonna come out. Makes you wonder how it was hidden for so long.
Probably the scariest thing about it all is that his Animal Hospital persona and all the art shows he did might not have been an "act" at all - it's quite possible even probable that he was/is in most ways a charming inoffensive chap but then has this one vile weakness that he wasn't able to hold back on. Such awful news
my childhood is ruined.
So shocked when i read this.
I understand this. I pretty much agree with Undertakers response but I believe there's a bit of a "paedo scare" at the moment and I think some people may just ignore the facts in favour of feeling and emotion. Also somewhat related is the face some people seem to be crying wolf a lot since Saville, but that could be down to other things related to what the media reports/ my attention to news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Inseriousity.
It is an incredibly complicated process which requires rigorous scrutinising of all possible evidence. If I recall correctly, Harris pretty much admitted to it in correspondence between his victims either using romantic language or apologising for his behaviour (as was the case with his daughter's friend he assaulted). It's arguably reliable, considering many actors/celebrities were found innocent (Kevin and Ken from Coronation Street) who allegedly committed either sexual assault or rape, and rape is an incredibly serious crime and even if found innocent of it you're likely to be found guilty of assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Did you see the few clips from Animal Hospital where he was consoling a few women? I can't help but think it was an act to be close to people who, with his charming persona, would console in him :/ That said, the most used clip involves a man and as far as I've seen he was only involved with women so he may have genuinely cared. Still quite worrying, seeing as Saville used this route to get to people.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I know, I know. I'm not outright saying this is all wrong bla bla bla just it's a doubt in my mind that wouldn't go unless I was actually on the panel myself :PQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Yeah it's hard to really understand it all, but if we were told everything it would be completely embarrassing for the victim. It's one of those times we really want to fulfil our morbid curiosity to find out what compelling evidence there was :PQuote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Does Russell Brand weirdly make sense here in analysing this story?
I just agreed with Russell Brand on something. I need a lay down.
I always remember hearing this years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0rlYSJQkyw
tbh next it will be the chuckle brothers or the guy of strictly :/ seems to be all these nice old guys to children are molesters ..
5 years 9 months sentence, after 3 years he'll automatically be released and then do the rest.
I still can't get over this.
good riddance
This is interesting concerning some of the charges - http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/cur...asonable-doubtQuote:
Originally Posted by dbgtz
Anyone else feel the sentence is too small? 12 charges and all you get is under 6 years?
On an individual break down of each charge, apparently sexually assaulting a 7/8 year old girl only carries 9 months in jail. What?
Don't they take into account his age and other aspects? 6 years is huge for an 84 year old, whereas its relatively light for say a 20 year old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
Why should they take age into account? Surely a 20 year old is just as guilty as an 84 year old if they carry out the same offences?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Because the punishment is relative to a whole range of factors. A 6 year sentence is practically a life sentence for an 84 year old whereas it's a minor scratch for a young adult. We also do not know the full details of the crimes so how can you complain the sentence is too short when you don't know the details other than the vague ones which have been released?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
Do you think that 9 months for sexually assaulting a 7 year old girl is fair then? Seems far too little imo.
And the fact is, in this case, surely Harris has already had all his 'freedom' he should have, these assaults took place years and years ago, and since then, he's been living as a free man. So if they did reduce the sentence, just because he's old - that's not right.
Again, we don't know what he did so how can I say what's fair? Although the figure on it's own may seem small, when you look at it in conjunction with his age you realise he'll probably die before he gets out. What do you think about prisoners being released on compassionate grounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
They should serve the sentence they were dealt. Life means life. Someone getting cancer (for example) doesn't excuse them from their crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Well then we fundamentally disagree because you obviously think prisons should be for punishment and retribution whilst I think they should be preventative and to rehabilitate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
So does someone getting terminal cancer suddenly rehabilitate someone enough for them to be released then? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by The Don
@Kardan; I've just read that he can only be sentenced in accordance with the law at the time which is why he got a comparatively lenient sentence as under the modern sentencing structure I've read that it's apparently likely he would have received a life sentence.
- - - Updated - - -
And no, but if they're no longer a threat then why keep them locked up when that money and space could go towards housing a true threat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kardan
Sentencing remarks: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conte...-v-harris1.pdf
Summary of the evidence: http://www.theage.com.au/world/rolf-...skin=text-only
Both links contain descriptions of the assaults.
What genius came up with giving 69 months for sexual assault
The Labouchere Amendment (which made homosexuality a crime) had only been scrapped two years prior to his first offence, so it's no wonder the sentencing guidelines are ridiculous when they're being influenced by that time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
I think you're forgetting what the justice system is for in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
In any case, we can easily afford it - stop sending £11bn overseas and clean the scum up from our streets, there's your money worry sorted.
