Rolf Harris Sentenced – 5 years, 9 months

an-rolf-harris-mugshot-300x0 Introduction

Rolf Harris was convicted of 12 counts of indecent assault on 30th June 2014. Sentence was adjourned to the 4th July in order for a medical report to be obtained. We gave our guess as to what sentence he would receive here.

Prior to sentencing ‘Victim Impact Statements’ were read to the Court, where the victims set out how the abuse had, as the name suggests, impacted on them. There was then mitigation where the obvious factors in mitigation – Mr Harris age, good character and the fact that he is the carer for his ill wife, were put forward.

In the end, Mr Harris was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 9 months in prison. The full sentencing remarks can be read here and are, of course, vital reading in understanding the sentence.

 

Offences

Mr Harris was convicted of the offences as follows:

  • Count 1: Indecent assault between 1/1/68 and 1/1/70 on a girl A, aged 7-8

Sentence : 9 months

Details :A was queuing for Mr Harris’s autograph. “When she reached the front of the queue, Harris “twice put his hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing“. She said she had initially thought it might have been an accident but then he touched her again.”

  • Count 2: Indecent assault on a girl B, 14, between 1/1/75 and 1/1/76

Sentence : 6 months (consecutive)

Details:B was working as a waitress at a charity event when Mr Harris put his arm around her and down her back and over her bottom. “squeezing her left buttock a number of times“.

 

  • Count 3: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on girl C aged 15
  • Count 4: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 5: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 6: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 7: Indecent assault between 1/1/84 and 1/1/85 on same girl, then aged 19
  • Count 8: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15
  • Count 9: Indecent assault between 5/4/80 and 4/4/81 on same girl, 15

Details: C was a childhood friend of Mr Harris’s daughter and they lived close by. The offending started when she was aged 15. A summary of the offending is :

  • 3 – digital penetration of C’s vagina by spitting on his finger and putting it under her jeans for a minute – 15 months consecutive 
  • 4 – digital penetration of C’s vagina by spitting on his finger and putting it under her dungarees for a minute and a half – 15 months concurrent
  • 5 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst C was staying with Mr Harris daughter (whilst she had left the room) – 15 months concurrent
  • 6 – oral penetration of C’s vagina on the same occasion as Count 5 – 12 months concurrent
  • 7 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst C was staying with Mr Harris daughter whilst she was asleep in the same room – 15 months consecutive
  • 8- oral penetration of C’s vagina on the same occasion as Count 7 – 12 months concurrent
  • 9 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst she was in Mr Harris swimming pool – 12 months consecutive

The news reports indicate that C was aged between 13 and 15 at the time of the offences. Some of this (seemingly the earlier parts) was behaviour that was alleged to have occurred outside of England and Wales, and so cannot be tried in this country. We don’t know if the jury accepted that evidence or not, and so Mr Harris should not be sentenced on the basis that the abuse started when C was 13.

The total sentence for offences relating to C is 42 months

  • Count 10: Indecent assault on 31/5/86 on girl D, aged 14
  • Count 11: Indecent assault on D on same day
  • Count 12: Indecent assault on D on same day

Details:

  • 10 – putting his hand on her thigh over tights and knickers whilst she was sitting on his lap in public – 9 months concurrent
  • 11 – putting D in a ‘forceful bear hug‘ and putting his hand down her top into her bra and playing with her breasts for 30 seconds – 9 months concurrent
  • 12 digital penetration – 12 months consecutive 

Sentence : Unclear

Note – D has been widely named as it is reported that she has waived her anonymity. There is (probably) no power for her to do this, at least without having a waiver for this blog, as so we won’t name her as this would be a criminal offence. Clearly, all the other news outlets don’t agree with that!

[Information courtesy of the Daily Mail and BBC].

 

Sentencing Powers & Approach to sentence

The maximum sentences on Count 1 is 5 years, for Counts 2-9 it is 2 years on each count. The maximum for Counts 10-12 is 10 years each. We have a factsheet on sentencing in historic sexual abuse cases. Also worth a read is this on sentencing for multiple offences. The rule nowadays is that you start with the sentence that would be passed had the offences been committed today, before making allowances (sometimes) for the maximum sentence at the time. For that reason, the first port of call is the Sentencing Guidelines for Sexual Offences 2014.

It is perhaps best to group the offences by victim :

  • A – 6 months
  • B – 9 months
  • C – 42 months (3½ years)
  • D – 12 months

Having seen the details of the sentencing, we would say that for offending today Mr Harris would receive as follows :

  • A – 12 months
  • B – 9 months
  • C – 120 months (10 years)
  • D – 24 months (2 years)

Totality would come into play of course, and we would have thought that the total sentence would have been about 11 years, so double the actual sentence. That is before some discount for his age, health and other circumstances.

 

 

What about the child pornography?

Eagle eyed readers of the news will remember that Mr Harris was at one point charged with four offences relating to indecent images of children. This then dropped off the radar, why was that?

The Guardian has a very good explanation of why these allegations did not feature in the trial. We may do a longer piece on the issues round this but, in brief, Mr Harris denied the allegations and there were various investigation ongoing to establish the ages of the people depicted (a difficult area). The Guardian reports that these would not be completed by the time of the trial and, for that reason, they were separated to be tried at a later date.

Presumably they were not referred to in the media before then as it was felt that they were unduly prejudicial to the main trial.

