# What should Rolf Harris get?



## SirRumpole (1 July 2014)

Just wondering what this forum thinks is an appropriate sentence for an 82 year old on the charges that he has been convicted of ?

That he hasn't been convicted of rape indicates that the charges are not at the upper end of the scale. His reputation is shot and he won't be able to hold his head up in public again (in more ways than one).

Personally I would go for 12 months home detention. What do others think ?


----------



## explod (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*

12 months detention at home.  You must be joking.

The lives of some of these victims have been irreparably damaged.  Psychological damage can be effectively more cruel than if the victim was murdered.

In my experience as a prosecutor I would say about 10 years and with a bit of luck will die there.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*

He should walk - 18 months suspended, a small abuse of power/celebrity, no violence or rape...nothing compared to what Savile did, i have been somewhat surprised there was no link.

Edit:

Seems a link has turned up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ted-Broadmoor-hospital-with-Jimmy-Savile.html


----------



## Craton (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*

I dunno, hard one to answer. Whether he's raped or not, there's still the mental anguish. Which is worse, physical or mental abuse?

He still claims innocence and there'll be an appeal no? 

Home detention, sure but what about heavy financial penalties on Rolf with compensation to the victims?

Also, if our society wants to make kiddie fiddling a real deterrent, then how best to do so than by using these real life public figures, imprisonment must be handed down. Not that any amount of penalty will deter these "sexual deviants" because I see paedophilia as a disease, a broken gene or a hormone imbalance, although there'll be those that are real deviates too.

Then I think of some of the most abhorrent child molestation cases. Yep, still in the too hard basket for me to comment further but a good beheading would certainly appeal to me for some of these *cough* people.


----------



## Value Collector (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



SirRumpole said:


> Just wondering what this forum thinks is an appropriate sentence for an 82 year old on the charges that he has been convicted of ?
> 
> That he hasn't been convicted of rape indicates that the charges are not at the upper end of the scale. His reputation is shot and he won't be able to hold his head up in public again (in more ways than one).
> 
> Personally I would go for 12 months home detention. What do others think ?




Age and celebrity shouldn't matter, I think what ever you would sentence a 30 year old too for the same crime should carry over to an 80 year old.


----------



## burglar (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



SirRumpole said:


> ... Personally I would go for 12 months home detention. What do others think ?




I am with you.
Home detention would be appropriate given his age.
He used to be my hero ... maybe he still is!

I saw a video clip of him performing with Slim Dusty. 

Magic.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*

He used to be my hero also.
Loved his version of Stairway to Heaven. 
I thought he was innocent but no longer.
It's really upsetting.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*

I'm not defending any form of abuse of children, but the sort of stuff he indulged in was what thousands of blokes of his then age and those times did.  

As a female who grew up in that era it was simply commonplace for men to make lewd suggestions and 'accidentally' touch young women and girls at the lower end of the scale and further up to make it clear that your job depended on your sexual co-operation.

It's why I laugh at all the claims of today's feminists about sexual harassment when someone makes an off-colour remark at them.   If I thought I could claim psychological damage and even financial compensation for all the inappropriate behaviour I've experienced I'd be 
1.  quite insane
2.  extremely rich

That's not to say it was ever OK for men to behave in what we now agree is a sexually intimidating or abusive way, but I don't particularly see why Harris should be particularly made an example of when he was probably quite typical of his generation and able to take further advantage via his celebrity status.

I don't think he should be dealt with in the same way as a 30 year old today would be for the reasons outlined above plus the reality that he's now very old and has undoubtedly endured the most mortifying embarrassment anyone could imagine.

Home detention perhaps.  I don't know.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



explod said:


> 12 months detention at home.  You must be joking.
> 
> The lives of some of these victims have been irreparably damaged.  Psychological damage can be effectively more cruel than if the victim was murdered.



Um, pretty hard to imagine anything more cruel than being killed!


----------



## burglar (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> ... undoubtedly endured the most mortifying embarrassment anyone could imagine ...




Julia, 
A wonderful post!
Insightful and realistic!!


----------



## tech/a (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> I'm not defending any form of abuse of children, but the sort of stuff he indulged in was what thousands of blokes of his then age and those times did.
> 
> As a female who grew up in that era it was simply commonplace for men to make lewd suggestions and 'accidentally' touch young women and girls at the lower end of the scale and further up to make it clear that your job depended on your sexual co-operation.
> 
> ...





Julia.

*These were Kids.*

I don't care who they are
Mess around with kids and 
throw the book at them in 
my view.


----------



## basilio (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*

I think you are being too easy on Rolf Harris, Julia. 

He wasn't just groping older women - most were young children. I think the comments from the people affected will highlight how he used his celebrity status to essentially molest children and how this traumatized them.  He was an icon not just a no body.

I also think that if he doesn't get some sort of custodial sentence the many people he attacked will feel there has been no justice. And from the Courts point of view they need to send a message that this behavior isn't acceptable.

My thinking would be a "soft" 2-4year custodial sentence  *plus *a multi million dollar fine to be paid to organizations dealing with child abuse.

_Soft equals minimum security perhaps home detention after 18 months._


----------



## explod (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> Um, pretty hard to imagine anything more cruel than being killed!




Yes, perhaps a bit strong.  However a person killed knows no more and does not feel the gut wrenching and feeling of disgust at being touched, to the view a child an old man or someone like her father with whom a child has absolute trust and faith.

And as mentioned above, a man of such station in life we expect to be role models and a good example.

I have met people traumatised by deviates and it is traumatic just to hear and share their anguish.

Ten years is too light in my view but knowing the English system fairly well I'd say it will
be about the mark.


----------



## gordon2007 (1 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> As a female who grew up in that era it was simply commonplace for men to make lewd suggestions and 'accidentally' touch young women and girls at the lower end of the scale and further up to make it clear that your job depended on your sexual co-operation.




Julia,
I'm so very surprised at you regarding this comment. I usually think you're very level headed but this time I think you're perhaps on the wrong side of interpretation. Perhaps you're not fully aware of the charges? We're not talking about a boss coping a feel of the secretaries bum whilst she gets cup of coffee for the 'men of the office'. He is charged with molesting 13yr old girls?  They weren't looking for jobs, weren't young adults. Remember, 13yr girls back then where just that, young girls.  

I am seriously gobsmacked that people think he was just doing what was the norm. I do understand in that time it was common for men of position to use their authority with females in the workforce, but NOT molesting kids.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2014)

Oh for heaven's sake, where did I say what he did was OK?

I'm just trying to bring a sense of reality to the question as someone who grew up in those times and who was actually repeatedly raped in an intra-family situation over many years from the age of six.

Regrettably, it was also quite common to have men make approaches to us kids when we were playing on swings etc.    Some of you young people seem to have no idea of how different attitudes were to the 'rights of men' when it came to sexual matters.

