'Heaven or Highway to Hell for him I wonder'
Can he tell what it is yet?
|
|
... he's Jake the pegged it.....
|
>> Stairway to Heaven or Highway to Hell for him I wonder?
>>
It seems that he has already had almost two weeks to find out.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12114779/Rolf-Harris-dead-93-Paedophile-TV-host-musician-killed-neck-cancer.html
Last edited by: henry k on Tue 23 May 23 at 13:26
|
|
He has requested his coffin to be carried by two little boys.
|
|
I wonder if Fred is going to tan his hide now h'es dead.
|
His didgeridoo is well and truly didgeridone.
I suspect the 2 week delay in announcing it was to allow the family to dispatch his remains without press intrusion. Which I don't think would be unreasonable.
|
>> I suspect the 2 week delay in announcing it was to allow the family to
>> dispatch his remains without press intrusion. Which I don't think would be unreasonable.
i suspect there is no grave to spit on.
|
Rolf Harris was convicted in 2014 of offences committed between 1968 and 1986 - between 28 and 46 years before his trial.
I am not suggesting he was innocent (I really don't know) but the evidence upon which conviction was based is scrappy and anecdotal at best.
Just imagine if as a motorist the time limit for an NIP was (say) 3 years rather than 2 weeks, and you received such for an offence apparently committed in October 2020 - over two years ago. The outcry would be immense.
I accept if children are abused they may lack the confidence to confide in an appropriate adult - but in the Harris case the witnesses would have been adults in their 30s to 50s. They should have come forward much earlier.
IMHO it is intolerable that trial from possibly poorly evidenced crimes 3 or 4 decades earlier are allowed to proceed. Most other countries have a time limit on prosecutions - in the case of child abuse there is some logic to extending this until the child has reached the age of (say) 18.
|
>> I am not suggesting he was innocent (I really don't know) but the evidence upon
>> which conviction was based is scrappy and anecdotal at best.
Are you for real?
He was convicted by a jury after a long and full trial.
This is what the judge said after the jury were "so sure you are certain" about what he'd done.
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 May 23 at 20:02
|
I was going to refer to that document in the same vein but then re-skimmed the appeal judgement and a blog which strongly suggested he should have a a retrial and so decided against it.
Not that that by any means absolved him, but there was significant doubt over certain evidence.
Appeal: www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/r-v-rolf-harris-judgment.pdf
Blog: barristerblogger.com/2017/11/19/rolf-harris-given-retrial/
Last edited by: smokie on Tue 23 May 23 at 20:13
|
So looking at it again one conviction, re WR who alleged he touched over her pants at a show when she was 7 or 8 c1969, was found unsafe. The basis for that was significant doubt about the event in Havant took place or, if it did, whether Harris attended.
The rest, including his repeated digital penetration of his daughter Bindi's friend C, were found safe.
I'm not clear what the blogger's rationale for a retrial really is.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 May 23 at 20:46
|
|
The problem with a lot of these JK, RH, GG, < insert DJ / Pop star of choice > cases is there was a lot of publicity during the investigation, lots of "victims" came forward, all were lumped into the charges, possibly with the hope of quantity over quality by the CPS/Police. The fact that some of these didn't stand up to court scrutiny later unfortunately dilutes the severity of the case against the core victims. Certainly RH et al has tried to use that to claim total innocence.
|
>> The problem with a lot of these JK, RH, GG, < insert DJ / Pop
>> star of choice > cases is there was a lot of publicity during the investigation,
>> lots of "victims" came forward, all were lumped into the charges, possibly with the hope
>> of quantity over quality by the CPS/Police. The fact that some of these didn't stand
>> up to court scrutiny later unfortunately dilutes the severity of the case against the core
>> victims. Certainly RH et al has tried to use that to claim total innocence.
The #metoo thing is pretty well known as is the reluctance of victims to come forward knowing that, historically, they'd be not just disbelieved but humiliated and, if they wanted to work in the music or whatever industry it was bye bye career.
Savile was probably the most prolific sex offender in modern times. When he died he was lauded as a hero...
