Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges

Is he guilty? Clearly yes, a jury found so.

Interesting conclusion. What about people who successfully overturn their convictions at appeal?

Are they guilty after the first trial and then not guilty after the appeal? Or were they not guilty all along?
 
The press would have printed any real evidence that was presented. We might not have cameras in the courts, but we sure as heck have reporters ;)

The most damning thing they printed was his letter, and that does not contain any admission that he abused the girls.

/thread mods please. Foxeye has just presented an argument which none of us can counter. We lose. Clearly we should have read the papers cause that's where all the evidence was all along. :rolleyes:
 
Eh? Well isn't it true that the media do normally report the salient details of the trial, including most of the evidence?

Or would you say that isn't true?

Hmm maybe you misread my post... I wasn't saying that the newspapers were the primary source of evidence in the trial... just that evidence brought to trial would have been reported in the press.

Hence one of the headlines I saw was "The letter that sent Rolf down" - an article on the letter (evidence) presented at the trial.

I honestly don't know where you're coming from?
 
Last edited:
Gutted going to have to bin my plate I made

SXeDtFz.jpg.png
 
Listened to an interview with his neighbours and friends for over 50 years this morning. Really sad he could just not accept it.
 
Interesting conclusion. What about people who successfully overturn their convictions at appeal?

Are they guilty after the first trial and then not guilty after the appeal? Or were they not guilty all along?

Is he guilty? Yes by virtue of his conviction.

Did he do it? Well that is another question. I dont know. Some of the information available does not paint Rolf in the best light yet that does not simply mean he is automatically guilty of all the charges levelled against him. I probably wont ever know, but i would dearly love to know what evidence was presented against him. If it has all been purely testimony from his accusors, I think that is worrying when considering the bigger picture. What i find odd is that he CPS who are notoriously hesitant to prosecute unless the evidence is iron clad seem to have no such reluctance in the recent spate of these sexual assault cases.

This leads me to consider if the evidence is actually very strong or conversely if these cases are being given special treatment because of the Saville scandal and the insinuation that he could not have acted alone. Clearly I am no expert but I am struggling to think of the kind of evidence that could be produced to back the charges against him. Information seems thin on the ground. But is that because of the press being gagged? Or because the actual trial evidence is thin on the ground?
 
I kind of liked him as a kid, watching rolfs cartoon time, but then as I got older he became annoying on animal hospital.

Turns out he was a paedo, I'm not overly saddened but glad the victims know he's had his comeuppance and his career and reputation is in tatters.

Must've been hard for them seeing him on the telly all the time, knowing what he'd done to them.
 
This whole operation Yewtree is a disgrace.

Don't you find it a little weird how all these accusations have come straight after the Saville furore.

Right after all this public anger, the police decide to start dragging all the old celebs whose careers are pretty much over before a judge and everyone starts coming forward all of a sudden.

I'm amzed the public can't see through this charade.

Then again, we're talking about a public who believed the Iraq dossier.

A pack of lies, everywhere!
 
This whole operation Yewtree is a disgrace.

Don't you find it a little weird how all these accusations have come straight after the Saville furore.

Right after all this public anger, the police decide to start dragging all the old celebs whose careers are pretty much over before a judge and everyone starts coming forward all of a sudden.

I'm amzed the public can't see through this charade.

Then again, we're talking about a public who believed the Iraq dossier.

A pack of lies, everywhere!

Do you comment on Daily Mail articles?
 
Sometimes. Depends on whether I have an opinion or not.

The fact is, the above is my belief. If you don't agree, fine. but you are obviously trying to belittle me which is kind of sad.
 
Sometimes. Depends on whether I have an opinion or not.

The fact is, the above is my belief. If you don't agree, fine. but you are obviously trying to belittle me which is kind of sad.

They started looking into the decades long rumours of various celebs being 'dirty old men' and found out some actually were ... that you think there is some kind of conspiracy at play here is astounding.

Are some celebs being hard done by here? being named and shamed prior to their day in court? sure, matters like this shouldn't be made part of the public interest until at the very least they arrive in a court.

But still you have a monster like Saville who got clean away with his reign of sexual terror ... let's not others like him do the same.
 
Last edited:
What I don't understand is, when this story first broke, one of the charges was possessing indecent images on his PC, what happened to that?

Throwing as much mud at him and hoping it sticks? The media reported it all so the likelihood of any of the jury going in without preconceived ideas was slim to none! :p

Wasn't the most damning evidence against him the notes from the psychiatrist of the woman he had sex with? Apparently they went back 15 years and we're the smae story she said in court. pretty damning if that is the case, yet if she was going to a psychiatrist and saying he abused her at 13 you would think this case would have come up years ago...
 
Back
Top Bottom