For those members who used to live in the UK (it's all over the news here), Rolf Harris was found guilty of all 12 counts of indecent assault, some of which were on underage girls. He will be sentenced on Friday, and will lose his BAFTA and probably his CBE. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28055069
It is tricky, granted. I think there were some things that counted against him as evidence - saying he'd never been to a town where something allegedly happened, then footage from a television show filmed there surfacing, for example.
I see. It could always be his memory at old age, but it could also be him trying to distance him self from things, so I guess it helped to discredit his honesty. I have no feelings either way really, if it happened it happened, if it didn't it didn't, the evidence isn't really good enough for me to judge, but I suppose he'll be going to prison regardless. I just don't like the power that hearsay can have in a court of law as it is by far the worst kind of evidence, the only thing you have left to go on is a judge of character and it seems in this case Rolph didn't manage to pull it off. Here's hoping he is actually guilty so at least his sentence is justified.
Whilst we are not privy to what happened in the Court, I know that the CPS would need to have been extra sure there was a case to bring to Court when Rolf was originally being charged to go to the Court in the first place, due to his status and media attention. Also, there must have been enough evidence to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" at the Court rather than hearsay; ie a degree of confessions and other evidence; again, one cannot comment without being there and part of the proceedings at Court. It is not for us to judge another, that is for the Court to do that, and based on their evidence the Jury found him guilty based on what was presented. Those are facts and not sentiment. There will be a lot of further media involvement and he will have a hard time, as will his family now; the mighty fall hardest after all. In saying that, if found guilty of such crimes, one has to expect the aftermath. Saddest thing especially, is that he was a major and respected and loved childrens' entertainer and television star, and millions of households, like mine, loved the wholesome entertainer, trusted them to be safe viewing and he had a place in our hearts; those of us who grew up in the 70's looked at him with affection for his shows. I used to love watching his painting shows when I was a youngster, when he slapped paint onto a large canvas with a large brush and it only became apparent what the image was when nearly done; quite a skill. So, he will be sentenced in a few days time (to paraphrase his catchphrase) - "can he guess how long he's going to get yet?" Sad, very sad; a shock really.
Sad to say, but i wonder who is going to be next? At this point i think they should shut down the BBC and open up a thorough investigation
That's why we have the bit that says "Beyond all reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" Two points: 1. The majority of the offences occurred more than 10 years ago, it's very unlikely that the current staff at the BBC have any knowledge of what happened. "Shutting down" the BBC can't change what happened in the past 2. There *is* an investigation ongoing at the moment, it's called "Operation Yewtree": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree
There's an internal BBC investigation, too: http://www.damejanetsmithreview.com/ To be fair, the Rolf Harris case had little to do with the BBC, and Operation Yewtree isn't just investigating the BBC, or indeed just celebrities. Don't think that the BBC was an institution for depraved nonces to meet, gather children and have their wicked way. Sadly, one or two people may have taken advantage of the low security at the time. It's more about them abusing their celebrity status, though. Here's possibly one of the worst cases that doesn't appear to have been investigated by Operation Yewtree: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10806464/The-stark-truth-of-Peter-Sellers-sidekick.html
Personally I think anything with children is pretty sick and offenders deserve to be castrated or something. BUT I think some of the "sexual assaults" on over-16s by celebrities coming to light now are no more than pinching a girls bum. If you put it into the context of the 60's and 70's, that sort of thing was widely accepted back then. So a lot of the people coming out of the woodwork now are just hoping to get some kind of payout based on today's accepted standards of behaviour, which is wrong. Also, as per above, it's just hearsay to say someone groped you 20/30/40 years ago - absolutely no evidence!! just my own (possibly controversial) view.....
I don't understand how you can think it was "all just a bit of bum pinching". If you look at some of the details of these cases it's quite clear that these were incidents of sexual assault. For reference, here's a transcript of the summing up in the Clifford case. I suggest you read it and rethink your position: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...ntencing-remarks-hhj-leonard-r-v-clifford.pdf No, it wasn't. It was still against the law. One thing to note with the Rolf Harris trial was that as the law had changed in the years between the offence and his conviction, they were only able to prosecute him as the law stood when the offence was committed (rightly so), otherwise his sentence would have been longer. So social attitudes do change, but you can only be charged for what was illegal at that point in time. And what he did was illegal and wrong. It gets a lot easier to determine what the truth may be when 10+ people all come forward with similar experiences, without any of these people having any prior contact with each other. Also don't forget that some of the people prosecuted *pleaded guilty* Again, I don't think you have thought this through. You also seem willfully ignorant of the success rate of convictions when it comes to sexual assault/rape cases. The large majority don't end in prosecution. To think that the people who were abused are only doing this for financial reasons I find incredibly disrespectful to the victims. They don't just walk into court, say "He touched my bum" and walk out with £20k. Rolf Harris isn't exactly Mr Money Bags and you seem to completely ignore the trauma of having to relive what you only want to forget about, but feel you have to struggle with the demons of your past so you can know that: 1. Other children aren't going to be abused 2. He will pay for his crime before he dies, unlike Saville. 3. You can finally put this behind you and start to move on with your life. If you'd known someone who had been a victim of sexual assault and actually experienced what it can do to a persons life, then you might think about it a little differently.
Sexual offenders generally get put on secure wings of prison, doubly so if they are famous, so he's not going to come to any harm whilst he is incarcerated. He is 84 though, so he'll probably only serve 2-3 years of his sentence.
Whilst I agree that it can be hard to prove something that happened so long ago, you have to think back to the Savile case. That documentary came out, Operation Yewtree was set up, people spoke to the Police about certain people, including Rolf. Most importantly, the press didn't mention his name. He was, to all intents and purposes, a well-respected man. It's not like people sat there and thought about who would be a possible candidate and came up with Rolf. Also, do people actually get much compensation, if any? In his case, there were four counts of making indecent images, and apparently he had some on his computer and had visited questionable websites, but these charges weren't brought up in the case eventually. It seems there may be a review of the sentence, as there have been complaints it is too lenient: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-jail-sentence-review-attorney-general
I'm beginning to believe this may be less of "one or two people" and borderline unofficially institutionalized back then. The bloke from Led Zeppelin did it as well i heard and was particularly predatory about it.
Do these people get into the childrens entertainment business for easy access to kids or do they go in with honest intentions and become "attracted" later, i.e are they predatory or is it just opportunism?
