Rolf Harris arrested on sexual charges

My childhood is definitely destroyed over this. Used to watch Animal Hospital all the time.

Makes you wonder if there are any others like Harris in this generation?
 
Amp34 said:
Basically there were four images that may (or may not) have been of underage girls which appear to have been automatically downloaded. So basically he viewed a site with them on but didn't physically download them.

I love the idea that knowing how to delete your history is a case against him... Every male over the age of about 13 knows how to delete their history (and I'm guessing a significant proportion of girls as well). :p
Click to expand...
I was thinking that after reading a facebook comment by a Harris friend on this subject
Some of you may be seeing all the **** flying about in the media about Rolf and the internet, I'm sure you must feel concerned, so i'll tell you this; Everybody close to Rolf knows who sat at his computer and did the porn searching. All I can say is this, I cannot name the individual, but I will say that he was/is the very same age as the "teens' being looked at or searched for on the computer and has been banned from using the internet by his family. He used to visit Rolf with his parents and use the computer when Rolf was asleep, this is fact and known by, not only the Harris family, but also by the police and the CPS. Ask yourself this, why would the CPS and police not use the evidence if it could have stood up in court? Because there were no "indecent" images found on the computer, only the lustful searches of a misguided young male visitor to the house.
Click to expand...
 
diamount said:
Doesn't matter, he has still been charged. That just further proves he was a dirty old *****.
Click to expand...

But it had no bearing on the trial that just happened... He was charged, and they have subsequently been dropped.

I'm also assuming that the likelihood of them ever having gone to court on their own was slim to none. "This person has looked at porn and there are four images that may or may not be of someone under the age of 18 on one of the many websites he viewed...".

He is an old man that looked at porn. Decidedly dodgy by the sounds of the websites but legal it appears (by the assumption that only four out of hundreds/thousands of images he viewed may have been of people under 18).

EDIT: And if fornowagain's post is accurate then it's not even that. The whole proceeding would have been laughed out of court, which is why the CPS wanted to use it to set a scene of him being a dirty perv rather than try him on it alone. It goes back to the question Combat squirrel asked earlier, character assassination. The prosecution use multiple "victims" and anything else to make it appear like he was/is a dirty perf and the defence try to paint him as a friendly one man (hence him singing and talking about the wobble board) and portraying the "victims" as deluded/spiteful in some way.
 
Last edited:
Is he guilty i don't know but i know the sentence was incredibly lenient, 5yrs is taking the **** for the crimes he is supposed to have committed.

I have no faith in the courts of this country i know people that have been jurors that could barely tie there laces.
 
Sayso said:
Is he guilty i don't know but i know the sentence was incredibly lenient, 5yrs is taking the **** for the crimes he is supposed to have committed.
Click to expand...

K1LLSW1TCH said:
Have people talking about the length of the sentence missed this:

Harris was prosecuted based on the law when his offences were committed, when the maximum sentence for indecent assault was two years in prison, or five years for victims under 13.
Click to expand...

There just seems to be people comparing his crimes to similar crimes committed more recently.
Click to expand...
 
Cant help but think after Jimmy Saville, theres been a need to bring a big name to justice over similar crimes for closure of some sort and Rolf being such a target.
I'm not saying he's innocent but its quite worrying when he can be found guilty on a testament of someone remembering when they were 7/8 with no evidence to even suggest he was in the area. Thats if the articles posted above can be trusted.
 
Tefal said:
i think he means min our current childrens tv presenters
Click to expand...

Ah that makes much more sense as a comment then, 'this' and rolf close beside one another generating the confusion.

One hopes not.

Also, I recently though it was good, if good is ever the descriptive in a case, that Matthew Kelly was wrongly accused and then cleared well prior to any of these events or revelations, else he would have been tarred with the same brush of universal pre-case condemnation.
 
LizardKing said:
Cant help but think after Jimmy Saville, theres been a need to bring a big name to justice over similar crimes for closure of some sort and Rolf being such a target.
I'm not saying he's innocent but its quite worrying when he can be found guilty on a testament of someone remembering when they were 7/8 with no evidence to even suggest he was in the area. Thats if the articles posted above can be trusted.
Click to expand...

- edited to please the chap below who seems to feel that groping kids shouldn't get you jail time
 
Last edited:
Hikari Kisugi said:
He claimed never to have been in cambridge, then at the trial footage emerged of him appearing on its a knockout, in cambridge, at the time he was accussed, and beside that other well known paedo, Stuart Hall.
Click to expand...
It was "Star Games", not "It's A Knockout".
It was filmed in 1978, not 1975 [so not at the time of the accusation].
It was filmed in a different part of Cambridge [so not at the location of the accusation].
It's unlikely that Stuart Hall was there. Star Games was an ITV rival to It's A Knockout, and there's no mention of him in the cast list on IMDB. However, Savile was on it a few times apparently, so if you absolutely must have your paedogeddon fix, a quick edit should steer your post at least a little way towards the Land of Fact :p

I don't know about anyone else, but it doesn't sit well with me that the victim's multiple errors of recall in this instance were deemed acceptable, yet the accused's single error of recall was considered a smoking gun by some.

One would think that such a traumatic event would be seared in unhappy memory. While I've not been the victim of a sexual assault, the physical criminal assaults I have experienced in my past are still pretty bloody vivid some 25 years later; misremembering the exact locations of them just would not happen.
 
It has been said by a victim on another forum that they often enjoy it at the time (a bit of exciting naughtiness back in the '70s) and the recent publicity with Saville etc.. and the links with all his other weirdness has caused them to feel shame and disgust.
 
Can someone explain this sentencing based upon the limits at the time thing?
Does this mean if a particularly nasty killer from the early 60s is found they'd be up for hanging?
Or is it just a one way street used to give some disgusting old men a lesser sentence?
 
Dis86 said:
Can someone explain this sentencing based upon the limits at the time thing?
Does this mean if a particularly nasty killer from the early 60s is found they'd be up for hanging?
Or is it just a one way street used to give some disgusting old men a lesser sentence?
Click to expand...

The legal headache of punishing someone for doing something that was accepted at the time it was done. Laws and ethics change a lot over 50 years, would you want people in 50 years time judging you for doing something that you are doing and is accepted now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom