Rolf Harris - trial starts today
Discussion
Kaj91 said:
Rolf Harris to be charged with seven counts of indecent assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
I thought the Met were changing tact after the recent issues and not instantly accepting a victims statement of a crime as fact rather investigate find the details and if strong enough case progress if lies prosecute the fake victim. Why have these assault cases now sprung up? If it's 1 persons word v another zero evidence zero witnesses then I simply don't get it. Sure a pattern of events but you build it into one big case not drawn out for years giving a monster all that public face time which if he is a monster will revel in it being in the limelight.
Now about that 19 year old who raped a 12 year old (not copped a feel of a boob in passing in the corridor) got one years suspended sentence. Sorry a boob grope while deserving of a slap punch etc is all it is, raping a 12 year old getting a 12 month suspended sentence... How is that possible and if that the right sentence why is Rolf getting nailed by what can only be described as a trivial crime in comparison.
Welshbeef said:
Kaj91 said:
Rolf Harris to be charged with seven counts of indecent assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
I thought the Met were changing tact after the recent issues and not instantly accepting a victims statement of a crime as fact rather investigate find the details and if strong enough case progress if lies prosecute the fake victim.There have been several Op Yewtree cases where no further action has been taken. Naturally, they're interpreted not as the Met / CPS concluding there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction, but that they were a 'witch hunt' or some such other fiction. They can't win.
Welshbeef said:
Why have these assault cases now sprung up?
Perhaps victims have confidence to report the matters as they'll be taken seriously now, as opposed to when the offences occurred. I'm not suggesting you hold the following views, but there's evidentially a gross exaggeration amongst a lot of posters here as to how many people will make up being a victim of sexual offences.
La Liga said:
Welshbeef said:
Kaj91 said:
Rolf Harris to be charged with seven counts of indecent assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
I thought the Met were changing tact after the recent issues and not instantly accepting a victims statement of a crime as fact rather investigate find the details and if strong enough case progress if lies prosecute the fake victim.There have been several Op Yewtree cases where no further action has been taken. Naturally, they're interpreted not as the Met / CPS concluding there isn't a realistic prospect of conviction, but that they were a 'witch hunt' or some such other fiction. They can't win.
Welshbeef said:
Why have these assault cases now sprung up?
Perhaps victims have confidence to report the matters as they'll be taken seriously now, as opposed to when the offences occurred. I'm not suggesting you hold the following views, but there's evidentially a gross exaggeration amongst a lot of posters here as to how many people will make up being a victim of sexual offences.
Said case had the notes from the police and Hogan Howes lawyers did some investigative investigation and found out that actually key interviews which should have happened never did (even when identified that they would clear him entirely) those people hadn't even been contacted by the police.
Clearly we all want guilty people charged and punished accordingly but to destroy innocent people's lives financially ruin them with no recourse is diabolical. They also refuse to then charge the fake victim in those cases - why?
Before they go public with any names they have to keep it totally secret no location or age or celebrity instead find without questionable doubt evidence then expand.
The press it's not their fault it's the system.
Welshbeef said:
I think you'll find that is not the case hence Bernard Hogan Howe - simply believed instantly the "victim" Perseus said Hogan Howe like a vile sexual predator destroying his life credibility life savings too (they don't seem to repay lawyer costs if wrongly going after an innocent..) and then finally when found to be utterly innocent refuse to apologise.
Said case had the notes from the police and Hogan Howes lawyers did some investigative investigation and found out that actually key interviews which should have happened never did (even when identified that they would clear him entirely) those people hadn't even been contacted by the police.
Clearly we all want guilty people charged and punished accordingly but to destroy innocent people's lives financially ruin them with no recourse is diabolical. They also refuse to then charge the fake victim in those cases - why?
Before they go public with any names they have to keep it totally secret no location or age or celebrity instead find without questionable doubt evidence then expand.
The press it's not their fault it's the system.
