Rolf Harris - trial starts today

[10 Pence Short]

Purity14 said:

Oh my, its game over now.

Ill start the ball rolling with 8 Years, I reckon.

Hold your horses! You currently have a 50/50 chance of being right about him being guilty, but let's wait for the jury to tell us what they think before singing "Rolf and Jimmy up a tree, h-a-n-g-i-n-g".

[scenario8]

Purity14 said:

You mean its not a kangaroo court?

Very good. Very good...

[vixen1700]

dandarez said:

Just listened to content of the letter Rolf (allegedly?) wrote to ...

Oh jeez, don't think that will help him (if it's true).

You can read it down a bit here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

[Moonhawk]

Frik said:

Maybe he is a lovely easy going and friendly guy. That still doesn't mean he couldn't be guilty of the alleged crimes though.

Funny how we still struggle to not categorise people simply into "good" and "bad" isn't it?

That's just it. People seem to have this perception that a peado is some shifty eyed, greasy haired, overweight guy in a mack who hangs round kids playgrounds........and is therefore easy to spot. In fact the vast majority will be the seemingly ordinary man or woman on the street (probably with kids of their own).

You could work with one, drink with one in the pub, play squash with one and you'd likely never know.

It's likely that the 'shifty eyed guy who lives down the road who 'everyone knows' is a bit dodgy' is probably the least of your worries.

[Four Litre]

After reading that its all over for him.

Only question for him now is if its top or bottom bunk with Max.

[Moonhawk]

Four Litre said:

After reading that its all over for him.

Only question for him now is if its top or bottom bunk with Max.

I guess his defence will come from the standpoint of:

1. She wasn't underage when sexual relations took place (according to his account).
2. He believed she had willingly consented to the encounter.

If the court believe him on these counts - he may not be convicted of rape or underage sex. I guess he could be done for grooming - but was that an offence back then. Are they applying current legislation?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 9th May 15:47

[Frik]

Moonhawk said:

That's just it. People seem to have this perception that a peado is some shifty eyed, greasy haired, overweight guy in a mack who hangs round kids playgrounds........and is therefore easy to spot. In fact the vast majority will be the seemingly ordinary man or woman on the street (probably with kids of their own).

You could work with one, drink with one in the pub, play squash with one and you'd likely never know.

It's likely that the 'shifty eyed guy who lives down the road who 'everyone knows' is a bit dodgy' is probably the least of your worries.

I'm not sure it even helps to label someone as a "paedo" either. Regardless of anything else, if you abuse a position of trust and break the law then you deserve to be punished with the full force of the law. No sympathy.

[Esseesse]

Moonhawk said:

That's just it. People seem to have this perception that a peado is some shifty eyed, greasy haired, overweight guy in a mack who hangs round kids playgrounds........and is therefore easy to spot. In fact the vast majority will be the seemingly ordinary man or woman on the street (probably with kids of their own).

I thought it was the smile that gave it away? http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sp...

[Moonhawk]

Frik said:

I'm not sure it even helps to label someone as a "paedo" either. Regardless of anything else, if you abuse a position of trust and break the law then you deserve to be punished with the full force of the law. No sympathy.

Possibly not - it is afterall a medical term rather than a legal one. I was using it in the "meeja" context - rather than according to the strict definition.

Totally agree with the second part.

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 9th May 16:22

[LaurasOtherHalf]

Moonhawk said:

Four Litre said:

After reading that its all over for him.

Only question for him now is if its top or bottom bunk with Max.

I guess his defence will come from the standpoint of:

1. She wasn't underage when sexual relations took place (according to his account).
2. He believed she had willingly consented to the encounter.

If the court believe him on these counts - he may not be convicted of rape or underage sex. I guess he could be done for grooming - but was that an offence back then. Are they applying current legislation?

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 9th May 15:47

exactly, please don't think i'm defending him but the letter that has been linked proves nothing apart from him having an affair.

we can't understand what any of the dates mean as we don't know how old the alleged victim was at those dates.

making an educated guess you'd imagine that the dates he is admitting to in the letter mean that she was of legal age & this is what his defense will attest to.

guilty or not, what a bloody sorry state of affairs for everyone involved

[SuperDude]

I don't care either way, but I'm not getting this...

