Rolf Harris Jailed

[Silver_Shiney]

Manoverboard wrote:
Onelife wrote:
I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

I take my hat off to you young Sir ...

Tell me ... during your youth and one's period of sowing wild oats can we all assume that you were as pure as the driven snow and did not grope or fondle a young girl who may have been under the age of consent ?

Come on, get real ... we were all at it in the good old days but some got found out due to their celebrity status.

None of this rests easy with me, a few have taken a fall to make others feel good about themselves ... it is false emotion for the most part.


Not forgetting that a lot of girls were sexually precocious themselves. I am not, in any way, suggesting that the girls in the RH case were so but I've seen plenty of underage girls "trying it on".

That is where I got my opinion from.

Then you should try reading what was actually said, instead of putting your own slant on it.

[Dancing Queen]

Manoverboard wrote:
Onelife wrote:
I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

I take my hat off to you young Sir ...

Tell me ... during your youth and one's period of sowing wild oats can we all assume that you were as pure as the driven snow and did not grope or fondle a young girl who may have been under the age of consent ?

Come on, get real ... we were all at it in the good old days but some got found out due to their celebrity status.

None of this rests easy with me, a few have taken a fall to make others feel good about themselves ... it is false emotion for the most part.


Not forgetting that a lot of girls were sexually precocious themselves. I am not, in any way, suggesting that the girls in the RH case were so but I've seen plenty of underage girls "trying it on".

That is where I got my opinion from.

John, I think you are being unfair on Alan, I certainly didn't read his post as you have done, we all have our opinion on this and there have always been underage girls who have flaunted themselves, any sensible self respecting person would show them the door but I think there is a lot of difference between an 18/19 year old being taken in by a 14/15 year old girl who has deliberately made herself appear older to a 40+ man who is married and a father abusing an 8 year old and even if the other girls appeared older that doesn't excuse RH taking advantage of them ... fine if he was young, free and single but he wasn't !!!

[Manoverboard]

Any fair minded and normal male surely knows that sowing one's wild oats does NOT include EIGHT year olds but if not then so be it ... my comments stand.

OL can however, if he so wishes, advise us that he did / did not familiarise himself with a few 14 and 15 year olds during his formative years.

[Boris+]

I am finding this whole episode of a series of these 'trials' and all the accompanying media attention distasteful. I think I would like to see a situation where new 'laws' or 'rules/guidelines' for 'law enforcers' to come into play - so that (a) there would be a time limit on making a complaint (eg say up to 5 years after an alleged offence) (b) a limit on the type of alleged offence being taken seriously (simply brushing against someone isn't really an offence, an innocent accidental 'collision' between two people isn't a sexual offence either I think) and (c) the absolute necessity for provision of forensic evidence.

I think that the CPS and other agencies are taking these allegations too seriously; and I suspect that some people making allegations are either hoping for fame, fortune or notoriety and at least sympathy and rewards to be garnered therefrom.

I really don't think that the majority of these situations are truly serious, and not worth pursuing - and a waste of the public purse to boot.

I knew of a woman who had a 13 year old daughter - and this kid was extremely attractive, didn't have a child-like voice, and took a particular delight in passing herself off as much, much older. (And the blasted mother thought this was a fine game too!). In that sort of situation I think that the mother should have been 'talked to', and I think that the girl should have been helped to find joy in the last days of childhood.

At the same time, I knew of a man who climbed up the ladder of respectability, followed a professional life in the legal profession and a bit of lay-preaching as a hobby. So far so good - but this horrid man used his professional position and veil of respectability gained in the community through his religious involvement to act as though he was 'Teflon-coated', and he used to purposefully kerb-crawl along a road trying to chat to school children on their way home; and used to try and entice kids into his car. He wasn't a celebrity, but he was an evil man - and because of his position etc he got away with it. Now that's what I call a monster. As it happens there would have been forensic evidence in this case because several babies resulted from his activities, but at that time DNA testing hadn't even been dreamt of.

So, I would like to see a time-limit on allegations being accepted for investigation, a limit on investigating allegations which aren't really all that serious, and a rule that forensic evidence be available before any legal action as such is pursued.

That should whittle down these time wasting cases, so that people who really are victims can get the help and support they need.