You realise, don't you, that the police are not responsible for the system but only work within it. Said case had the notes from the police and Hogan Howes lawyers did some investigative investigation and found out that actually key interviews which should have happened never did (even when identified that they would clear him entirely) those people hadn't even been contacted by the police.
Clearly we all want guilty people charged and punished accordingly but to destroy innocent people's lives financially ruin them with no recourse is diabolical. They also refuse to then charge the fake victim in those cases - why?
Before they go public with any names they have to keep it totally secret no location or age or celebrity instead find without questionable doubt evidence then expand.
The press it's not their fault it's the system.
The police were required to believe victims unless there was evidence not to. Hogan Howe would have to ensure that his force followed the guidelines. That's his job.
As for apologising: I was told never to apologise for something were the police had done nothing wrong. If the police followed the guidelines, then there's nothing to apologise for. The police might not like the system they have to work under so to ask them to apologise for it is rather beating them up twice.
Derek Smith said:
You realise, don't you, that the police are not responsible for the system but only work within it.
The police were required to believe victims unless there was evidence not to. Hogan Howe would have to ensure that his force followed the guidelines. That's his job.
As for apologising: I was told never to apologise for something were the police had done nothing wrong. If the police followed the guidelines, then there's nothing to apologise for. The police might not like the system they have to work under so to ask them to apologise for it is rather beating them up twice.
But in this case they didn't even investigate a key basic piece of info ie interview the witnesses which would have stopped the case there and then. The police were required to believe victims unless there was evidence not to. Hogan Howe would have to ensure that his force followed the guidelines. That's his job.
As for apologising: I was told never to apologise for something were the police had done nothing wrong. If the police followed the guidelines, then there's nothing to apologise for. The police might not like the system they have to work under so to ask them to apologise for it is rather beating them up twice.
Why should a victim lose everything money credibility his home over lies and the fact the police didn't do their job instead blindly believed a victim. Heck had those police been looking at the philpots they would be still free
Welshbeef said:
But in this case they didn't even investigate a key basic piece of info ie interview the witnesses which would have stopped the case there and then.
Why should a victim lose everything money credibility his home over lies and the fact the police didn't do their job instead blindly believed a victim. Heck had those police been looking at the philpots they would be still free
The problem when trying to work out what to believe in such cases is that the police are restrained from commenting. I've been on jobs where the press have taken a side and then truth and balance is lost. In my well reviewed book I mention a time when I was watching a report on a raid I'd been on the previous night and nothing that was said allowed me to realise that it was about my unit's actions, about me in one case. It was only when the woman turned in profile that I recognised her. I'd only had a glimpse of her when taken through the house she rented that was the biggest cannabis factory found in London and probably the UK up til that date. That wasn't mentioned on TV by the way.Why should a victim lose everything money credibility his home over lies and the fact the police didn't do their job instead blindly believed a victim. Heck had those police been looking at the philpots they would be still free
Virtually nothing of what was said was true. yet the TV company must have known it was all rubbish as they had enough police officers in their pay at that time.
I know of a case during riots where a PC was suspended for over a year, 14 months I think, and his crime was highlighted on World in Action more than once and there were even questions in the House about the incidents that that particular one was part of. At that time I was part of a lead PSU shield team and I wondered how such a dreadful incident could have occurred. The point was, of course, that it hadn't. It was all made up. I was just gullible enough to believe it because it was in the 'quality' press and on TV.
There were TV programmes about how inept my police force was for picking on one individual who was completely innocent of a double murder. There were articles in the national press, including many in the one which funded the chap's defence, plus more in TV programmes and two books. The consensus was that the police had picked on the bloke and ignored evidence against another when in fact the 'another' had been eliminated early on in the enquiry. The bloke was later convicted of attempted murder on another case before the books were published.
So whenever I see reports of totally inept police work my immediate assumption is that there is more to it than the condensed version we read in the press. That's experience for you, corrupts your view of sensationalism.
That the police do make mistakes is a given. No one is perfect, and no systems are either. However, even when they do, the errors are normally missed by the press.
