Rolf Harris faces further sex-abuse charges

[Terpe]

Veteran Australian entertainer Rolf Harris, who will stand trial in April accused of indecently assaulting two underage girls, will face 3 further charges of sexual assault, Britain's public prosecutor said Monday, December 23.


Source:-
http://www.rappler.com/entertainment/46501-rolf-harris-further-sex-abuse-charges

[SimonH]

Difficult one for me to comment on this, as he lives just down the road, and I've met him several times. I'm still a firm believer in the British justice system and the principal that you're innocent until proven guilty, and on that premise I don't think anyone (celebrity or not) should be named until proven guilty.

[andy222]

Difficult one for me to comment on this, as he lives just down the road, and I've met him several times. I'm still a firm believer in the British justice system and the principal that you're innocent until proven guilty, and on that premise I don't think anyone (celebrity or not) should be named until proven guilty.
:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[les_taxi]

I hope he isn't guilty but making a song called "Two Little Boys" doesn't help :yikes:

Also 'I'm Jake the peg with my extra leg' could be more sinister that we first thought :icon_lol:

[joebloggs]

I think the CPS wouldn't prosecute him unless they thought they could secure a guilty verdict, i wonder how he could explain this
as well as four counts of making indecent images of children.:cwm25:

[grahamw48]

I've never forgiven him for ruining 'Stairway to Heaven'.

That's got to be worth a wack in the wobble board. :mad:

[fred]

I've never forgiven him for ruining 'Stairway to Heaven'.

That's got to be worth a wack in the wobble board. :mad:

This Graham??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NMzuQFHJVU

:xxparty-smiley-004:

[grahamw48]

Thankyou Fred. I will NOT be playing that. :xxaction-smiley-047

[lordna]

This Graham??


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NMzuQFHJVU

:xxparty-smiley-004:

I see what you mean about "ruining stairway to heaven".....thats absolutely dreadful!:vomit-smiley-011:

[gWaPito]

this is what I remember him for


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QscvXkYQAek

Goodness, this brought back memories...I got the boys on my lap singing this..made cry!!!

[Michael Parnham]

Difficult one for me to comment on this, as he lives just down the road, and I've met him several times. I'm still a firm believer in the British justice system and the principal that you're innocent until proven guilty, and on that premise I don't think anyone (celebrity or not) should be named until proven guilty.

I'll agree with that Simon :xxgrinning--00xx3:

[sentinent]

Difficult one for me to comment on this, as he lives just down the road, and I've met him several times. I'm still a firm believer in the British justice system and the principal that you're innocent until proven guilty, and on that premise I don't think anyone (celebrity or not) should be named until proven guilty.

Does that go for any offence or just offences of a sexual nature? Are you really saying that no one who is charged should ever be named until after a guilty verdict? I agree with the adage of "innocent until proven guilty." But do we now need to alter our legal system which is centuries old in light of a new adage: "Anonymous until proven guilty?" How would we know who is on trial? What about Freedom of the Press? The newspapers would be empty except for political nonsense and adverts for pay day loans.

[johncar54]

I understand that if the details of a person, who has been charged with an offence, are released it is in effect potentially unfair to that person, as of course innocent until proven guilty tends to be forgotten.

However, I also see that in the Yew Tree investigation, that it is likely that if the details of a person who is charged are released, then it is probable, that others, whom that person has assaulted, who have not until then reported it, are likely to come forward and report. I suspect that is why, for example, Rolf Harris if facing further charges.
I also understand that the possibility of convicting a person charged with assaults which are so old is likely to prove difficult if they do not plead guilty.

One way in which such cases might be proved is by ‘system’. That is, that they have a number of complainants, who cannot possible know each other, making practically the same allegations, with the same MOs. That is rather like a person who passes one dud cheque may not be convicted as it is difficult to prove that they knew the cheque would bounce. But if they pass several such cheques, then by ‘system’ it is `provable that they knew the cheques would bounce.