Em

[Dark Knight]

Alan
as usual you debate well and it is a shame that certain people are just looking for an argument and not reading what you actually wrote, doubtless an apology will be forthcoming?

there are no acceptable circumstances for taking advantage of young children, no matter what the excuse, however Moby has a point , in so far as young(teenage) boys and girls doing what charmingly used to be called "heavy petting", which by the strict letter of the law would mean virtually all teenage boys and girls would be on the sex offenders register or in prison
Even Saint Keefy of the chastity belt ,might have trouble with this one

so lets keep it in proportion and stick to the facts as presented, he did wrong, got caught and is now in jail, my only issue with all of this is the compo culture kicking in, if these poor peoples lives have been destroyed, then what price do you put on that and why has it taken so long for the now grown up people to come forward?
there was one person who claimed Saville had abused him and it was found he was lying and looking for money, which is why I remain sceptical about some of the "victims"

[Boris+]

Hi DK,

This might sound a bit harsh - generally, not at you - but you mentioned people whose lives had been 'ruined'. I'm going to sound a bit argumentative about this, but I don't mean it, I'm just being a bit clumsy with wordage - but surely people only let their lives be what they call 'ruined' maybe because they don't have the moral backbone to get on with their lives or because they are after compensation in one way or another.

What on earth has happened to the famous British 'stiff upper lip' attitude? Maybe it's a shame that it's not so prevalent nowadays? Time and time again I see people letting the smallest 'problems' get the better of them and then they get into this downwards spiral - and it's such a waste. For want of a bit of moral backbone they could put stuff behind them and look for a different direction in life.

It's a waste when people get into this downward suffering rut and either won't or can't break out of it. It's heartbreaking, and a shame - yes if something has happened and it's upset someone that's bad enough - it's let the perpetrator win. Can't we as a nation show these 'victims' that (a) there is 'another way' and that (b) suffering and 'wallowing' in suffering is only giving the perpetrators another 'victory' or 'control' over them?

It's all unpleasant and distasteful - mothering annoys me more than waste ... apart from people who make false allegations.

So, in my clumsy way, DK, if something has taken place, I am against this 'waste'.

Em

[Silver_Shiney]

Thanks for your support, guys.

What I don't understand is why some of the lenient sentences given to this pervert are consecutive and some are concurrent. In my view, the terms per crime should have been higher and consecutive. Not just for Harris but any criminal who is sent down for more than one offence.

[david63]

What I don't understand is why some of the lenient sentences given to this pervert are consecutive and some are concurrent. In my view, the terms per crime should have been higher and consecutive. Not just for Harris but any criminal who is sent down for more than one offence.

Probably down to the vagaries of our legal system

[Silver_Shiney]

What I don't understand is why some of the lenient sentences given to this pervert are consecutive and some are concurrent. In my view, the terms per crime should have been higher and consecutive. Not just for Harris but any criminal who is sent down for more than one offence.

Probably down to the vagaries of our legal system

Hardly an incentive to keep out of trouble though, is it? And now they're saying Harris will be out in three years? To my mind, it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

[Meg 50]

the 3 (after good behaviour) years was the most they could give him cos of the 'age' of the crimes. The same crimes these days would attract a much higher sentence

[Gill W]

Not detracting from the offences committed, but the words women and woodwork do leave a bitter taste.

If someone nicks you car or breaks into your house, would you leave it X number of years before reporting it. And yes, I know we are talking about sexual intimacy here, but come on, if you felt that offended wouldn't you either scream and shout and report it at the time, not years later.

The obviously felt that they wouldn't be believed, and no doubt would have been too frightened and cowed to speak about it.

On the one hand we have Rolf Harris, national treasure - on the other hand a young girl - who is the one who would be believed?

In fact, I think a lot of people are still struggling to believe it, and are focusing on peripheral issues like 'compo', because the truth is too horrible - a monster hid in plain sight, protected by his celebrity for decades

[Gill W]

Why was none of this reported before by those who were abused? Savile, Hall, Smith and now Harris were all sexual predators so why has it taken so long before anybody said anything? If the children did report the abuse why did those in positions of care and trust not bring it to the attention of the police?

Just asking...........

As above - particularly in the case of Savile and Harris - these men were regarded as national treasures - the victims obviously felt they would not be believed.