Punishment acts as a deterrence, thus preventing others from doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
I agree with Kardan, from some of the charges - especially regarding the 7-year old - the sentence is disgusting. But again, as i've always said... if somebody in my family is ever murdered or harmed in the most serious way, and either the Judge or the system (politicians) decide to let that vermin out onto the streets then i'll hold the Judge/politicians just as responsible as the person who carried out the crime.
And I cannot say what I may decide to do to rectify that situation.
If you think justice should defined by retribution then you're no better than those that support sharia law.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
Sensible punishments, yeh. Harsh punishments do nothing but encourage more/worse crimes.Quote:
Punishment acts as a deterrence, thus preventing others from doing the same.
Vigilante justice is not justice.Quote:
I agree with Kardan, from some of the charges - especially regarding the 7-year old - the sentence is disgusting. But again, as i've always said... if somebody in my family is ever murdered or harmed in the most serious way, and either the Judge or the system (politicians) decide to let that vermin out onto the streets then i'll hold the Judge/politicians just as responsible as the person who carried out the crime.
And I cannot say what I may decide to do to rectify that situation.
Yes, because operating a civilised justice system with a jury and innocence until proven guilty is akin to cutting peoples hands off.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Who is arguing against sensible punishments? We're arguing here for sensible punishments, which are no longer handed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Oh it is to me. I constantly find myself now wishing for murderers to have their throats slashed in prison because I know that our soft headed injustice system will let them out after a few years and they'll be back on the streets, likely to commit over and over.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Now I do not want that, as i'd prefer a civilised system as we used to have. But the politicians have brought me to this and the politicians will bring me to potentially having to administer justice myself if anybody I care about is ever harmed and does not recieve justice.
If a justice system starts failing to deliver justice, then vigilante groups/individuals will begin to do it. Look at failed states for examples.
"It's the politicians' fault that I have violent wishes towards people"
If a family member is abused or murdered by somebody who is released after having committed those crimes in the past, then the blame in part then falls on either the Judge who sentenced them or the politicians who passed the law limiting sentences to a certain period. Absolutely.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingJesus
The same applies to a scenario where a family member is murdered and a lax sentence is given. If the state won't administer justice, somebody has to.
Wanting a retribution based law system is akin to the eye for an eye system which is a large principle in sharia law based countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
What would you rather we do with murderers instead of trying to rehabilitate them? Kill them? How is that any different to cutting off somebody's hand for stealing? It's pure savagery and i'm glad that the death penalty has been abolished in the UK. The reality is that the large majority of criminals will eventually roam the streets again someday. Rather than trying to punish them we should attempt to rehabilitate them so that when they are released they can become functioning members of society. If you kept them in prison and didn't educate them (which I recall you're against, correct me if i'm wrong), allow them access to books and encourage them to improve themselves then they will simply resort to crime when released as they will be exactly the same as when they entered the correctional system, other than being older, having less job prospects due to their criminal record, and considerably more angry at society.Quote:
Oh it is to me. I constantly find myself now wishing for murderers to have their throats slashed in prison because I know that our soft headed injustice system will let them out after a few years and they'll be back on the streets, likely to commit over and over.
So there's really no comparison except that Islamic countries believe in justice as we do, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Rehabilitation among murderers is a complete myth as those selected for rehabilitation, along with most murders in the first place are committed not by serial murderers but in fits of rage, anger or a long-standing personal grudge. Those selected for rehabiltation in those circumstances are unlikely to kill again for the reason that they never intended to go on a killing spree in the first place, that the person they killed was a one-off event, ie a neighbour who they really really really loathe and despise and it boils out of control (the anger). Or a thief who ends up in a struggle with an elderly homeowner and ends up knocking them on the head leading to their death.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
But that isn't the point. The point is that my family member is DEAD via an unforgivable act of evil and I want justice for my family member or anybody for that precise matter. The person who ended the life of the one close to me should be punished (preferably via hanging in my opinion).
Now if people like you want to 'rehabilitate' the likes of savage and evil child-murderer Ian Huntley, then so be it. But just think what people like me will resort to because I can tell you that if somebody I know is murdered and the murderer is let off then I will be seeking revenge in spades, and not just against the murderer but also those who failed to administer the just penalty for the taking of a life. Think Michael Caine in Harry Brown (the film) who I was cheering on throughout.
Typical liberal-left mentality, that the fault is with society (ie everybody else).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
No, the fault is with the one who committed the crime in the first place.