Everything is relative.  As far as I'm aware, he didn't rape anyone.  

If you're going to be realistic about what he did, you also have to be prepared to hunt down every other man who behaved similarly towards young females in those days.  That's what you're ignoring about what I'm saying.
Have a Royal Commission or whatever the British equivalent is and invite every woman who has ever been sexually assaulted (and the term now apparently covers everything from a lewd remark to forced sex) to come forward, name her assailant, and they will all be chased up, tried, convicted and jailed.
Well, good luck with that!

Rolf Harris - whom, incidentally, I always disliked so have no reason to defend him (which I'm not) - is being made a public example and I find that hypocritical in the extreme.

ABC Radio this evening even had people calling in saying all his art work should be burned and other hysterical nonsense.   They apparently even want to rewrite history.

For god's sake, the bloke is 84.  Give him home detention and a substantial fine.

I just get really, really sick of the morally self righteous lynch mob who just jump at the chance to bay for blood especially when it involves someone who can probably be a source of considerable financial compensation.


----------



## Craton (2 July 2014)

Julia, I'm gobsmacked that you had that happen to you and you see it as the "norm" back then. Yes, a time when we didn't rock the boat when in fact, it should've have the **** shaken out of it. As you say, it was a different time.

I'd suggest that the norm back then, as you see it, was well hidden within our society just as domestic violence was in-so-much that is just wasn't in the public eye nor in the public conscious, it simply wasn't talked about and that being so, didn't/doesn't make it right then just as it's not right now.

Back then too, I had no idea two of my closest friends were bashers nor that other mates in the other school (catholic) system were victims of the "brothers". Naive perhaps but it just wasn't common knowledge.

Today its a different story as more and more people are coming forward making for instant knowledge via all types of media. What is not surprising is that after decades and decades, the pain is still there and the call for justice is just as strong.

I take solace to see that you have the strength to mention your experience here and thank you for sharing. It sounds like you have resolved the past and good for you.


----------



## chiff (2 July 2014)

Are there worse things than dying?
Certainly are!  If I,heaven forbid, were in the shoes of Rolf Harris the shame that I was enduring would be overwhelming .If there was a bushido code or something similar to guide our morality,hari kari would be mandatory.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



explod said:


> In my experience as a prosecutor I would say about 10 years and with a bit of luck will die there.




I suppose he should thank his lucky stars that hanging has been abolished.

Not much sport for prosecutors these days is there ?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2014)

> I'm just trying to bring a sense of reality to the question as someone who grew up in those times and who was actually repeatedly raped in an intra-family situation over many years from the age of six.




An absolutely horrific situation for a child to be in, with no escape. Congratulations for keeping a sense of perspective after what you have been through.

How can we stop this sort of thing happening ? It seems to be very difficult considering the parent/child power structure.


----------



## tech/a (2 July 2014)

Julia said:


> Oh for heaven's sake, where did I say what he did was OK?
> If you're going to be realistic about what he did, you also have to be prepared to hunt down every other man who behaved similarly towards young females in those days.



When people like yourself remain silent-----and your not alone-----the majority go free,but the many who know who they are keep looking over their sholder. Slowly slowly those who felt they were un touchable from religious leaders to the likes of Harris are bought to a long overdue justice.  


> Rolf Harris - whom, incidentally, I always disliked so have no reason to defend him (which I'm not) - is being made a public example and I find that hypocritical in the extreme.



It his notoriety that makes him a side show NOT the process---a person with a lower profile would not be noticed ----yet when caught and found guilty would be in the same position



> I just get really, really sick of the morally self righteous lynch mob who just jump at the chance to bay for blood especially when it involves someone who can probably be a source of considerable financial compensation.




Don't agree.
He's been found guilty

Question
If you saw someone of "notoriety" interfere with a young child you would turn a blind eye?

It's my hope that others in seemingly hopeless situations will see that they cannot/will not be silenced.
That they will be heard. that for the first time in their life they will have the courage to come forward and unload their life's burden, and be granted justice and the satisfaction that their predators are made accountable.

It may not be important to you Julia but it certainly is to others---.


----------



## waza1960 (2 July 2014)

I think your view is very balanced and sensible Julia.+1
 I think Rolf Harris deserves whatever punishment is given to him.

 But a morally self righteous lynch mob = internet forum IMO 
 So the the majority of comments here are what I would expect.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

I reckon there will be no shortage of abused victims, if all they need to hit pay-dirt is a credible story, and good old Slater and Gordon will get a big cut also.



> ROLF Harris's multi-million dollar fortune could be whittled away by women he's abused successfully suing him for compensation.
> 
> THE 84-year-old has been found guilty of 12 indecent assaults against four girls in the UK between 1968 and 1986.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-by-compo-claims/story-fn3dxix6-1226974614929


----------



## tech/a (2 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> I reckon there will be no shortage of abused victims, if all they need to hit pay-dirt is a credible story, and good old Slater and Gordon will get a big cut also.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-by-compo-claims/story-fn3dxix6-1226974614929




------BUT this is where I personally draw the line.
If you want to jump on a band wagon AFTER the fact
then I agree your an opportunist!


----------



## basilio (2 July 2014)

Why should we be surprised when more people come forward about abuse, rapes, ripoffss when the first instances are proven ?

There is a common thread through all of the examples of abuse of power and position. 
1) The powerful organization will do whatever it has to to keep its name clean. Whether it be a Church, political party, football club the first instinct if a complaint is made is to deny or buy out the person involved. Another ploy is to retaliate against the victim. Make up lies,  whatever.

2) It is exceptionally hard to get the police to take action when the victim is a nobody and the aggressor has a name and institution. The police get leaned on either directly or indirectly

3) The Press are in a similar position to the police. The politics of business and political pressure are sufficient to quell most complaints

So with this sort of pressure the reality is that most people who are abused  will not be able to  be heard - until someone ,somewhere breaks through the layers of protection used by the rich and powerful.  (And of course the nasty and powerful use very similar means to deflect justice.)

But when the dam wall breaks and it becomes clear just how criminal people/institutions were the others who were abused can speak up. 

Or is that too obvious to point out ?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2014)

basilio said:


> Why should we be surprised when more people come forward about abuse, rapes, ripoffss when the first instances are proven ?
> 
> There is a common thread through all of the examples of abuse of power and position.
> 1) The powerful organization will do whatever it has to to keep its name clean. Whether it be a Church, political party, football club the first instinct if a complaint is made is to deny or buy out the person involved. Another ploy is to retaliate against the victim. Make up lies,  whatever.
> ...




All your above points are correct, but there is also the real problem of bandwagon jumpers, attention seekers and compensation 'victims' who come out of the woodwork and expect to be able to make accusations without proof on the basis that the accused must have assaulted them because he has assaulted others.