Ok but they are suspended on full salary and their legal fees are covered.
Those joe public accused and genuinely innocent can face financial ruin credibility ruined and forever more there will be countless people thinking no smoke.
That's the crux of it. A lair claim they lose nothing maybe a caution but they don't suffer £500k ++ legal fees which wiped them out lose their jobs disowned by family and friends
Those joe public accused and genuinely innocent can face financial ruin credibility ruined and forever more there will be countless people thinking no smoke.
That's the crux of it. A lair claim they lose nothing maybe a caution but they don't suffer £500k ++ legal fees which wiped them out lose their jobs disowned by family and friends
Welshbeef said:
Ok but they are suspended on full salary and their legal fees are covered.
Those joe public accused and genuinely innocent can face financial ruin credibility ruined and forever more there will be countless people thinking no smoke.
That's the crux of it. A lair claim they lose nothing maybe a caution but they don't suffer £500k ++ legal fees which wiped them out lose their jobs disowned by family and friends
The police pay into a federation which allows them, under certain circumstances, legal support.Those joe public accused and genuinely innocent can face financial ruin credibility ruined and forever more there will be countless people thinking no smoke.
That's the crux of it. A lair claim they lose nothing maybe a caution but they don't suffer £500k ++ legal fees which wiped them out lose their jobs disowned by family and friends
As for suspended on full salary, if they are charged they are still innocent. Are you suggesting they should be punished just for being suspected of an offence.
As for losing nothing, there are a number of police officers who have been fined for a criminal offence and then sacked. I've got no problem with the double-jeopardy aspect. As a police officer you've got to accept that if you misbehave sufficiently badly, you cannot continue in the Job. However, the officer had paid into a pension fund and if sacked they lose all benefits. We get cries on here that a police officer should 'lose their pension'. Penalised three times.
Hardly fair.
Derek Smith said:
The police pay into a federation which allows them, under certain circumstances, legal support.
As for suspended on full salary, if they are charged they are still innocent. Are you suggesting they should be punished just for being suspected of an offence.
As for losing nothing, there are a number of police officers who have been fined for a criminal offence and then sacked. I've got no problem with the double-jeopardy aspect. As a police officer you've got to accept that if you misbehave sufficiently badly, you cannot continue in the Job. However, the officer had paid into a pension fund and if sacked they lose all benefits. We get cries on here that a police officer should 'lose their pension'. Penalised three times.
Hardly fair.
Hold on. As for suspended on full salary, if they are charged they are still innocent. Are you suggesting they should be punished just for being suspected of an offence.
As for losing nothing, there are a number of police officers who have been fined for a criminal offence and then sacked. I've got no problem with the double-jeopardy aspect. As a police officer you've got to accept that if you misbehave sufficiently badly, you cannot continue in the Job. However, the officer had paid into a pension fund and if sacked they lose all benefits. We get cries on here that a police officer should 'lose their pension'. Penalised three times.
Hardly fair.
I'm interested in innocent individuals who have been persued as guilty for yew tree or sexual crimes.
My point re suspended on full pay as a copper was to highlight the difference v member of the public who would lose their job /!not be suspended on full pay until the trail is over. Coppers get it no one else does they lose their job possibly their home as they cannot pay during the time they are unemployed.
Coppers have lawyers fully paid up joe public doesn't which if in s vile situation they are innocent it skins them. Broke credibility in the sewer everyone hates you etc no chance of getting a job.
Welshbeef said:
Hold on.
I'm interested in innocent individuals who have been persued as guilty for yew tree or sexual crimes.
My point re suspended on full pay as a copper was to highlight the difference v member of the public who would lose their job /!not be suspended on full pay until the trail is over. Coppers get it no one else does they lose their job possibly their home as they cannot pay during the time they are unemployed.
Coppers have lawyers fully paid up joe public doesn't which if in s vile situation they are innocent it skins them. Broke credibility in the sewer everyone hates you etc no chance of getting a job.