Harris has sex with a girl, and is well known for having 'busy' hands (Arty Ziff!) The girls didn't much like it, but they didn't directly tell him to stop... They didn't 'like' it, but there was no 'NO MEANS NO!'.

He chanced his luck and, without firm or even clear rejection, went ahead?

Surely I'm missing something here...

[anonymous-user]

Andy Zarse said:

Willhire89 said:

Andy Zarse said:

Jimboka said:

WCZ said:

he will be found guilty because he had photos of minors on his computer, there is no defense for this and has near 100% conviction rate.

However that has nothing to do with the trial that started today.

How come?

So he can, say, be found innocent in this trial and then has to face a new trial for the images later in the year? Seems a bit inefficient to me.

The implication is that he will plead guilty when that charge is put to him - no trial req'd

If you're correct, and that's a big assumption, then there is surely even more inefficient. Why do you say no trail is required?

No trial is required if someone pleads guilty to an offence. It would be the height of inefficiency and waste if resources to try a person who does not contest the charge. We do not conduct Soviet style show trials.

The charge involving images will be dealt with separately from the indecent assault charges in order to avoid the risk of prejudicing the jury on the latter charges.

[anonymous-user]

Four Litre said:

After reading that its all over for him.

Only question for him now is if its top or bottom bunk with Max.

The alternative view is that relations started when she was 18 and continued for 10+ years. He was horrified to find out over a decade later that she was upset and he was married also so no doubt hurt his own family . He apologised as any decent person would. Surely better than denial and arrogance?

[strummerville]

I'd love to see the reaction on Antiques Roadshow to one of his pictures now! Probably valued as per Saville's Roller "less than worthless"!

[sugerbear]

Jimboka said:

Four Litre said:

After reading that its all over for him.

Only question for him now is if its top or bottom bunk with Max.

The alternative view is that relations started when she was 18 and continued for 10+ years. He was horrified to find out over a decade later that she was upset and he was married also so no doubt hurt his own family . He apologised as any decent person would. Surely better than denial and arrogance?

That is how I read it. Rape isn't the same as a sexual experience that you later regret. Saying that he groomed her when she was 18 is as silly as saying buying someone a drink or paying them a compliment is grooming.

[Randy Winkman]

Jimboka said:

maybe those whose mate from the pub who works with a bloke who whose cousin knows everything should ask them why they didn't report wrongdoings at the time to prevent further victims?

I'd have thought it absolutely normal for people (especially youngsters) on the wrong end of illegal behaviour to keep it to themselves in an attempt to put it behind them/pretend to themselves that it didn't happen/not upset their families/move on.

[JagLover]

dandarez said:

Just listened to content of the letter Rolf (allegedly?) wrote to ...

Oh jeez, don't think that will help him (if it's true).

You can read it down a bit here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

He disputes she was 13 when a physical relationship started though?

[XCP]

strummerville said:

I'd love to see the reaction on Antiques Roadshow to one of his pictures now! Probably valued as per Saville's Roller "less than worthless"!

Good art remains good art. I daresay plenty of great artists had very dubious private lives, but who cares?. I'd buy a Harris tomorrow if I had the dosh.

[anonymous-user]

Reactions to art produced by artists who were personally disagreeable is a fairly wide theme. Philip Larkin liked schoolgirl porn. Richard Wagner was an anti-Semite and all round total cock. Ezra Pound was a Fascist. T S Eliot had his wife thrown into a loony bin to get rid of her. John Lennon was a knobend. Beethoven was a tool. Picasso was a shagger. The list is endless.

The first series of The Thick of It is still funny, even though one of the main actors later got done for perving.

I am not classifying Rolf Harris with the mostly rather greater artists listed above, but the point's a general one.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th May 10:16

[Nightmare]

I met him in 1995 - some girls I shared a house with in Leicester had heard he was coming to do a gig at the Uni and wrote to him to say he was welcome to pop round for tea beforehand - and he did.

He was, I have to say, lovely. He was on his own with the 2 girls for an hr or so before we got back - both of whom were pretty and rather keen on him - and at no point did he act in any way remotely questionably (we joked about it afterwards). He chatted, drew everyone rolferoos and was just a very nice guy.

If he does turn out to be guilty I will be quite sad.

Edited by Nightmare on Saturday 10th May 12:48