Even if they don't get compensation from Harris himself, the prospect of a media payment for their juicy gossip will be an incentive for them to stir the pot.

I'm sure even our resident prosecutor would agree that in all cases the burden of proof should be on the accusers, otherwise chaos will reign supreme.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

basilio said:


> Or is that too obvious to point out ?




Not at all, but you neglected to point out the role of ambulance chasing law firms in this mini gold rush.


----------



## basilio (2 July 2014)

Calliope said:


> Not at all, but you neglected to point out the role of ambulance chasing law firms in this mini gold rush.




And is that supposed to disqualify anyone who had been abused from being believed? As read it you simply dismissed any suggestion  that people who  put up their hands to claim an assault after the event are just in it for the money. 

Like to tell that to the thousands of child abuse victims from various Churches  etc ?


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

basilio said:


> And is that supposed to disqualify anyone who had been abused from being believed? *As read *it you simply dismissed any suggestion  that people who  put up their hands to claim an assault after the event are just in it for the money.
> 
> Like to tell that to the thousands of child abuse victims from various Churches  etc ?




"As read?" As read by basilio you mean. It's hard to believe that even you, could distort the meaning of my post to such an extent, just to take a cheap shot.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2014)

> As read it you simply dismissed any suggestion that people who put up their hands to claim an assault after the event are just in it for the money.




You can't deny that this is possible. Where should the burden of proof lie ?


----------



## burglar (2 July 2014)

Julia said:


> ...  who was actually repeatedly raped in an intra-family situation over many years from the age of six ...




Julia,

Deeply saddened!


----------



## Hodgie (2 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You can't deny that this is possible. Where should the burden of proof lie ?




Any subsequent claims made against the man just need to be taken on its own merits. The outcome of the current criminal case sheds some light on the mans character but anyone coming fourth now still needs to prove there was some wrongdoing to them personally if they are seeking any sort of compensation. There is a reason that the prosecution didn't use certain witnesses to try and convict Rolf, they were selective about who they called to the stand.

You would get many different groups of people, opportunists and people that were ligitimately abused by the man. Impossible to group them all into 1 category.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2014)

Hodgie said:


> Any subsequent claims made against the man just need to be taken on its own merits. The outcome of the current criminal case sheds some light on the mans character but anyone coming fourth now still needs to prove there was some wrongdoing to them personally if they are seeking any sort of compensation. There is a reason that the prosecution didn't use certain witnesses to try and convict Rolf, they were selective about who they called to the stand.
> 
> You would get many different groups of people, opportunists and people that were ligitimately abused by the man. Impossible to group them all into 1 category.




Agreed. There will also be the media tarts who have no proof capable of standing up in court, but are just after a payout from the gutter press on the basis of some unsubstantiated lurid allegation. Nothing much that can be done about that unless Harris can sue them. Of others that have actually been assaulted by him, many would be satisfied that he has at least been shown to be an offender.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Agreed. There will also be the media tarts who have no proof capable of standing up in court, but are just after a payout from the gutter press on the basis of some unsubstantiated lurid allegation. Nothing much that can be done about that unless Harris can sue them. Of others that have actually been assaulted by him, many would be satisfied that he has at least been shown to be an offender.




All they have to say is that they are suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact I think I will put in a claim for PTSD after becoming traumatised just by reading about Harris's lewd behaviour.



> The great trauma gold rush: How 'post-traumatic stress disorder' has become the compensation culture's new money-spinner



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cultures-new-money-spinner.html#ixzz36HoBhd6v


----------



## Julia (2 July 2014)

Craton said:


> Julia, I'm gobsmacked that you had that happen to you and you see it as the "norm" back then.



Craton, if I've given the impression that rape (in the original full meaning of the word) was 'the norm' then I've expressed myself poorly.   I don't believe it was, but then I wouldn't know, because I never told anyone what had  happened, so others could have been in a similar situation.

What was commonplace was men attempting to entice young girls.   An example was three of us, all about eight at the time, living in a beachside suburb, down under an old pier looking for treasures in little rock pools.
A bloke approached us and said he had a great game for us to play.  The game could only be played in the built in concealed area under the pier, so we should follow him there.  We'd been warned about never going anywhere with strangers (oh the irony considering what was happening in my own family) and I asked what would happen when we got there.  He explained that in turn we would lie down and take our pants off.  That was enough.  We took off.   Told our parents and it was reported to the police.  But no actual offence had occurred, our description of the man was probably sketchy, and there would be little that could reasonably ensue.



> Yes, a time when we didn't rock the boat when in fact, it should've have the **** shaken out of it. As you say, it was a different time.



There are different ways of looking at this.   In my own situation, eventually I told my grandmother what my grandfather had been doing.  From that time I was never left alone with him ever.   What transpired between my grandparents I  have no idea and it was only when I was in my 30s that my mother shared her distress when she learned what had happened.   None of us spoke about it at the time.

But by today's standards many people would advocate that the only response in such a situation is for the perpetrator to be charged.   To me that would only have compounded what had already happened.   The abuse had been stopped.  The last thing I would have wanted was to be the centre of some public spectacle which would in those days have brought humiliation to the whole family.   
Some will say that meant he 'got away with it'.  In one sense, yes, that's true.  But his shame lived within him for ever.



> I'd suggest that the norm back then, as you see it, was well hidden within our society just as domestic violence was in-so-much that is just wasn't in the public eye nor in the public conscious, it simply wasn't talked about and that being so, didn't/doesn't make it right then just as it's not right now.



You're quite correct about the DV also.  But the DV is a whole separate situation, very complex.
People say "why can't she just leave"?   The abuser uses guile, implied guilt, and threats to ensure his position of having the superior power.  Family pets are killed, much worse is threatened.



chiff said:


> Are there worse things than dying?
> Certainly are!  If I,heaven forbid, were in the shoes of Rolf Harris the shame that I was enduring would be overwhelming .If there was a bushido code or something similar to guide our morality,hari kari would be mandatory.



Indeed.  His public mortification is now complete.   Home detention would give him the appropriate opportunity to end his own life.



SirRumpole said:


> An absolutely horrific situation for a child to be in, with no escape. Congratulations for keeping a sense of perspective after what you have been through.
> 
> How can we stop this sort of thing happening ? It seems to be very difficult considering the parent/child power structure.



Thank you, Rumpole.  You're right to focus on the power factor.  The other insidious feature is the bit that goes "this is our very special love, so special that we can never tell anyone what we do together", thus making the child feel complicit in the evil.  The confusion in the mind of a little kid is complete.  This is the person she has always known as a figure of absolute trust, the loved grandfather who bought her the first tricycle etc, who saved the first ripe strawberry for her etc.   She has no capacity for understanding the obscene  nature of what is happening to her.  She just knows it hurts but doesn't know how to make it stop.