[Arthur Little]

Needless to say, I was both saddened :bigcry: and disappointed on first hearing this news. Rolf Harris initially came to the UK during my early childhood (as an impressionable 8-yr-old) ... and to me - as well, no doubt, as to two successive generations of youngsters since - has lo~ng been something of an "institution".

Really hoping against hope :pray: that those dreadful allegations prove to be unfounded.

[joebloggs]

Really hoping against hope :pray: that those dreadful allegations prove to be unfounded.

what actual evidence could the victim have to prove the allegations? it's just their word against his, and I'm sure no one on a jury wants to convict anyone without actual evidence :NoNo:

[gWaPito]

Needless to say, I was both saddened :bigcry: and disappointed on first hearing this news. Rolf Harris initially came to the UK during my early childhood (as an impressionable 8-yr-old) ... and to me -as well, no doubt, as to two successive generations of youngsters since - has lo~ng been something of an "institution".

Really hoping against hope :pray: that those dreadful allegations prove to be unfounded.

Me too Arthur

[sentinent]

what actual evidence could the victim have to prove the allegations? it's just their word against his, and I'm sure no one on a jury wants to convict anyone without actual evidence :NoNo:

So why bother with a trial? If the CPS have decided to prosecute there is likely to be a little more evidence than we are aware of now. The criteria upon which the CPS decide to prosecute, as I understand it, is "a realistic prospect of conviction."

[joebloggs]

maybe as a warning to others the CPS will prosecute them, or other victims might come forward with evidence , as it looks like 3 more 'victims' have come forward :cwm25:


as well as four counts of making indecent images of children. i wonder if these were found in his possession :cwm25:

[joebloggs]

The four offences of making indecent images of a child are said to have occurred between March and July last year.

The offence carries a maximum 10-year jail sentence.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-faces-new-sex-2954361

[les_taxi]

Not sure what 'making indecent images of a child' mean? Does that mean downloading and printing them out?

Or taking the pics yourself?

[imagine]

I hope he isn't guilty but making a song called "Two Little Boys" doesn't help :yikes:

Also 'I'm Jake the peg with my extra leg' could be more sinister that we first thought :icon_lol:

and he played with his didgeridoo :sexy_146: :omg:

[grahamw48]

Naughty Stewart. :laugher::laugher::laugher:

[johncar54]

Ken Roach has now Joined Michael le Vell, in being acquitted.

As I said in December 2013, " I also understand that the possibility of convicting a person charged with assaults which are so old is likely to prove difficult if they do not plead guilty.”

[joebloggs]

I'm not surprised about the verdict, how can a jury convict him without any physical evidence ?


In court, the woman making the rape claims changed her mind about how old she was at the time.

Another woman initially told police she was warned about Mr Roache by actor Johnny Briggs, who played Mike Baldwin, but when it was discovered he was not in the show at the time she said the warning had come from a different actor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-26068034

[johncar54]

The Dave Lee Travers jury, seemed to have agreed with me about the possibility of getting a conviction on alleged assaults which took place so long ago.

More public money wasted and another man who will carry the 'no smoke without fire' reputation for the rest of his life. The CPS should be abolished.

[Trefor]

How many more 'celebrity' cases are going to appear from the woodwork and how long before the CPS realises it is not 'in the public interest' to continue wasting money on pursuing these cases. Perhaps when these people are found innocent the accuser's name should be made public, might cut down on the compensation claims...

[johncar54]

Perhaps when these people are found innocent the accuser's name should be made public, might cut down on the compensation claims

Sorry if I appear pedantic but no one is ever proved not guilty. They are presumed to be innocent if a jury do not convict them. That is far from being proved innocent.

[joebloggs]

Perhaps when these people are found innocent the accuser's name should be made public, might cut down on the compensation claims

Sorry if I appear pedantic but no one is ever proved not guilty. They are presumed to be innocent if a jury do not convict them. That is far from being proved innocent.

true, maybe the jury should have the option of a not proven verdict, and if new evidence is found at a later date there could be a new trial.