Rolf Harris
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Helmet46  Croydon 30 Jun 14 8.37pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 8.31pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 30 Jun 2014 8.06pm
I have a problem, Stirling. My faith in the jury system has taken a serious kicking over the last week or so. I cannot for the life of me understand how Coulson gets convicted on a range of charges yet Brooks gets an acquittal on the same accusations. I don't see how he can have been guilty yet she wasn't. It makes me very uncomfortable and starting to believe that the state can fix these things. I've posted on this elsewhere. I'm gutted at the Rolf Harris convictions. Like many others, I couldn't believe that he, of all people, would have done stuff like that. Yet there were twelve separate charges and twelve unanimous guilty verdicts. No dissent anywhere. No majority verdicts needed. No vested interest from the Establishment to influence it either way. In a trial of this nature, I'm reluctantly coming to terms with the fact that the evidence must have been overwhelming. I can't see the trial process and the jury's verdict as anything other than completely transparent. I think you need to come to terms with this one, fella, as I have,no matter how unpalatable the whole dismal business is. And I'm the most cynical f*cker there is. Edited by Cucking Funt (30 Jun 2014 8.07pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 30 Jun 14 8.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 8.37pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 8.31pm
Quote Cucking Funt at 30 Jun 2014 8.06pm
I have a problem, Stirling. My faith in the jury system has taken a serious kicking over the last week or so. I cannot for the life of me understand how Coulson gets convicted on a range of charges yet Brooks gets an acquittal on the same accusations. I don't see how he can have been guilty yet she wasn't. It makes me very uncomfortable and starting to believe that the state can fix these things. I've posted on this elsewhere. I'm gutted at the Rolf Harris convictions. Like many others, I couldn't believe that he, of all people, would have done stuff like that. Yet there were twelve separate charges and twelve unanimous guilty verdicts. No dissent anywhere. No majority verdicts needed. No vested interest from the Establishment to influence it either way. In a trial of this nature, I'm reluctantly coming to terms with the fact that the evidence must have been overwhelming. I can't see the trial process and the jury's verdict as anything other than completely transparent. I think you need to come to terms with this one, fella, as I have,no matter how unpalatable the whole dismal business is. And I'm the most cynical f*cker there is. Edited by Cucking Funt (30 Jun 2014 8.07pm)
I've become more and more convinced that the government and/or its puppetmasters are capable of influencing judicial process when its/their interests are threatened (Rebekah Brooks and the bank charges case are two examples that spring immediately to mind). State manipulation and control are silently but inexorably on the increase.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 30 Jun 14 10.57pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.13pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jun 2014 6.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 5.50pm
Not comfortable with the Harris verdict......38 hours they took before the verdict. Not for me.
Rolf Harris is very famous, after the Saville case it isn't that far fetched to suspect that Harris was ripe for the picking. Maybe, but you still have to get a conviction, and its notoriously difficult in sex offences. A few others have walked recently, and a few have got sent down. Its hard to say, not having been in the court, but in the entire jury agreed. That said, with the reporting cover now lifted it seems that his defence fell apart in light of evidence, such as claiming to never have been to Cambridge (video and photographic evidence apparently supports the woman's description of events).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
hibbystu  tadworth 01 Jul 14 12.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
I have a problem that this convicted sex offender is allowed to go home for a few days before conviction, a lesser person on lesser charges would be remanded in custody
I support Scotland, Hibs and the Palace, no glory hunters here!!!!!! PLEASE SIR, CAN I HAVE A PIE!! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 01 Jul 14 12.19am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote hibbystu at 01 Jul 2014 12.00am
I have a problem that this convicted sex offender is allowed to go home for a few days before conviction, a lesser person on lesser charges would be remanded in custody
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 01 Jul 14 12.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Probably the best Rolf impersonator ever. From 2:47
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jul 14 10.22am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote hibbystu at 01 Jul 2014 12.00am
I have a problem that this convicted sex offender is allowed to go home for a few days before conviction, a lesser person on lesser charges would be remanded in custody Yeah, it seems a bit odd to me that anyone facing a custodial sentence would be allowed out on bail pending a sentencing hearing. Let alone a sex offender. But thats prison cost cuts. The same kind of cost cutting policy that allows predators like Robert Black to be on limited release (despite having been sent back to prison a year ago for breaching his bail conditions). Opps sorry, Robert Black. Edited by jamiemartin721 (01 Jul 2014 10.23am)
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 01 Jul 14 11.00am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 8.34pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.57pm
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 6.54pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.13pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jun 2014 6.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 5.50pm
Not comfortable with the Harris verdict......38 hours they took before the verdict. Not for me.
Rolf Harris is very famous, after the Saville case it isn't that far fetched to suspect that Harris was ripe for the picking.