I'm not sure your points are valid. Police officers pay into a fund for legal representation, and there's nothing to stop this Joe Public chap doing the same. I'm not a police officer yet I have an insurance for legal representation if I have an accident, if anyone sues me for damages for other matter and if I cause damage whilst performing my job. I'm interested in innocent individuals who have been persued as guilty for yew tree or sexual crimes.
My point re suspended on full pay as a copper was to highlight the difference v member of the public who would lose their job /!not be suspended on full pay until the trail is over. Coppers get it no one else does they lose their job possibly their home as they cannot pay during the time they are unemployed.
Coppers have lawyers fully paid up joe public doesn't which if in s vile situation they are innocent it skins them. Broke credibility in the sewer everyone hates you etc no chance of getting a job.
When I was a joe public I used to belong to a union. The subs allowed me extensive free legal advice on any matter and could, if it was work related, pay for the whole case or defence if a criminal matter.
So the legal representation bit is a bit is a red herring.
As for losing jobs and houses, the police are not exempt from this I can assure you.
You suggest that people are being sacked merely for being charged or even investigated for an offence. I was under the impression that there was employment protection that precluded that.
A police officer was sacked without the employers following the proper procedure. He successfully appealed, the process taking a bit over 18 mnths. All he did was take another job in the downtime, obviously not police work, so didn't lose his home and, rather ironically, earned more money than he would have done if still employed by the police and he didn't have to pay the pension and other matters, which were paid by the job once the appeal was found for him and he returned to work.
If you are suggesting that those in the public eye suffer more that us plebs, which includes police officers of course, then I would agree with you, but does that mean they should be treated in a different manner to anyone else?
No I mean one standard for all.
However it would appear there are some gold diggers or simply vindictive individuals who want to destroy someone's career (clearly I'm strictly talking about cases where the "victim" is fabricating the facts.
I do wonder if these unions would have provided the same level of defence needed by the Gay MP or the Lib Dem MP both paying out in the region of £250k. They are not wealthy people that's life savings gone.
Even "celebs" their life savings could be gone and of course while the trail is ongoing 18months they will not get appearance fees or anything their job is entertainment. Who in their right mind would book a celeb on a peodophile charge ... No one so earnings are zero. That is totally lost income plus the cost of the defence plus the ongoing detriment to their earning capability (they will always be tarred even if innocent "no smoke" perception).
Sure they are or could be wealthy but that's irrelevant the principle has to be the same for all.
However it would appear there are some gold diggers or simply vindictive individuals who want to destroy someone's career (clearly I'm strictly talking about cases where the "victim" is fabricating the facts.
I do wonder if these unions would have provided the same level of defence needed by the Gay MP or the Lib Dem MP both paying out in the region of £250k. They are not wealthy people that's life savings gone.
Even "celebs" their life savings could be gone and of course while the trail is ongoing 18months they will not get appearance fees or anything their job is entertainment. Who in their right mind would book a celeb on a peodophile charge ... No one so earnings are zero. That is totally lost income plus the cost of the defence plus the ongoing detriment to their earning capability (they will always be tarred even if innocent "no smoke" perception).
Sure they are or could be wealthy but that's irrelevant the principle has to be the same for all.
Welshbeef said:
No I mean one standard for all.
However it would appear there are some gold diggers or simply vindictive individuals who want to destroy someone's career (clearly I'm strictly talking about cases where the "victim" is fabricating the facts.
I do wonder if these unions would have provided the same level of defence needed by the Gay MP or the Lib Dem MP both paying out in the region of £250k. They are not wealthy people that's life savings gone.
Even "celebs" their life savings could be gone and of course while the trail is ongoing 18months they will not get appearance fees or anything their job is entertainment. Who in their right mind would book a celeb on a peodophile charge ... No one so earnings are zero. That is totally lost income plus the cost of the defence plus the ongoing detriment to their earning capability (they will always be tarred even if innocent "no smoke" perception).