This from Tech-A   







> When people like yourself remain silent-----and your not alone-----the majority go free,



I have tried to explain a little above of why many families decide to deal with the abuse in their own way.
That's their choice and I don't think it's for you to make any sort of judgement that that is wrong.

I have found the reports from the Royal Commission into institutional abuse deeply distressing, because those little kids had no one they could tell, no one who could keep them safe.  And because, along with the sexual abuse, they endured the most depraved physical cruelty.  I have previously mentioned a child, after being anally raped over some hours, having bricks tied to his feet before being thrown naked into a swimming pool in winter.
A child who actually escaped and went to the police was taken straight back to the institution, thoroughly beaten, and locked in a cage.
These little souls had absolutely no one they could turn to, and the ****ing Catholic and other churches just kept on covering it all up.
So yes, those priests should absolutely be punished, as should the churches themselves for their hideous concealment to the detriment of little children in their care.

But the young people whom Harris groped would have had people they could tell.   Of course that doesn't excuse his behaviour but I'm  just trying to draw some lines here between the various types of behaviours which come under the broad titles of 'sexual abuse/assault'.  As I've previously mentioned, it seems some women will these days scream sexual assault if so much as a suggestive remark is made to them.  Imo that is to debase the reality of genuine sexual assault.



> Question
> If you saw someone of "notoriety" interfere with a young child you would turn a blind eye?



I find it hard to believe you are actually asking such a question.   Of course not.  The notoriety is irrelevant.  Most of us, I'm sure, would act to protect any child in any sort of threatening situation.
I'm sure you didn't actually mean to be offensive.



> It's my hope that others in seemingly hopeless situations will see that they cannot/will not be silenced.
> That they will be heard. that for the first time in their life they will have the courage to come forward and unload their life's burden, and be granted justice and the satisfaction that their predators are made accountable.
> 
> It may not be important to you Julia but it certainly is to others---.



You have obviously missed the point I've been trying to make.



tech/a said:


> BUT this is where I personally draw the line.
> If you want to jump on a band wagon AFTER the fact
> then I agree your an opportunist!



Make up your mind.  This is exactly what has happened in several instances.  

My concern about this has little to do with Rolf Harris.  He's an amoral person.  I don't particularly care what happens to him.
But I do care very much indeed about the way we are seeing paedophilia everywhere.  It's a bit like the so called 'reds under the beds' during the supposed communist threat of some decades ago.

It's wrong that men are being seen not as individual, valued human beings but rather as potential threats to children.   As a result we have very few young men taking up teaching.  The risks to their career are just too great.  All it takes is some spiteful little kid levelling an accusation of inappropriate touching, and he gets put through huge investigation processes incurring much trauma to himself and his family.
Many children now come from homes where they have no good male role model, and the male teacher is a great way for them to experience this.

For many years I was part of a mentoring program that worked with disadvantaged children in primary and secondary schools.  We were never permitted to be in a room alone with a child, not because there was any thought we were latent abusers, but because it would put us at risk of the sort of situation above.
Then we were never to touch any child in any way.
Now, damn it, if a little kid is upset about something, the warmth of a hug from a trusted adult can be encouraging and healing.

Parents are not permitted to take fun photos of their kids in playgrounds, at the beach etc because they might actually be perverts photographing some unrelated child.

Isn't all this rather hysterical?  What is it doing to our children?  We should not be painting all men as having the predilection to abuse children.  
I would like to see a panel of psychologists come up with some sort of reasonable compromise approach for children which would as far as possible protect them, without at the same time demonising men to the point where a male passenger on an air craft is prohibited from sitting next to a child.  The crew are throughout the cabin all the time.  A bloke is hardly likely to choose such a public place to do anything untoward to a child.

Lastly, bad things happen to good people all the time.   Often we do not have the power at the time to control those events which occur, but as adults we do have the power to choose how much we allow what happened to affect the rest of our lives.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2014)

> ...
> Lastly, bad things happen to good people all the time. Often we do not have the power at the time to control those events which occur, but as adults we do have the power to choose how much we allow what happened to affect the rest of our lives.




Wonderful post Julia. I can't think of anything else that needs to be said.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2014)

In a lighter vein...The goodies get Rolf Harris


----------



## tech/a (2 July 2014)

Julia.

Never intended to offend.

Now with background I see your situation.
Sadly some would never be exposed---some even condoned.
In my family there would have been one less Grandfather (No wouldn't have done away with him)
but would have ostracized him from my family!--Permanently! 

Sorry I am passionate about those *who cannot defend* themselves---

Kids 
Women
Handicapped
Bullied
Hit from behind (King hits)
Pensioners who are less informed
Scam/Fraud targets

From those who take advantage of them.

I too am saddened to know of your situation.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2014)

tech/a said:


> I am passionate about those *who cannot defend* themselves---
> 
> Kids
> Women
> ...




+1

Anyone who abuses others, by whatever means, is generally exploiting the fact that their targets are unable to effectively deal with the situation. That goes for everything from financial scams to king hits to the likes of Harris. The common element is a power imbalance - the victims can't or won't, for whatever reason, effectively fight back or otherwise deal with the abuse.

I won't claim to have any personal experience of that sort of abuse, but I've seen other forms of bullying and a power imbalance first hand more than once. It's always the same pattern, the victims either can't fight back (by whatever means) or decide that doing so is not worthwhile and that simply avoiding the situation is an easier option. Very few will actually fight and do so effectively.

Back to Harris, well a child isn't really going to fight back now are they? It's someone famous who had a fairly "clean" image and all the things (businesses etc) surrounding them versus an individual child. It's the mouse taking on the cat really. The best option for the mouse is to just keep out of the way and avoid the cat entirely, thus fixing the problem for that individual mouse but leaving the cat free to claim its' next victim. 

As for punishment, Harris' celebrity status ought to have no bearing on what is appropriate punishment. He's been found guilty and should receive whatever punishment would be handed out to anyone else in that situation. It's a less serious crime than mass murder, but it's far more serious than something like theft and the relative punishment ought to reflect this.


----------



## explod (2 July 2014)

Though not charged with it, police found child pornography on Harris's computer.

These are one of the prime means that peds infect others with this disease.

And why would they have photos of nude children anyway, to get themselves off on them.  Think about how disgusting that is, or if the child was your daughter.  And I have a daughter who just left the Sex Offences Sguad here in Victoria and just promoted to Inspector of the witness protection unit. Proud of her. But thinking about it like that in my view it is equivalent to murder.

In my view the world is not in fact dealing with these issues seriously enough and that is bourne out to me by some comments on this thread too.