There is money to be made and with their identity protected no downside to the case failing. I trust the justice system. 12 charges, 12 guilty verdicts and that's hard to achieve - especially if some on the jury were star struck. Wasn't there a letter he wrote, apologising to a victims family? Remember some have got off - Michael le veil, bill roache etc. It's very sad but he's tied his last kangaroo down, Sport. (Maybe he could be done for that as well)?
I'd love to believe the jury system works, but I've been in plenty of meetings where the person who's actually right is brow-beaten to agreeing with people who are wrong but more confident or bolshy, and I see no reason to suspect that the deliberation room would be any different. I think I'd rather be tried by a panel of judges.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jul 14 1.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 01 Jul 2014 11.00am
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 8.34pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.57pm
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 6.54pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.13pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jun 2014 6.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 5.50pm
Not comfortable with the Harris verdict......38 hours they took before the verdict. Not for me.
Rolf Harris is very famous, after the Saville case it isn't that far fetched to suspect that Harris was ripe for the picking.
There is money to be made and with their identity protected no downside to the case failing. I trust the justice system. 12 charges, 12 guilty verdicts and that's hard to achieve - especially if some on the jury were star struck. Wasn't there a letter he wrote, apologising to a victims family? Remember some have got off - Michael le veil, bill roache etc. It's very sad but he's tied his last kangaroo down, Sport. (Maybe he could be done for that as well)?
I'd love to believe the jury system works, but I've been in plenty of meetings where the person who's actually right is brow-beaten to agreeing with people who are wrong but more confident or bolshy, and I see no reason to suspect that the deliberation room would be any different. I think I'd rather be tried by a panel of judges. I spent a few years working in the Court Service. Its not that uncommon for some members of the Jury to want to go through all of the evidence again and discuss all points. So people just want to make sure, when someones life is on the line.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 01 Jul 14 1.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2014 1.28pm
Quote npn at 01 Jul 2014 11.00am
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 8.34pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.57pm
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 6.54pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.13pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jun 2014 6.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 5.50pm
Not comfortable with the Harris verdict......38 hours they took before the verdict. Not for me.
Rolf Harris is very famous, after the Saville case it isn't that far fetched to suspect that Harris was ripe for the picking.
There is money to be made and with their identity protected no downside to the case failing. I trust the justice system. 12 charges, 12 guilty verdicts and that's hard to achieve - especially if some on the jury were star struck. Wasn't there a letter he wrote, apologising to a victims family? Remember some have got off - Michael le veil, bill roache etc. It's very sad but he's tied his last kangaroo down, Sport. (Maybe he could be done for that as well)?
I'd love to believe the jury system works, but I've been in plenty of meetings where the person who's actually right is brow-beaten to agreeing with people who are wrong but more confident or bolshy, and I see no reason to suspect that the deliberation room would be any different. I think I'd rather be tried by a panel of judges. I spent a few years working in the Court Service. Its not that uncommon for some members of the Jury to want to go through all of the evidence again and discuss all points. So people just want to make sure, when someones life is on the line.
I think you put a lot of faith in the moral standards of Joe Public and, indeed, his intelligence, neither of which I think is necessarily warranted. Edited by npn (01 Jul 2014 1.57pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
regal_eagle  somewhere 01 Jul 14 2.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Damning footage of Rolf's daring attempted escape from justice:
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 01 Jul 14 2.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote npn at 01 Jul 2014 1.56pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 01 Jul 2014 1.28pm
Quote npn at 01 Jul 2014 11.00am
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 8.34pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.57pm
Quote Helmet46 at 30 Jun 2014 6.54pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 6.13pm
Quote Kermit8 at 30 Jun 2014 6.10pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 30 Jun 2014 5.50pm
Not comfortable with the Harris verdict......38 hours they took before the verdict. Not for me.
Rolf Harris is very famous, after the Saville case it isn't that far fetched to suspect that Harris was ripe for the picking.
There is money to be made and with their identity protected no downside to the case failing. I trust the justice system. 12 charges, 12 guilty verdicts and that's hard to achieve - especially if some on the jury were star struck. Wasn't there a letter he wrote, apologising to a victims family? Remember some have got off - Michael le veil, bill roache etc. It's very sad but he's tied his last kangaroo down, Sport. (Maybe he could be done for that as well)?
I'd love to believe the jury system works, but I've been in plenty of meetings where the person who's actually right is brow-beaten to agreeing with people who are wrong but more confident or bolshy, and I see no reason to suspect that the deliberation room would be any different. I think I'd rather be tried by a panel of judges. I spent a few years working in the Court Service. Its not that uncommon for some members of the Jury to want to go through all of the evidence again and discuss all points. So people just want to make sure, when someones life is on the line.
I think you put a lot of faith in the moral standards of Joe Public and, indeed, his intelligence, neither of which I think is necessarily warranted. Edited by npn (01 Jul 2014 1.57pm) You definately get them, but you also get people who go the other way and take their duty seriously.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.