Sure they are or could be wealthy but that's irrelevant the principle has to be the same for all.
I agree that the celebs and those who depend on their reputation for their jobs are hard done by in the legal process. I'm all for a conditional right of anonymity to those accused of rape and other offences that cause disgust in most people's eyes, but there's little I can do about it. However it would appear there are some gold diggers or simply vindictive individuals who want to destroy someone's career (clearly I'm strictly talking about cases where the "victim" is fabricating the facts.
I do wonder if these unions would have provided the same level of defence needed by the Gay MP or the Lib Dem MP both paying out in the region of £250k. They are not wealthy people that's life savings gone.
Even "celebs" their life savings could be gone and of course while the trail is ongoing 18months they will not get appearance fees or anything their job is entertainment. Who in their right mind would book a celeb on a peodophile charge ... No one so earnings are zero. That is totally lost income plus the cost of the defence plus the ongoing detriment to their earning capability (they will always be tarred even if innocent "no smoke" perception).
Sure they are or could be wealthy but that's irrelevant the principle has to be the same for all.
It faults in the system effects us 'plebs' as well. I once considered suing the police. Ironically given our discussion, I went to a lawyer of my own, much recommended. He advised me that I had an excellent case, although he could not promise anything given the vagaries of the system. But as even a brief (although not too brief that he didn't charge) oversight of the information I'd given him showed failures on their behalf, most indefensible, and he was quite confident of a result.
However, he said that his fees and mine would probably eat into any award and I'd be lucky to end up with a holiday in Skegness. When I said, truthfully, that I wasn't going for the money but just to prove a point, he was adamant that I should abandon the idea.
Excellent advice as it turned out. I can see now why he was so highly recommended.
Derek Smith said:
I agree that the celebs and those who depend on their reputation for their jobs are hard done by in the legal process. I'm all for a conditional right of anonymity to those accused of rape and other offences that cause disgust in most people's eyes, but there's little I can do about it.
It faults in the system effects us 'plebs' as well. I once considered suing the police. Ironically given our discussion, I went to a lawyer of my own, much recommended. He advised me that I had an excellent case, although he could not promise anything given the vagaries of the system. But as even a brief (although not too brief that he didn't charge) oversight of the information I'd given him showed failures on their behalf, most indefensible, and he was quite confident of a result.
However, he said that his fees and mine would probably eat into any award and I'd be lucky to end up with a holiday in Skegness. When I said, truthfully, that I wasn't going for the money but just to prove a point, he was adamant that I should abandon the idea.
Excellent advice as it turned out. I can see now why he was so highly recommended.
This is actually an interesting point - with yew tree by its very nature they are trying to build a case they simply don't have enough evidence with the one individual alone hence they release the name in the hope it draws in others. It faults in the system effects us 'plebs' as well. I once considered suing the police. Ironically given our discussion, I went to a lawyer of my own, much recommended. He advised me that I had an excellent case, although he could not promise anything given the vagaries of the system. But as even a brief (although not too brief that he didn't charge) oversight of the information I'd given him showed failures on their behalf, most indefensible, and he was quite confident of a result.
However, he said that his fees and mine would probably eat into any award and I'd be lucky to end up with a holiday in Skegness. When I said, truthfully, that I wasn't going for the money but just to prove a point, he was adamant that I should abandon the idea.
Excellent advice as it turned out. I can see now why he was so highly recommended.
Sadly people get ruined. Look at Freddie Star, turns out totally innocent but physically he went from looking the way he did to like a very sick man all the stress has medically damaged him.
His reputation is in tatters though innocent.
I'd wager he is possibly a recluse now following the public anger and trolls and press ruining his life.
Is that right?
Should the fake victim be punished? Yes. But they don't ever.
Didn't one celeb try to sue the fake victim for deformation of character turns out they are stone broke on benefits etc so a fruitless exercise apart from getting public awareness (but would cost them hugely in legal fees).
All of this is when innocent clearly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff