Rolf Harris
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Part Time James  08 Feb 17 3.35pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
He's innocent of 3 charges, but the others still stand. I have unease about convictions for 'historical' abuse, as there are no witnesses, or DNA evidence available. Doesn't mean suspects are Not Guilty, just that it is incredibly difficult to prove with certainty, particularly when large periods of time have elapsed. Still RH should get plenty of sex in prison,... No use to him if he's into 13 to 19 year olds. He might be lucky and get some 18 or 19 year olds but younger than that probably won't be in the same prison as him. Unless he asks for one as his last meal.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| steeleye20 Croydon 08 Feb 17 3.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
'making a sexual comment while stroking the bare skin of a 19-year-old’s lower back at a London music studio in 2002.' This is the type of 'sex crime' Harris is accused of. There is no abuse of minors here or even sex itself.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 08 Feb 17 3.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
'making a sexual comment while stroking the bare skin of a 19-year-old’s lower back at a London music studio in 2002.' This is the type of 'sex crime' Harris is accused of. There is no abuse of minors here or even sex itself. To be fair, that's just living the dream. He's not in prison for that though is he?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 08 Feb 17 3.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
'making a sexual comment while stroking the bare skin of a 19-year-old’s lower back at a London music studio in 2002.' This is the type of 'sex crime' Harris is accused of. There is no abuse of minors here or even sex itself. A balanced view of all this I think:
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Feb 17 4.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Part Time James
To be fair, that's just living the dream. He's not in prison for that though is he? No for f**king his daughters friend from the age of about 13 onwards.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 08 Feb 17 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No for f**king his daughters friend from the age of about 13 onwards. Yeah, see, that is NOT living the dream. If he did it.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 08 Feb 17 4.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Yeah, if they're falsely accused they should. But that doesn't mean people who are not guilty. A number of accused celebrities were found not guilty, and then lost civil cases. Including Dr Fox.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 08 Feb 17 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Yeah, if they're falsely accused they should. But that doesn't mean people who are not guilty. A number of accused celebrities were found not guilty, and then lost civil cases. Including Dr Fox. What ever he has done or not done he has certainly paid for it big time. There are a lot worse scum out there who don't get anything like the coverage. I don't like picking on easy targets.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 08 Feb 17 5.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Yeah, if they're falsely accused they should. But that doesn't mean people who are not guilty. A number of accused celebrities were found not guilty, and then lost civil cases. Including Dr Fox. ~And this is because civil cases are decided on the balance of probability.
"The facts have changed", Rishi Sunak |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sickboy Deal or Croydon 08 Feb 17 5.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Being responsible for the stylophone should have been punishable by death.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
twist  Miami, Florida 08 Feb 17 5.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I have to say i am confused about what evidence he was convicted on. As far as i can see, its purely the word of the alleged victims from as far back as 50 years ago! Now it may be that he did do all this and is a dirty old geezer that needs to be punished, but having read alot about the case, i dont see upon what evidence he was convicted. Maybe someone can enlighten me ?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 08 Feb 17 6.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by twist
I have to say i am confused about what evidence he was convicted on. As far as i can see, its purely the word of the alleged victims from as far back as 50 years ago! Now it may be that he did do all this and is a dirty old geezer that needs to be punished, but having read alot about the case, i dont see upon what evidence he was convicted. Maybe someone can enlighten me ? Shame they weren't so rigorous with taxi-drivers in Rotherham.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| 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.