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 |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: why was Rolf even in court?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Jo |
Perhaps there is brainwashing thanks to media/internet. Harris was described in court, and has been described since in the media, using terms already used to describe Savile in the media. This can be checked by Googling them in quotation marks with -rolf -harris "jimmy savile". Examples:
untouchable
Jekyll and Hyde
dark side
+ plenty more |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
Jim wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Spot on Hedda - none of us heard all the evidence or saw the witnesses and defendant in court so we can't fairly judge guilt or innocence but it is grossly unfair for anyone to face claims from that long ago with NO repeat NO actual evidence apart from one person's word and assumptions.
It's eyond me how these kinds of cases (including my own) could ever have been allowed into court.
OK - ignore (for the moment) such things as failure or adapting of memories. Ignore the power of the media. Ignore the corruption and assistance of statements by police. Even ignoring all these factors, and outside pressures such as life failures, drink and drugs, cash compensation, greedy lawyers, ambitious media persons - it is quite simply unfair and unjust to try anybody without proper evidence.
I felt that 14 years ago. Indeed I was astonished it could happen. I feel the same today. It's not right, it's not justice, it's not fair and it should not be allowed.
Thanks to Jonathan and Hedda. Both spot on. But you take this out into the broader public and behold, you are a defender of paedophiles and vile sub-human scum. Otherwise reasonable minds turn on you, turn you into a monstrosity of untrammeled proportions, and vow never to forget your place in the world: dead and buried. Umm...doesn't that bother anybody? It's surely not just me? I find it all but impossible not to be affected by that, and frankly cowed by it. I'm just not that brave. How to deal with it?
It should be possible to have the debate? If not, can we then have a debate about not being able to have the debate? Is even that impossible? I begin to despair.
I agree, Jim. It is as if everybody is brainwashed. maybe they are? To me, it doesnt matter a jot if Rolf did it or not and I couldn't really give a stuff.
The point is that it is apparently ok now to convict someone without evidence, just because the accuser "says so"
British justice is collapsing and we are all cheering! Any minute now and they wont bother with trials at all.  |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
hedda wrote:
it occurs to me- I have met a huge number of 'celebrities' of all manner..and had an endless number of 'brushes with fame'
I can remember each and every incident, the date and times and what occurred including meeting Rolf Harris at a Hotel Intercontinental party in Sydney in 1999 while I was visiting to look at properties.
Lord McAlpine was at the same party (he owned the hotel)
I do not believe a person who meets a celeb like Harris ever forgets the year.
I am the exact opposite. I forget everything and everybody and I would be blissfully unaware of it if youtube didn't exist.  |
|
hedda |
indeed, I've been removing Facebook posts like crazy.
The vehemence directed to anyone daring to question any aspect is quite ferocious with the usual.."you sound suspect"
so I self censor but it's a real fear. And the media & politicians who should know better help create the atmosphere.
Cameron's warning about the McAlpine fiasco was just lost and there seems to be a tendency for the same hacks to prove that in the end, they were right.
Roy Greenslade in The Guardian is demanding an apology from Littlejohn for warning against a Yewtree celebrity witch hunt. Bizarre that Greenslade doesn't actually realise what he is saying : he's demanding Littlejohn censor himself.
The whole thing is so insidious, like a slow growing cancer.
I wouldn't be an old trouper these days for quids  |
|
Jim |
JK2006 wrote:
Spot on Hedda - none of us heard all the evidence or saw the witnesses and defendant in court so we can't fairly judge guilt or innocence but it is grossly unfair for anyone to face claims from that long ago with NO repeat NO actual evidence apart from one person's word and assumptions.
It's eyond me how these kinds of cases (including my own) could ever have been allowed into court.
OK - ignore (for the moment) such things as failure or adapting of memories. Ignore the power of the media. Ignore the corruption and assistance of statements by police. Even ignoring all these factors, and outside pressures such as life failures, drink and drugs, cash compensation, greedy lawyers, ambitious media persons - it is quite simply unfair and unjust to try anybody without proper evidence.
I felt that 14 years ago. Indeed I was astonished it could happen. I feel the same today. It's not right, it's not justice, it's not fair and it should not be allowed.
Thanks to Jonathan and Hedda. Both spot on. But you take this out into the broader public and behold, you are a defender of paedophiles and vile sub-human scum. Otherwise reasonable minds turn on you, turn you into a monstrosity of untrammeled proportions, and vow never to forget your place in the world: dead and buried. Umm...doesn't that bother anybody? It's surely not just me? I find it all but impossible not to be affected by that, and frankly cowed by it. I'm just not that brave. How to deal with it?
It should be possible to have the debate? If not, can we then have a debate about not being able to have the debate? Is even that impossible? I begin to despair. |
|
|
|
|