However the overall horror and implications are well understood by police and the judicial system.  He will get his well deserved ten years but I do hope from it that the public and governments will become more serious about it as well.  Maybe that will be a benefit of his high profile.


----------



## Craton (3 July 2014)

@ Julia, thank you for your open and frank response. You are certainly more compassionate/forgiving than I could be but you do raise several excellent points. Especially with regards to men and their roles in our society. I don't think it's a matter of "reds under beds" though. As a proud dad and grandad, children are the greatest joys in life and to think that they can be preyed upon like and used like some pleasure toy is simply red mist area for me. 

These child abusers, whether in house, in institutions (very saddening stories some) or opportunistic, I'd suggest have been within our social fabric since day one. So too the wife bashers and power abusers. The strength and determination of our society to recognise and the commitment to tackle these issues is far greater now than 20 or 30 years ago, thanks largely to the anti DV campaigns of the '80s. 

Those campaigns highlighted not just the abuse but the fiddling inherent within our society. I'm glad that these things are not hidden or so secret anymore and without the will of victims to come forward and the social work done to foster a better outcome, I shudder to think of the oppressive and subservient under current that would dominant our society today.

Not saying anything is hunky dory but the fact that an 84 yr old institution like Rolf Harris has been brought to task speaks volumes that we, as a society, are headed in the right direction. I heartens me to see the weeding out of paedophilia cartels and other child pr0n trafficking and racketeering. Personally shocked to find such a thing even existed! I'm not so naÃ¯ve nowadays.

Children are, of course, our future so as for Rolf, a custodial sentence must be handed down. A clear message must be sent to those stalkers of innocent minds. Anything else and we will be showing a lack of leadership and worse, letting all children born and yet to come, down miserably. 

Finally, I would also like to applaud those members who've added serious discussion and further thought provoking to this highly emotive and far reaching thread.


----------



## Logique (4 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> ....the sort of stuff he indulged in was what thousands of blokes of his then age and those times did.
> 
> As a female who grew up in that era it was simply commonplace for men to make lewd suggestions and 'accidentally' touch young women and girls at the lower end of the scale and further up to make it clear that your job depended on your sexual co-operation......



Well said. A significant portion of Harris' net worth should be garnisheed by the state, and put towards women's shelters and victim compensation. 

A sort of caricature expat professional Australian, always had my doubts about him.

Edit: reading back over the thread I saw the "intra-family situation" post ..Julia how can you be so forgiving to Harris in the circumstances!


----------



## Macquack (4 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> I don't think he should be dealt with in the same way as a 30 year old today would be for the reasons outlined above plus the reality that he's now very old and has *undoubtedly endured the most mortifying embarrassment anyone could imagine*.
> 
> Home detention perhaps.  I don't know.




Firstly, I would like to reiterate Burglars comments in respect of you Julia.


> Deeply saddened.




On Rolf Harris, I have a view that the guilt Rolf feels is *zero*, and any embarrassment he feels (which he does not) would be like *water off a ducks back*.

I agree with "Value Collector" and think Rolf should be treated the same as a 30 year old, especially considering he has been *getting away with this despicable behaviour for 50+ years*.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Logique said:


> Well said. A significant portion of Harris' net worth should be garnisheed by the state, and put towards women's shelters and victim compensation.
> 
> A sort of caricature expat professional Australian, always had my doubts about him.
> 
> Edit: reading back over the thread I saw the "intra-family situation" post ..Julia how can you be so forgiving to Harris in the circumstances!



Hello Logique, I seem not to have adequately expressed what I was trying to say.
I am not 'forgiving' toward Harris.   I don't care about him one way or the other.

What I was attempting to do was draw the huge line between what I consider to be genuine sexual assault, i.e. rape of a child, to be absolutely candid, an adult male forcing sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent child, especially when that male is taking advantage of the absolute innocence and lack of power of a child as young as five or six, especially when within a family that child holds total trust in the perpetrator, and the silly sort of groping/touching behaviour that Harris apparently indulged in with teenagers.

At 14 or 15 which seems to have been the average age of Harris's so called victims, they had reasonable capacity to understand what was happening, had people they could tell, etc.  Why wouldn't they just yell at him "don't touch me, you creep"!  and go and tell someone?   At least one of them continued in a consensual sexual relationship with him until she was in her 20's!   But now that he's on the mat, suddenly these women have decided their 'entire childhood was taken away from them,'  'their lives ruined,'   they 'became alcoholics' etc etc., because of his stupid behaviour.   That's just not realistic in my view.  If that were the case, then their lives were well off course before ever encountering him.

As others have suggested, the lawyers are all over it because they can smell big fat fees, and presumably at least some of the complainants are adopting a similar philosophy.

I am just utterly sick of the phrase 'sexual assault' being bandied about so inappropriately.

The women who use it thus should sit down and listen to the dreadful reality experienced by five, six and seven year old orphan children entrusted to the care of the various church institutions, places charged with protecting them and helping them to recover from the trauma they had already experienced in becoming orphaned.

What they went through is not only violent sexual assault at an extremely vulnerable age, but also the most depraved physical and emotional cruelty.  They are the people who deserve our love and care, our nurturing back to some sense of personal stability if, in fact, that is even possible which I doubt.

So what I've been saying is almost nothing to do with Harris who has behaved in a similar way to thousands of men like him in those days, but who is wearing the behaviour of so many of his peers simply because he's a celebrity  Ask any teenager or woman who grew up in those times.  We all had the same experiences from many men.  

To suggest that what those teenagers briefly experienced is sexual assault when you apply the same term to little children who were brutally raped is to further demoralise the latter and to completely underestimate the trauma that such children endured.

I hope this clarifies what I meant.


----------



## burglar (4 July 2014)

Five years nine months.
Half is non parole period.

I don't condone his behaviour, but at his age, this is a death sentence.


----------



## chiff (5 July 2014)

Well he has a chance to find some redemption in prison.Maybe he can teach others to paint etc and make his time worthwhile.I remember Ricky Tomlinson saying that he gained immensely from his prison time,teaching others to read and write.
(I think Tomlinson was in for being a social agitator or something similar)


----------



## IFocus (5 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Macquack said:


> Firstly, I would like to reiterate Burglars comments in respect of you Julia.
> 
> 
> On Rolf Harris, I have a view that the guilt Rolf feels is *zero*, and any embarrassment he feels (which he does not) would be like *water off a ducks back*.
> ...




+ 1.......


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2014)

It's probably not over yet. An appeal is almost a certainty. He could be out again very soon on bail.


----------



## IFocus (5 July 2014)

burglar said:


> Five years nine months.
> Half is non parole period.
> 
> I don't condone his behaviour, but at his age, this is a death sentence.




