King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]andrew wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:[/b]
[quote]Can somebody please explain to me how anyone can be convicted of a witnessless "crime" that was supposed to be committed in a poxy community centre that would be the very last place an international star with a huge number one hit would perform in?  (and if he did, surely it would be the talk of the town?) 
I am absolutely baffled.

I am also unconvinced by the idea of someone being abused on stage "where nobody could see because it was from behind" 
Yes, the audience might not see, but there is always someone in the wings and it is difficult (because of the lights) to see far beyond the stage so you wouldn't be able to tell if you were being watched or not. 
(To be fair, a poxy community centre might well have only had a sixty watt bulb)[/quote]

A mate saw him live at a club in Romford, my old driving instructor said he performed at his local town hall, not forgetting he has done a numerous amount of gigs at universities.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Rolf guilty
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Jo	"His victims will press on in the civil courts" twitter.com/LizDuxLawyer/status/495164821856583680 Wonder if this has any implications for his case: MWT: Court of Appeal rules names of suspects arrested by the police should be publicised even before they are charged Daily Mail: Police should name arrested suspects, says judge "Most members of the public understand the presumption of innocence"
MWTWATCHER	Judge put a no compensation ruling in. good as its not about money is it ?
Jo	Everything seems to have gone quiet on this. Apparently no follow-up on the reports from early July about possible compensation claims. No reports on an appeal.
honey!oh sugar sugar.	hedda wrote: that was actually 33 pics not 3 amongst a porn stash. the problem was the CPS thought they would have difficulty proving the age which means they must have been teens..who knows..could be 20 looking 15 Maybe they were Page 3 pics from pre-2003 ! There is no possible reason the CPS would not have charged Harris with the porn unless they were not sure it would pass muster. It's a classic but filthy CPS tactic..load on charges and allow the media to go hysterical...and the public. Job is done without the hard work. And the idiot public falls for this. They haven't learned a thing. And how could the jury not have known and be influenced by the "child porn images" after it was announced in the media?
hedda	that was actually 33 pics not 3 amongst a porn stash. the problem was the CPS thought they would have difficulty proving the age which means they must have been teens..who knows..could be 20 looking 15 Maybe they were Page 3 pics from pre-2003 ! There is no possible reason the CPS would not have charged Harris with the porn unless they were not sure it would pass muster. It's a classic but filthy CPS tactic..load on charges and allow the media to go hysterical...and the public. Job is done without the hard work. And the idiot public falls for this. They haven't learned a thing.