Rolf Harris may be as guilty as charged, entirely innocent or worse than claimed.

He should never have landed in court.

No-one should be charged for a crime (apart from murder & war crimes) from over 10 years ago.

How on earth can they defend themselves?
Most especially in today's rabid atmosphere.

If Harris forgets he was in a certain place 20 years ago it's a sign of his deceptive Jeckle & Hyde character.

Of course he will forget where he was 20 years ago let alone 10, 5 and probably 3/4. He's an incredibly busy man meeting dozens of people every week.

the claimant will never forget meeting Rolf Harris & their Brush With Fame- the only one they probably ever had!

yet they even forget the year and place (as in Savile/Exposure) but that is seen as a sign of the 'stress' of abuse.
A perfect example of how the odds are stacked against the defendant.

Most countries have a Statute of Limitations including every US state(5 years for rape in New York) for the reasons I state. People have recognised this important factor : the passage of time and the lessening of any defendant's ability to prove innocence for 1000s of years,


Historic abuse cases are a symptom of an evil sickness in British society. They are about retribution and revenge. They are about money and the growing ugly set of compensation lawyers trawling for clients and ramping up the hysteria.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Statute+of+Limitations

# you can of course, prove me wrong.

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.

hedda wrote:


Most countries have a Statute of Limitations including every US state(5 years for rape in New York)


Why spout so much garbage - in the hope that nobody will notice?

The SoL - for rape - has not applied in New York (just one example) for years.

Because of DNA, which changed everything. Everywhere.

Most countries have a Statute of Limitations

That will change soon, at least in the EU. A recently passed directive lobbied for by feminists means that every nation in the EU will have to remove any statute of limitations as regards child sexual abuse.

One can also go back to the Timothy Evans case. Eight years after he was sentenced, RAB Butler dismissed a petition for an inquest on the grounds that too much time had passed and memories had become unreliable.

SP17 wrote:
hedda wrote:


Most countries have a Statute of Limitations including every US state(5 years for rape in New York)


Why spout so much garbage - in the hope that nobody will notice?

The SoL - for rape - has not applied in New York (just one example) for years.

Because of DNA, which changed everything. Everywhere.



there is a range of tinned fruit on sale in Australia called SP17. Is it named after you?. Cheap and nasty stuff from Asia. Last tin I got was bitter and sour.

of relevance but apparently dismissed by the jury is the alleged Cambridge assault (rubbing his hands down her back and 'cupping' her backside).

Lost or ignored in the reporting because of Harris' claim he had never been to Cambridge ( Crime watch presenter Sue Cook also said she had forgotten she was on the same show)which was seized upon as a Gotcha moment by the prosecutor..was the claimant's bizarre mistake that it happened in 1975 when she was 13.

The show was actually in 1978 so she must have been 16/17. : when Harris makes a mistake it's evidence of deliberate lying : when the claimant makes it...and I reckon her mistake is indefensible - it's dismissed.

I would say that is just one of the glaring examples of why prosecuting an alleged crime- and a very minor one at that- from 36 years ago is bizarre.

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.

SP17 wrote:
hedda wrote:


Most countries have a Statute of Limitations including every US state(5 years for rape in New York)

The SoL - for rape - has not applied in New York (just one example) for years.

Because of DNA, which changed everything.

Your argument was fundamently flawed by your captioned assertion - which is incorrect on so many counts. Most countries/no; every US state/no; New York - 5 years/no.

Still you continue to post without even referencing this?

hedda wrote:
SP17 wrote:
hedda wrote:


Most countries have a Statute of Limitations including every US state(5 years for rape in New York)


Why spout so much garbage - in the hope that nobody will notice?

The SoL - for rape - has not applied in New York (just one example) for years.

Because of DNA, which changed everything. Everywhere.



there is a range of tinned fruit on sale in Australia called SP17. Is it named after you?. Cheap and nasty stuff from Asia. Last tin I got was bitter and sour.

of relevance but apparently dismissed by the jury is the alleged Cambridge assault (rubbing his hands down her back and 'cupping' her backside).

Lost or ignored in the reporting because of Harris' claim he had never been to Cambridge ( Crime watch presenter Sue Cook also said she had forgotten she was on the same show)which was seized upon as a Gotcha moment by the prosecutor..was the claimant's bizarre mistake that it happened in 1975 when she was 13.

The show was actually in 1978 so she must have been 16/17. : when Harris makes a mistake it's evidence of deliberate lying : when the claimant makes it...and I reckon her mistake is indefensible - it's dismissed.

I would say that is just one of the glaring examples of why prosecuting an alleged crime- and a very minor one at that- from 36 years ago is bizarre.

A double edged sword,either way you're wrong

Well said Hedda,agree.

hedda wrote:
there is a range of tinned fruit on sale in Australia called SP17. Is it named after you?. Cheap and nasty stuff. Last tin I got was bitter and sour.


LOL !

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.

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

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.

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.

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