I think its a reasonable sentence if anything perhaps a bit on the low side given that he abused his status in society to exercise his power over those so young forcing them into despicable behaviours but with more allegations to come he may well never be released.

No doubt we will see a campaign down the road for release connected with health and or sympathy.

I agree with Macquack that he has shown absolutely no remorse.


----------



## Muschu (5 July 2014)

I would absolutely throw the book at those who sexually assault the innocent (children in particular) whether the perpetrator be within the family, an institution or a stranger.

However it is my view that Harris has received a minimal period of imprisonment for multiple, serious and prolonged offences where he has also abused his celebrity status. If there is no remorse there is likely to be very little understanding of what he has done.  

The reputational damage will probably lead to a very secluded post-incarceration life in physical comfort.

Should Harris live that long I would advocate that he serves the full sentence of 5+ years.


----------



## Logique (7 July 2014)

*Re: What should Rolf Harris get ?*



Julia said:


> Hello Logique, I seem not to have adequately expressed what I was trying to say.
> I am not 'forgiving' toward Harris. I don't care about him one way or the other.
> What I was attempting to do was draw the huge line between what I consider to be genuine sexual assault, i.e. rape of a child, to be absolutely candid, an adult male forcing sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent child...and the silly sort of groping/touching behavior that Harris apparently indulged in with teenagers...
> I am just utterly sick of the phrase 'sexual assault' being bandied about so inappropriately.
> ...



Hello Julia, whilst both classes of offence were utterly repellent, I can see that you are highlighting the distinction between them. Many Church institutions, at distinct periods in our history, were worse than Dickensian.

For the victims, the behavioral tip that the world sees, so often it conceals an iceberg of anger.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2014)

From the ABC's Law Report, a very interesting account of why Rolf Harris might not have been convicted if tried in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/many-victims2c-one-trial/5581274

Just one more point:  I've heard virtually no outrage about Australian Robert Hughes, convicted on similar charges to Harris.   Beats me why one should inspire lack of interest and the other quasi hysteria.


----------



## basilio (9 July 2014)

Julia said:


> From the ABC's Law Report, a very interesting account of why Rolf Harris might not have been convicted if tried in Australia.
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/many-victims2c-one-trial/5581274
> 
> Just one more point:  I've heard virtually no outrage about Australian Robert Hughes, convicted on similar charges to Harris.   Beats me why one should inspire lack of interest and the other quasi hysteria.




I think the Robert Hughes case did cause a lot of outcry when it was unfolding. I believe it was one of the first times we saw the reality of how TV stars abused their position in Australia.

The Rolf Harris case however unfolded after the Jimmy Seville revelations (and largely as a result of that inquiry) which completely upended peoples understanding of the behaviour of TV celebrities.

Also  I suggest that Rolf Harris is another league altogether to Robert Hughes. 

Firstly he was a far bigger celebrity icon covering 60 years, two countries  and a body of work across more fields than TV.

Secondly he was "venerated" as a particularly wholesome performer. Up until the scandal broke it would have been almost unthinkable to associate him with  the sleazy side of his life.

Finally his victims were not just in showbiz. He managed to attack fans, friends of his children, TV presenters anything  female that that had a pulse. It also looks as if there are many more people he groped who have yet to be recognised.

Cheers


----------



## DocK (9 July 2014)

> Former Hey Dad! star Robert Hughes has been jailed for up to 10 years and nine months for child sex offences.
> 
> The 65-year-old, who was last month convicted of 10 sexual and indecent assault charges dating back to the 1980s, will have to serve a minimum of six years behind bars.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-16/robert-hughes-to-serve-at-least--six-years-on-sex-charges/5426126

I recall plenty of media outrage about Hughes at the time of the original allegations, and during his trial.  Saw one of the usual tv shows where the old cast of Hey Dad were interviewed.  I'd assume that most feel his sentence to be appropriate, and as Harris has received a similar sentence for similar offences there seems no ground for any argument that one has been let off easy compared to the other.  In terms of media coverage, naturally Harris would generate much more airtime given the differences in celebrity status between the two.  

Whilst I accept that there is a big difference between sexual assault involving rape, and sexual assault involving inappropriate contact/groping/touching - in my book they are both sexual assaults and differ only in degree.  I don't agree with classifying one as "real assault" and the other as silly groping behaviour.  Both events can lead to a life less lived for the victim, both can result in feelings of powerlessness, guilt, depression etc in the victim, especially when the victim is a child and the perpetrator a person of celebrity and power.  Certainly there should be differences in the length of a custodial sentence, but I certainly feel that prison time should be served for both, and the age of the convicted should not be a factor.

Society has evolved, thankfully, and acts that were once more or less accepted or condoned as standard workplace behaviours are no longer considered acceptable - and nor should they be.  A message needs to be sent that this type of predatory behaviour will not be tolerated in today's society, and celebrity status should certainly be no protection.  I don't understand why a girl or woman who has "only been groped or touched up" should be made to feel they have little to complain about, just because this was more common half a decade ago, or because far worse has happened to others.  If either of my kids has been treated in such a way I'd have been out for blood!


----------



## Julia (9 July 2014)

basilio said:


> I think the Robert Hughes case did cause a lot of outcry when it was unfolding. I believe it was one of the first times we saw the reality of how TV stars abused their position in Australia.
> 
> The Rolf Harris case however unfolded after the Jimmy Seville revelations (and largely as a result of that inquiry) which completely upended peoples understanding of the behaviour of TV celebrities.
> 
> ...



OK, all good points, basilio.  I don't remember much fuss about the Hughes thing but perhaps I just wasn't paying attention.

Neither you nor Dock have commented on the Law Report item, the reason for my further addition to this thread.  That was what I thought was interesting.

Dock, perhaps you need to experience both 'levels of assault' to truly understand.
I've already disclosed more than I usually would because of finding the whole thing deeply upsetting.  I won't be commenting further.


----------



## DocK (9 July 2014)

Julia said:


> OK, all good points, basilio.  I don't remember much fuss about the Hughes thing but perhaps I just wasn't paying attention.
> 
> Neither you nor Dock have commented on the Law Report item, the reason for my further addition to this thread.  That was what I thought was interesting.



Sorry, simply don't have time to download and listen to a podcast.  Is there a link to text that can be quickly read, or could you provide a brief synopsis?



> Dock, perhaps you need to experience both 'levels of assault' to truly understand.
> I've already disclosed more than I usually would because of finding the whole thing deeply upsetting.  I won't be commenting further.




I hesitated before posting as I did not wish to give offence, and given your past I'm afraid it is difficult to express my opinion without doing so.  What happened to you as a child is simply dreadful, and I in no way wish to diminish the extent of your experience.   Perhaps I have misunderstood what you have posted, but to me there has been a tone of "these girls who cry sexual assault these days wouldn't know what real sexual assault is - others have suffered far worse and they should stop making a mountain out of a molehill."  This is of course me paraphrasing my interpretation of your comments.  I might have misread, and if so I apologise.  You also have drawn a line between a very young child being in a completely powerless position, and a teenage or young woman being more able to stand up for themselves or seek assistance from a trusted adult. 

I in no way wish to infer that inappropriate sexual contact is the same as rape - of course it's not, and shouldn't be penalised as harshly.  However, I do feel that _any_ uwelcome, unsolicited, inappropriate "groping" and similar contact does indeed consitute sexual assault and should be dealt with accordingly.  It saddens me when I read comments that downplay or semi-excuse this behaviour and the ramifications it may have on its victims.  The trauma caused may not compare to that felt by a rape victim, and I would never presume to put the two in the same basket, but it is real nevertheless and should not be brushed aside or go unpunished.  If we want better for our gender, and the current generation and those to come, surely we should be standing against _any_ degree of sexual assault? 

The media will naturally make far more of a newsworthy offence by a celebrity than perhaps a far worse offence perpetrated by an unknown.  We all know that offences against pretty young middle-class white women get far more media play than those against their less media-favored sisters.  There are hideous crimes being enacted upon helpless children behind closed doors in numerous family homes that the public knows nothing about, and my heart hurts for all of them, but I still want to see the book thrown at those that use their celebrity status or power to prey on young girls even thought the extent of the assault may be less.  In my opinion Harris got a bit less than he deserves and I hope he serves at least the full non-parole portion of his sentence.

Again, I am in no way looking for confrontation here, and am trying my best to cause no offence due to your personal experience.


----------



## Craton (9 July 2014)

Julia said:


> Neither you nor Dock have commented on the Law Report item, the reason for my further addition to this thread.  That was what I thought was interesting.




Specifically re. the ABC report, cross admission laws (Google fu says evidence tendency - Section 97).

Very interesting how the term..."the law is unsettled" was mentioned several times with regards to this aspect of law and across jurisdictions. So yes, I can see how Rolf could've gotten off here in Oz especially if the trial was held in QLD.

Thanks Julia, another eye opener.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2014)

Julia said:


> From the ABC's Law Report, a very interesting account of why Rolf Harris might not have been convicted if tried in Australia.
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/many-victims2c-one-trial/5581274




It seems to me that "tendency evidence" is quite dangerous.

 This evidence is in fact allegation without proof, one persons word against another. Use of this evidence (if you can call it evidence) seems to me to be as damaging to the justice system as reversing the onus of proof, or taking away an accused persons right to silence. 

You can of course make an argument that convictions would not happen without that sort of evidence, but imo enabling its use is moving too far in the direction of a Star Chamber. How do we know that some of the witnesses were not just jumping on the bandwagon or colluding?


----------



## Julia (9 July 2014)

DocK said:


> Sorry, simply don't have time to download and listen to a podcast.  Is there a link to text that can be quickly read, or could you provide a brief synopsis?



I don't know why you would assume it is only a podcast.  If you simply click on the link you will find there is access to a transcript. 



Craton said:


> Specifically re. the ABC report, cross admission laws (Google fu says evidence tendency - Section 97).
> 
> Very interesting how the term..."the law is unsettled" was mentioned several times with regards to this aspect of law and across jurisdictions. So yes, I can see how Rolf could've gotten off here in Oz especially if the trial was held in QLD.
> 
> Thanks Julia, another eye opener.






SirRumpole said:


> It seems to me that "tendency evidence" is quite dangerous.
> 
> This evidence is in fact allegation without proof, one persons word against another. Use of this evidence (if you can call it evidence) seems to me to be as damaging to the justice system as reversing the onus of proof, or taking away an accused persons right to silence.
> 
> You can of course make an argument that convictions would not happen without that sort of evidence, but imo enabling its use is moving too far in the direction of a Star Chamber. How do we know that some of the witnesses were not just jumping on the bandwagon or colluding?



Thanks for your reactions, Craton and Rumpole.  They exactly mirror my own.  

And if we think allegations are dangerous in the justice process, I expect it will be nothing to the number of opportunists who will think "why not have a bit of this?" now that class actions are apparently going to take place.  Given the conviction (and I'm not arguing about that one way or the other) and the accompanying outrage (again making no judgement about that), it's hardly likely any woman claiming unwanted contact with the perpetrator in her teens will be disbelieved.  This goes to the essence of the above Law Report.

Or perhaps I'm just somewhat cynical about the sisterhood.


----------



## DocK (9 July 2014)

Julia said:


> I don't know why you would assume it is only a podcast.  If you simply click on the link you will find there is access to a transcript.



Yes, sorry, I did click on it and saw the option to "listen now" or "download audio" and didn't notice the option to read the transcript.  Oversight now corrected.




> Thanks for your reactions, Craton and Rumpole.  They exactly mirror my own.
> 
> And if we think allegations are dangerous in the justice process, I expect it will be nothing to the number of opportunists who will think "why not have a bit of this?" now that class actions are apparently going to take place.  Given the conviction (and I'm not arguing about that one way or the other) and the accompanying outrage (again making no judgement about that), it's hardly likely any woman claiming unwanted contact with the perpetrator in her teens will be disbelieved.  This goes to the essence of the above Law Report.
> 
> Or perhaps I'm just somewhat cynical about the sisterhood.




I guess it won't come as a surprise that my reaction doesn't mirror yours, Craton's & Rumpole's.  I for one am glad that Harris was tried in the UK if being tried in Australia may have allowed his defence to insist on separate trials or disallow the "tendency evidence".  This section - 







> The logic of it that the prosecution relies upon is the improbability of similar lies, because the defendant is saying, yes, this allegation’s been made, but there’s no truth to it; it’s been made up. And the prosecution can respond and say, well, you say that this woman’s telling a lie, but it isn’t just her that’s making this claim; these other women have also come forward, and they’re telling a very similar lie. Perhaps it’s plausible that one woman might come forward and make up an allegation like this, but it would just be too much of a coincidence for so many different women to come forward telling such a similar lie; it’s just too much of a coincidence, and if you reject the possibility of coincidence then you’re left with two alternatives: one is that the alleged victims put their heads together and jointly concocted a false story, and that wasn’t suggested here. So if you include coincidence and you exclude the possibility of joint concoction then you’re left with the remaining possibility, which is that, well actually it isn’t a lie; all the women are telling the truth. And that’s why they’re telling a similar story, because they’re all talking about this propensity that the defendant has to commit this kind of offence.



 bears more weight with me than the defence line that only actual evidence should be allowed, rather than allegations.  As pointed out in the article, 







> Well, it’s very difficult for the prosecution to bring these kinds of charges, because there’s often been a long delay. In this case the actual offences were committed from 1968 through to 1986, so all of the offences were quite old. Now, that means that it’s very difficult for the police to gather evidence and for the prosecution to put a case together, because there’s clearly no forensic evidence or medical evidence and the defendant denies it, and all that the court hears is the allegations from the complainants on the one side and the denials by the defendant on the other side. And with the requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it’s very difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction. So the prosecution’s looking for other evidence to bolster its case, and one very valuable source of other evidence is the other allegations of other victims.




Perhaps I'm not cynical enough, but I doubt that the majority of women who come forward with allegations would open themselves up to scrutiny, cross-examination and the loss of privacy that being involved in a case such as this involves.  Presumably any claims are checked out pretty thoroughly by the prosecution legal team - the last thing they'd want would be for a false claim to be exposed by the defence.  There's also a difference between those making allegations from the outset, and making themselves available for trial, and those that come forward after the guilty verdict has been handed down - I agree that there's some cause for cynicism there. 

I guess my personal bias is pro-prosecution, rather than wishing to make it easier to defend sex offenders.  As pointed out in the same article, the successful High Court appeal by Daniel Phillips led to him raping another woman while on bail, and I'm sure the exclusion of "tendency evidence" has this result more often than we'd like.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2014)

> I guess my personal bias is pro-prosecution, rather than wishing to make it easier to defend sex offenders.




Ok then, lets change the system so alleged sex offenders have to prove they are innocent, and if that is good enough for them then lets make that the case for all crimes.

Obviously, if the prosecution says so, it must be true.


----------



## DocK (9 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ok then, lets change the system so alleged sex offenders have to prove they are innocent, and if that is good enough for them then lets make that the case for all crimes.
> 
> Obviously, if the prosecution says so, it must be true.




Oh come on!  That's a vast exaggeration of what I said.  What's the point in trying to have a sensible discussion if a post is met with this sort of reply??  Saying I'm in favour of allowing the type of trial held in the UK in cases where there is no physical evidence is a far cry from saying an accused must prove their innocence.  Allowing the testimony of multiple alleged victims in the one trial is a far cry from what you're suggesting.  As for your last sentence - what rubbish!

By the way, I'd also be in favour of multiple cases being heard in the one trial for other crimes as well.  I recently did jury duty on a trial involving a break-and-enter where the accused was found guilty.  Sentencing was held over pending the outcome of several separate trials involving the same accused and other like crimes carried out in the same area on the same weekend.  I don't know the ins and outs of why there needed to be separate trials (perhaps he was a joint accused in some of them, and the only one to be on trial for others?) but I do think that our court system could be run more efficiently if some of these cases could be consolidated.


----------



## SirRumpole (9 July 2014)

DocK said:


> Oh come on!  That's a vast exaggeration of what I said.  What's the point in trying to have a sensible discussion if a post is met with this sort of reply??  Saying I'm in favour of allowing the type of trial held in the UK in cases where there is no physical evidence is a far cry from saying an accused must prove their innocence.  Allowing the testimony of multiple alleged victims in the one trial is a far cry from what you're suggesting.  As for your last sentence - what rubbish!
> 
> By the way, I'd also be in favour of multiple cases being heard in the one trial for other crimes as well.  I recently did jury duty on a trial involving a break-and-enter where the accused was found guilty.  Sentencing was held over pending the outcome of several separate trials involving the same accused and other like crimes carried out in the same area on the same weekend.  I don't know the ins and outs of why there needed to be separate trials (perhaps he was a joint accused in some of them, and the only one to be on trial for others?) but I do think that our court system could be run more efficiently if some of these cases could be consolidated.




Exaggerated ?, yes of course it was, but the point is that our legal system and the rights and responsibilities that it confers and requires are being chipped away at by authoritarian governments with the intended result being "efficiency" of the system rather than giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt (as it should be).

The right to silence has already been overturned in Queensland in bikie cases and therefore a precedent has been set to apply to other types of crimes, If we let this erosion of rights continue then it could come to the point where the onus of proof is reversed. More people may be put away, but we will have less confidence that they are the right ones.



> I don't know the ins and outs of why there needed to be separate trials (perhaps he was a joint accused in some of them, and the only one to be on trial for others?)




Because the principle is that each charge is a separate offense and must be proven separately. Can't you see a contradiction here with the Harris case ? Unproven allegations of other offenses have no bearing on the case for which the defendant was charged. This principle is carried out even when the defendant has previously been CONVICTED for similar offenses in the past. These convictions are not allowed to be presented as evidence in the current case, they are only used for sentencing. Once you start relying on allegations as evidence, the ground gets very slippery.


----------



## Julia (9 July 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Exaggerated ?, yes of course it was, but the point is that our legal system and the rights and responsibilities that it confers and requires are being chipped away at by authoritarian governments with the intended result being "efficiency" of the system rather than giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt (as it should be).
> 
> The right to silence has already been overturned in Queensland in bikie cases and therefore a precedent has been set to apply to other types of crimes, If we let this erosion of rights continue then it could come to the point where the onus of proof is reversed. More people may be put away, but we will have less confidence that they are the right ones.
> 
> Because the principle is that each charge is a separate offense and must be proven separately. Can't you see a contradiction here with the Harris case ? Unproven allegations of other offenses have no bearing on the case for which the defendant was charged. This principle is carried out even when the defendant has previously been CONVICTED for similar offenses in the past. These convictions are not allowed to be presented as evidence in the current case, they are only used for sentencing. Once you start relying on allegations as evidence, the ground gets very slippery.



Great summary of the dangers, Rumpole.    
Too easy (and too simplistic) to just make assumptions that simply because several people agree about something it must be correct.


----------



## noirua (5 October 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> Exaggerated ?, yes of course it was, but the point is that our legal system and the rights and responsibilities that it confers and requires are being chipped away at by authoritarian governments with the intended result being "efficiency" of the system rather than giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt (as it should be).
> 
> The right to silence has already been overturned in Queensland in bikie cases and therefore a precedent has been set to apply to other types of crimes, If we let this erosion of rights continue then it could come to the point where the onus of proof is reversed. More people may be put away, but we will have less confidence that they are the right ones.
> 
> ...











						Disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris ‘under 24-hour care with neck cancer’
					

He was released from jail five years ago.




					metro.co.uk
				



Unable to speak and fed by tubes: Rolf Harris' sorry life is revealed as the convicted paedophile is put 'under 24hr care' while battling neck cancer - and what sparked his sudden downturn​







						Disgraced Aussie entertainer Rolf Harris gravely sick with neck cancer
					

Neighbours and friends have confirmed sad demise of the 'gravely sick' 92-year-old Aussie entertainer and convicted paedophile who rarely leaves his home in Bray, Berkshire.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				











						Rolf Harris - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------