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 23 May 23 at 22:54
|
|
I don't remember him being lauded as a hero, in fact far from it surely?. I don't disbelieve that he was a prolific offender but the allegations against him were never rigorously tested in court.
|
>> I don't remember him being lauded as a hero, in fact far from it surely?.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15507826
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2055045/Jimmy-Savile-dead-DJ-Jimll-Fix-It-presenter-dies-home-aged-84.html
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/10/29/jimmy-savile-dead-from-yo_n_1065121.html
Quite a bit of lauding went on. Knowing what we know, it's possible to perceive some clues in the eulogising, especially the Huffpost piece.
My father knew him in the late 40's/early 50's maybe through cycling, and would practically spit at the mention of Savile's name. Dad never said why he loathed Savile so much.
Savile had all but confessed to Louis Theroux, who knew he had a secret but couldn't quite grasp the full horror of the man at the time.
|
>> I don't remember him being lauded as a hero, in fact far from it surely?.
>> I don't disbelieve that he was a prolific offender but the allegations against him were
>> never rigorously tested in court.
The fact he was never prosecuted says much about the way he operated as an abuser, his own overbearing manner and, above all, the fact the other people either failed to see or knew but did nothing.
The one significant significant set of allegations against him that were investigated came to nowt as the women making the allegations were not willing to pursue them in court. Although a subsequent inquiry found that more effort should have been made it was written after his death and after the sheer scale of his offending had come to light.
Given the thorough investigations in the BBC, NHS and elsewhere after his death I don't think 'never rigorously tested in court' really carries much weight.
|
>> I'm not clear what the blogger's rationale for a retrial really is.
HAving read the whole piece whilst fully awake and alert I still don't get the argument.
Seems to suggest that part of the jury's route to a verdict might have given great weight to the first indictment, the case that was overturned, in relation to the other allegations. There is no evidence either way on this and of course the law would prevent a juror telling us if that was the case.
To my mind the evidence of his daughter Bindi's friend, as per the Judge's remarks, was overwhelmingly convincing. He deserved five years and more for that alone.
The rest of B Blogger's rationale seems to be based on the Court of Appeal's failures in cases over the period between Timothy Evans and the various miscarriages of justice involving IRA activity in the seventies.
Neither can I see any case whatsoever for some sort of 'statute of limitation' to prevent old allegations being followed up and prosecuted. Sure time elapsed since the actions alleged and the potential credibility of alleged victims, witnesses and the defendant are things the Prosecutor should take account of. It may even be something which the defence wants to address the judge on without the jury.
It's not a traffic offence, or something that happened on a day at work. I'm pretty sure if one had been in the habit of digitally penetrating one's daughter's friends it's not something you'd forget.
Let the jury decide.
|
>> Stairway to Heaven
I saw a copy of that in a 'bargain box' many years ago, for 50p IIRC. Kicking myself for not buying it, as I think it was quite good.
I'll now duck below the parapet!
|
Elsewhere it was reported on the 11th May that he had died and that it would be publicly reported on Tuesday May 23rd. I inwardly scoffed, but it came to pass.
I am surprised that none of the red tops went to the funeral. Are funerals private, or are they public, like weddings?
|
Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, and Rolf Harris walk into a pub in Ireland.
The barman says "oh no, not yew tree again!"
|
>> Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, and Rolf Harris walk into a pub in Ireland.
>>
>> The barman says "oh no, not yew tree again!"
Ahh. Was having a senior moment last night and couldn't think who GG, mentioned I think by Zeddo, was.
|
|
Well it wasn't Gloria Gaynor, she survived, as she predicted she would :-)
|
"Are funerals private, or are they public, like weddings?"
I've always assumed that a church service is open to the public, whether it's a funeral or not. I did wonder as I sat in the chapel of a local crematorium last Friday if the same applies there, as those present had all been invited.
|
>> I am surprised that none of the red tops went to the funeral. Are funerals
>> private, or are they public, like weddings?
Speculating/thinking aloud here but with weddings there's a bit about ensuring that both parties are actually free/permitted to marry. That's why we have bans and the bit in the ceremony about due cause and impediment.
Once life has been certified extinct that's it.
I think you're entitled to have a cremation or burial in private and exclude those who are not wanted.
|
Ooo me, me!!
Banns
Though bans might be beneficial sometimes too... :-)
|
>> Ooo me, me!!
>>
>> Banns
A furr cop guv...
|
Rolf Harris has Gone. - BiggerBadderDave
