but the other 11 still stand. Not sure what to make of this. I suspect it is further evidence that the system is broken.

JK2006 wrote:
but the other 11 still stand. Not sure what to make of this. I suspect it is further evidence that the system is broken.

Political JK. It's symbolic one goes. To say the lot go in one means an acceptance of a deeply broken and hypocritical system of justice.

I put it to the Worksop test.

There is a street in Worksop where sits the police station. Next door is a solicitors office. Next to that is the court. It's like a sausage machine of injustice.

Seems massively unfair that, if one conviction is agreed to be unsafe, that he has been barred from having the others looked at.

If I remember rightly some of the convictions were absurd, one complainant couldn't even remember the year of the location of the alleged assault and yet he was still convicted.

Guilty until proven innocent seems the new standard.

He has trying to get two overturned wasn't he? Did he no succeed on the other one? Am I also correct in thinking that he can't appeal the other eleven? I'm a bit confused. If one was seen to be 'dodgy' then the other eleven should also be looked at.

Someone on the Popscene group on Facebook said he assaulted his wife's friend and she was over the moon when it
all went public and he was sent down.

It's not about justice though.

Who wants to be the judge to say, Rolf Harris is innocent, after all the rubbish we've been brainwashed to accept in the last few years?

MCR wrote:
Someone on the Popscene group on Facebook said he assaulted his wife's friend and she was over the moon when it
all went public and he was sent down.

Rolf assaulted his own wife's friend, or the popscene person's wife's friend?

Was whoever it is part of the case?

Slightly unexpected decision.

Do we know which charge was quashed? From the reporting, we know that one of the convictions appealed was the fiasco about the (non-) appearance in the little community centre.

And the other was something about a comment the judge made about witness reliability, so I'm thinking it was the nonsense about the TV show in the park in Cambridge. Rolf's unreliable for forgetting he went to Cambridge 20 years ago, but the accuser is reliable after changing the location, TV show, TV channel and date by 3 years.

My guess is that the Cambridge incident was quashed. There's little tolerance for judicial bias, whereas even if the new evidence about the community centre had been considered by the jury, they might still have convicted - and that's the pretext to wriggle out of quashing that stupid load of bullshit too.

JK2006 wrote:
but the other 11 still stand. Not sure what to make of this. I suspect it is further evidence that the system is broken.

I suspect that its evidence that he was guilty all along !

Yeksum wrote:
Am I also correct in thinking that he can't appeal the other eleven?

YES - because there is absolutely no reason to query the Jury's decision.

I'm a bit confused. If one was seen to be 'dodgy' then the other eleven should also be looked at.

There is not a shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with these convictions.

In The Know wrote:
Yeksum wrote:
Am I also correct in thinking that he can't appeal the other eleven?

YES - because there is absolutely no reason to query the Jury's decision.

I'm a bit confused. If one was seen to be 'dodgy' then the other eleven should also be looked at.

There is not a shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with these convictions.

ITK, a little acquaintance with the substance of what you're talking about might help you.

Querying the jury's decision is not an allowable ground of appeal, in law. You can only appeal if there is new evidence unavailable at the time of the trial, or if there was a procedural or legal irregularity in the trial.

It's true to say that Rolf hasn't presented grounds of appeal for the other 10 convictions, so in terms of appeal law you're right and Yeksum is wrong. There isn't anything legally wrong with them as it now stands and appeal grounds for some convictions cannot be used to challenge others.

However...most of the convictions relate to the affair with the friends daughter (who had unsuccessfully tried to blackmail him). The others are Tonya Lee, whose story and behaviour are not credible, the Cambridge accuser who completely changed her story when it was proven to be untrue, and the liar who invented a concert that exhaustive investigation could find no trace of. Plenty of evidence that there's something wrong with those convictions.

Randall wrote:

ITK, a little acquaintance with the substance of what you're talking about might help you.

Querying the jury's decision is not an allowable ground of appeal, in law. You can only appeal if there is new evidence unavailable at the time of the trial, or if there was a procedural or legal irregularity in the trial.

It's true to say that Rolf hasn't presented grounds of appeal for the other 10 convictions, so in terms of appeal law you're right and Yeksum is wrong. There isn't anything legally wrong with them as it now stands and appeal grounds for some convictions cannot be used to challenge others. .

....which is what I said ....lol!

I do not believe Rolf would harm anyone.

I've met him twice..he is an extremely tactile person..on first meeting he gripped my arm but in friendly fashion and listened intently to what I was saying.

His close friends all say the same..he's "touchy feely" but in a super friendly manner.

I noticed this because I am the opposite..I can recoil often but I know it's just me.

I can see others..women perhaps ..who may be like me and slightly uptight and assume any touching is assault.

I recommend everyone wear rubber gloves and a wetsuit these days and upon meeting stand 5 feet away from any new person and just wave.

I met Rolf very superficially in professional circumstances and he always seemed a decent bloke; once in the BBC car park in the 60s where we joked that I had the same little beard that he had. Only fell out slightly when I recorded Dame Edna Everage doing Two Little Girls (named Edna and Madge) and Rolf would not let me release the parody of his song!