Rolf Harris convicted

Cornfed · Post by **Cornfed** » June 30th, 2014, 7:54 pm

Of indecent assaults between 1968 and 1986. No idea whether he is guilty, but aside from the allegations seeming rather trivial, if he can be found guilty after all this time based solely on allegations then no-one is safe.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... nt-assault

Jester · Post by **Jester** » July 2nd, 2014, 2:00 am

It's common for girls not to come forward at the time. I know of 4 molestations or attempts on 3 women age 8 to 15, women whom I later knew well, and none of them came forward at the time. One perp was a boyfriend, one perp was a relative, one perp was a family friend, one set of perps were her employers at a modeling gig.

But here's what caught my eye in this article:

One of the curiosities of the case was that for his six-decade showbusiness career, Harris did not have the raft of celebrity character witnesses provided by other entertainers facing similar trials recently.

So apparently there is a major pederast ring at the highest levels in Britain. And normally they cover for each other.

In this case, it seems that this guy's letter, plus the numerous corroborating witnesses, plus the girl's years of therapy records must have convinced his potential defenders that he was a lost cause.

Cornfed · Post by **Cornfed** » July 2nd, 2014, 2:15 am

Jester wrote:It's common for girls not to come forward at the time. I know of 4 molestations or attempts on 3 women age 8 to 15, women whom I later knew well, and none of them came forward at the time. One perp was a boyfriend, one perp was a relative, one perp was a family friend, one set of perps were her employers at a modeling gig.

And of course you had independent witnesses, forensic evidence or hidden cameras to confirmed their stories.

Yohan · Post by **Yohan** » July 2nd, 2014, 5:21 am

Rolf Harris was convicted for something he did - or did not - up to about 45 years ago. He is now 84 years old and I doubt he will ever spend a single day in a UK jail. He has to be sentenced according to UK-laws 45 years ago which were pretty lenient. He also might claim easily high age and illness and being unfit for a custodial sentence, which means instead of a jail he will be ordered to stay under house-arrest.

In many countries, even within pro-feminist EU, such a trial would not be possible because of limitation of time. It's not about if he did this or that or not, it's about reporting too late. Many countries have some rules to report child abuse within after 15 years past full age.

I see no reason why in UK sexual abuse is excluded from the limitation of time, while severe non-sexual misuse of children might be forgotten within a few years.

I do not know the details of those crimes some women were accusing him, but for sure some attention seekers were also among them.

One woman, anonymously of course, was claiming for example he kissed her on her neck and was touching her shoulders, his hands moved back down up to the behind about 1970 during an interview - and for this she wants now money... 45 years later?

Rolf Harris is still rich, despite very talented he never did anything for men. He is not UK-citizen but Australian. After his release from jail or housearrest he might leave the country and buy a house somewhere in Australia or elsewhere and spend the rest of his life in a nice place.

He should have retired and transferred his money and move out of UK many years ago.

Openly said, I am more worried about totally innocent men, who are not rich and accused for crimes which never took place, these men are sometimes even convicted, sent to jail, some years later exonerated and after their release - everything lost - they are standing in the street with nothing. What about them?

Cornfed · Post by **Cornfed** » July 2nd, 2014, 5:36 pm

The other issue is why anyone thinks it is worthwhile to spend a fortune adjudicating whether some skanks had some guy run his hands over them decades ago, as if this is a big deal. People are starving, dying from lack of health care and are unable to raise families due to a lack of funding, and yet this crap is what society wants to get funding, as if we were so rich we can just throw money down a well.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » July 2nd, 2014, 6:34 pm

Yohan wrote:
Openly said, I am more worried about totally innocent men, who are not rich and accused for crimes which never took place, these men are sometimes even convicted, sent to jail, some years later exonerated and after their release - everything lost - they are standing in the street with nothing. What about them?

That has nothing to do with this case.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » July 2nd, 2014, 6:59 pm

Jester · Post by **Jester** » July 2nd, 2014, 7:05 pm

Cornfed wrote:The other issue is why anyone thinks it is worthwhile to spend a fortune adjudicating whether some skanks had some guy run his hands over them decades ago, as if this is a big deal. People are starving, dying from lack of health care and are unable to raise families due to a lack of funding, and yet this crap is what society wants to get funding, as if we were so rich we can just throw money down a well.

If society doesn't execute the worst criminals, it does not have my permission to exist.
As they say, "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

Cornfed · Post by **Cornfed** » July 2nd, 2014, 7:21 pm

Jester wrote:
Cornfed wrote:The other issue is why anyone thinks it is worthwhile to spend a fortune adjudicating whether some skanks had some guy run his hands over them decades ago, as if this is a big deal. People are starving, dying from lack of health care and are unable to raise families due to a lack of funding, and yet this crap is what society wants to get funding, as if we were so rich we can just throw money down a well.
If society doesn't execute the worst criminals, it does not have my permission to exist.
As they say, "lead, follow, or get out of the way."

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? Obviously people touching up skankettes are not the worst criminals and in the social environment of the West such activities are hardly even worth mentioning.

Yohan · Post by **Yohan** » July 2nd, 2014, 7:26 pm

Jester wrote: I know of 4 molestations or attempts on 3 women age 8 to 15, women whom I later knew well, and none of them came forward at the time. One perp was a boyfriend, one perp was a relative, one perp was a family friend, one set of perps were her employers at a modeling gig.