I remember the Savile thread on the old P&O site - I was completely incredulous that people could not allow themselves to believe that he had commited those terrible crimes for decades. The victims did not speak up because they knew peoples attitudes would be exactly as they were on that old P&O thread

[Silver_Shiney]

the 3 (after good behaviour) years was the most they could give him cos of the 'age' of the crimes. The same crimes these days would attract a much higher sentence

I don't buy that, Meg. As it said in the paper yesterday, if convicted of some historic crime, the defendant could, under that reasoning, still be executed.

[Gill W]

so lets keep it in proportion and stick to the facts as presented, he did wrong, got caught and is now in jail, my only issue with all of this is the compo culture kicking in, if these poor peoples lives have been destroyed, then what price do you put on that and why has it taken so long for the now grown up people to come forward?
there was one person who claimed Saville had abused him and it was found he was lying and looking for money, which is why I remain sceptical about some of the "victims"

I despise the compo culture.

But what is worse

A) A predatory sex offender operated for decades, cloaked in popularity and respectability

B) A few people get compo

I think A) is far worse, and as I said in my previous posts, people are getting hung up about compo, to avoid having to think about how all of us were fooled for so long by this evil man

[Meg 50]

the 3 (after good behaviour) years was the most they could give him cos of the 'age' of the crimes. The same crimes these days would attract a much higher sentence

I don't buy that, Meg. As it said in the paper yesterday, if convicted of some historic crime, the defendant could, under that reasoning, still be executed.

I only quoted - I didn't say I agreed.


as for your execution comment - that thought crossed my mind too!

[Mervyn and Trish]

so lets keep it in proportion and stick to the facts as presented, he did wrong, got caught and is now in jail, my only issue with all of this is the compo culture kicking in, if these poor peoples lives have been destroyed, then what price do you put on that and why has it taken so long for the now grown up people to come forward?
there was one person who claimed Saville had abused him and it was found he was lying and looking for money, which is why I remain sceptical about some of the "victims"

I despise the compo culture.

But what is worse

A) A predatory sex offender operated for decades, cloaked in popularity and respectability

B) A few people get compo

I think A) is far worse, and as I said in my previous posts, people are getting hung up about compo, to avoid having to think about how all of us were fooled for so long by this evil man

A is worse but they're both wrong if the few who get compo are not all genuine victims.

I have no problem with compo for genuine victims, such as those who have had the courage to stand up in court and be cross examined and have been believed.

I do have a problem with the "me too" element.

It has been known for a long time that RH would face trial on numerous counts. The argument for not protecting his identity until convicted, as used to happen in the old days with those accused of rape, was to enable other victims to come forward to add their evidence to the case.

But to come forward now, after he's convicted? Some will be genuine but, as Batty says, history shows us there may be others who are not. And that amounts to attempting to profit from the misery of others. And fraud.

[Gill W]

No doubt lots of genuine people will still not be willing to come forward, for fear of being thought a compo hunter

[david63]

As it said in the paper yesterday, if convicted of some historic crime, the defendant could, under that reasoning, still be executed.

Not so - the death penalty was abolished by Act of Parliament therefore it cannot be used - even for historic crimes that would have warranted it.

[Silver_Shiney]

the 3 (after good behaviour) years was the most they could give him cos of the 'age' of the crimes. The same crimes these days would attract a much higher sentence

I don't buy that, Meg. As it said in the paper yesterday, if convicted of some historic crime, the defendant could, under that reasoning, still be executed.

I only quoted - I didn't say I agreed.


as for your execution comment - that thought crossed my mind too!

I know you were only quoting, Meg.

[Silver_Shiney]

As it said in the paper yesterday, if convicted of some historic crime, the defendant could, under that reasoning, still be executed.

Not so - the death penalty was abolished by Act of Parliament therefore it cannot be used - even for historic crimes that would have warranted it.

But, sir, was it not an Act of Parliament that established that punishments were to be those in force at the time?

[Mervyn and Trish]

No doubt lots of genuine people will still not be willing to come forward, for fear of being thought a compo hunter

Probably quite right Gill. On the other hand, now he is convicted and in prison, so their evidence will add nothing to the case, what other reason would there be to come forward now? If they don't want a slice of that cake why risk their privacy now?

[Gill W]

Maybe they have bottled it up for a lifetime, and want to unburden themselves, finally thinking they'll be believed?

Perhaps they think it's now safe to come forward to do this