What kind of molestation? She was 15 and with her boyfriend? What did he exactly do?
The other one was 8 years old? It's a big difference if a woman is 15 or a girl is only 8. What happened to her? She was kissed, or got a slap for good or bad behavior? To claim something like being molested without any details does not make any sense.

Generally, just my opinion, if women (and let me not forget also boys and young men) are unwilling to come forward on time with their accusations, (in my native pro-feminist country EU-country it is 15 years past age of majority or 5 to 10 years in case of an adult, depending of circumstances) the case should fall under the statute of limitations. It's plainly wrong and ridiculous to show up after 45 years, claiming he was groping me when I was 17 and now give me money.

What is next? To file lawsuits against dead men and claim compensation from their heirs?

-----

I am also highly skeptical if you claim you know a woman who considers herself as 'sexually molested' while being employed as a model.

Maybe she should have done a different job, if she is 'shy'. What did she expect when applying for such kind of 'work'?
As a model you are expected to show up in front of unknown people, often men on a stage in bikini or lingerie and pictures including your face, back, feet will be taken in details and used for advertisements, catalogs etc. Of course you will hear also some comments from those designers etc. some might be nice, some not. The model gets paid for that, so what?

Yohan · Post by **Yohan** » July 2nd, 2014, 7:49 pm

Jester wrote: What you don't realize is how many actual rapes and molestations do NOT get reported.

I do not see any reason why preference is always given to not reported 'rapes and molestations' from men against women.
What is so special about it?

Not get reported? There are MANY crimes, which never get reported, any kind of crimes.

Yohan · Post by **Yohan** » July 2nd, 2014, 7:54 pm

Jester wrote:
Yohan wrote:
Openly said, I am more worried about totally innocent men, who are not rich and accused for crimes which never took place, these men are sometimes even convicted, sent to jail, some years later exonerated and after their release - everything lost - they are standing in the street with nothing. What about them?

That has nothing to do with this case.

I think it has something to do with this case, at least I see it in this way. I am personally much more worried about those innocent men deliberately accused by malicious women than about rich Mangina Rolf Harris and some attention seeking women, claiming they were groped and/or kissed by him 45 years ago.

My primary argument is about a missing statute of limitations for such cases in UK-law.
It's ridiculous that a 60 year old woman is accusing a 85 year old man of groping 45 years ago and of course is demanding a lot of money because of that. What a waste of time for police and judges.

Cornfed · Post by **Cornfed** » July 2nd, 2014, 8:01 pm

I suppose the idea for evaluating the relative seriousness of such crimes is to put oneself in the victim's shoes. Suppose some woman had cupped my genitals when I was ten. If I complained about it now would I think that the pigs and courts should take my word for it and spend a fortune on prosecuting the aged culprit? If I could choose whether the money should go towards the prosecution or, say, buying me a house or whatever, would I think I had been the victim of such a serious crime that I would choose the former? I think not actually. Now given that I am incalculably more important than Western females in the cosmic sense, such that causing me the slightest inconvenience has much greater significance than torturing any given hundred of them to death, why in God's name would I support the prosecution of someone for groping some skanks decades ago, even if he were obviously guilty?

Yohan · Post by **Yohan** » July 2nd, 2014, 8:55 pm

Cornfed wrote:... the idea for evaluating the relative seriousness of such crimes...

You are right, there are many dangerous crimes which are by far much more serious that these strange forms of 'rape' because of a missing condom, groping more than 40 years ago, etc. etc.

I remember suddenly again Julian Assange, the 'rapist' who did not use a condom or split the condom, after a woman let him into her room and gave full consent to have sex with him. This idiot is still living in the embassy of Ecuador. Well, still better than a place in a jail which is reserved for ordinary men. Guilty until proven innocent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

According to The Guardian, after 2020 the statute of limitations on this case will have expired, which means that it will no longer be possible to charge Assange based on these allegations.

At least the EU has the statute of limitations for such 'rape' cases. 10 years and it's finished with this nonsense, legal fees go into 100.000s of USD.

http://www.thelocal.se/20140625/swedish ... an-assange

Swedish woman's texts could clear Assange

The case against Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been at an impasse for the past two years, after Assange was granted political asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

But a recent change to Swedish law may finally break the stalemate. Assange's lawyers demanded on Tuesday that they be given copies of evidence against him. And their request is grounded in Swedish law.

What a feminist law, the defense lawyer is not even supposed to know what evidence in detail is against the accused. It seems this law has been changed now in Sweden. We will see.

Yohan · Post by **Yohan** » July 4th, 2014, 7:00 am

Finally, according to Dailymail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... today.html

Rolf Harris is jailed for FIVE YEARS and nine months as judge tells paedophile star: 'You have shown no remorse... you have no one to blame but yourself'

Harris, 84, showed no emotion when he sentenced for 12 sexual assaults
Judge told him 'you took advantage of trust' - and he could be out in 3 years

Some women might be deeply disappointed however, surprisingly no money...

The judge told the court he did not feel it was appropriate to order Harris to pay compensation to his victims, but said: 'You will, however, pay the costs of the prosecution in such sum as may be agreed or assessed in due course.'

As usual in similar cases, the lawyers are earning...