The prosecution decided that there was sufficient public interest in pursuing the indecent images and so they have been left to lie on the file.

 

Other Orders

  • Mr Harris will be required to sign on to the Sex Offenders Register for the remainder of his life
  • He will have to pay costs – that will be assessed later, but will be substantial
  • The provisions of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act apply automatically
  • There was no order for compensation

 

Conclusion

There will be an appeal – Mr Harris has nothing to lose. One thing about sentencing for historic offences is that nobody is satisfied. On the one hand it is lenient, in that it is around half of what he would get now. On the other hand, it is very severe, as it is probably about four times or so what he would have got had he been sentenced at the time.

 

Rolf Harris leaving his house by boat on the day of sentence - Independent

Rolf Harris leaving his house by boat on the day of sentence – Independent

Advertisements

47 thoughts on “Rolf Harris Sentenced – 5 years, 9 months

  1. Caroline

    The sentence has been referred to the AG office to review whether it’s “unduly lenient”.

    (Repost from previous thread)

    Rolf Harris: multiple victims, pattern of predatory behaviour, years of emotional trauma to those he assaulted – 5 years 9 months

    Jeremy Forrest: one victim, isolated instance of foolish rather than predatory behaviour, a few days of trauma to the girl’s family – 5 years 6 months

    Not sure I’d call that UK justice at its finest.

    Reply
  2. Andrew

    Come off it, Duncan, this was not Father Christmas and you know it. Just look at this:

    Count 1: Indecent assault between 1/1/68 and 1/1/70 on a girl A, aged 7-8

    Details :A was queuing for Mr Harris’s autograph. “When she reached the front of the queue, Harris “twice put his hand up her skirt between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing“. She said she had initially thought it might have been an accident but then he touched her again.”

    or this

    3 – digital penetration of C’s vagina by spitting on his finger and putting it under her jeans for a minute – 15 months consecutive
    4 – digital penetration of C’s vagina by spitting on his finger and putting it under her dungarees for a minute and a half – 15 months concurrent
    5 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst C was staying with Mr Harris daughter (whilst she had left the room) – 15 months concurrent
    6 – oral penetration of C’s vagina on the same occasion as Count 5 – 12 months concurrent
    7 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst C was staying with Mr Harris daughter whilst she was asleep in the same room – 15 months consecutive
    8- oral penetration of C’s vagina on the same occasion as Count 7 – 12 months concurrent
    9 – digital penetration of C’s vagina whilst she was in Mr Harris swimming pool – 12 months consecutive

    and think again.

    Caroline: the A-G will consider the sentence, what the judge said, the Guidelines, and previous cases – not how many people (or newspaper editors) complain.

    Reply
    1. Caroline

      Yes I know, my comment about this not being justice wasn’t about the AG referral (sorry should’ve made it clearer) – I was remarking on the fact that Harris’ sentence is about the same length as sentences handed to others, eg Forrest, who have committed far lesser crimes and, crucially, done FAR less harm.

      (PS I thought that Duncan was making a joke based on the fact that Harris looks a bit like Father Christmas and after this no one will want to resemble him, so jolly-looking men with white beards will be harder to come by. But if I’m wrong and he was comparing Harris’ crimes to having a child sit on your knee then I agree with you 100%!)

      Reply
  3. Pete

    The link above to the judges sentencing remarks in the main text doesn’t seem to work?
    I’ve pasted below what I found online…..so perhaps Duncan and others who have posted comments here and consider Harris’ offences as trivial and ‘merely groping’ , you might want to take a read through – its considerably more than that (not that sexual molestation in any shape or form can be classed as trivial to my mind anyway)
    The judiciary remarks include detail vaginal penetration from Harris with his fingers and vaginal penetration with his tongue on numerous counts. Makes me sick to my stomach………..
    http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sentencing-remarks-mr-j-sweeney-r-v-harris1.pdf

    Reply
  4. Andrew

    Caroline: Harris benefitted from the changes in the law since his crimes – You can only sentence within the maximum at the time of the offence, and the judge makes that clear. A latter-day Harris would get a lot more – and a lot more than the wretched Mr Forrest.

    As for Father Christmas only Duncan can tell us which of us is right. If it is you then what he says is only mildly tasteless, and so are many of my posts here and elsewhere. Duncan, please enlighten us!

    Reply
  5. liberte, egalite, sororite

    In the words of the judge he [Rolf Harris] only has himself to blame for where he is now.

    Can anyone explain, in layman’s terms, why the charges of downloading and viewing indecent images of children were not made known to the jury, even if he wasn’t charged, for whatever reasons for possessing them surely they were pertinent to the other matters under consideration and so what if they were prejudicial to him that’s not anyone’s fault except his is it?

    Reply
  6. Andrew

    I am puzzled too, L-E-S, but then I did not hear the case.

    It may be this: that, alas, a lot of men download porn, even child porn, who don’t molest children themselves. (I know that they are encouraging the molestation by others, please don’t reach for the flamethrower, but they make the distinction). That being so, it seems unfair to rely on these very different charges which were not before the court. Why not? Well, if there were difficulties in proof that is a further very good reason for not introducing them.

    If you read what the judge said (see Pete’s link) you will find that evidence of similar facts was introduced; similar offences against the same victim but abroad and therefore not charged here because the Sexual Offences Act does not generally apply to conduct beyond the jurisdiction. Given that I don’t think the exclusion of the downloading charges made a difference: in fact we know it did not because Harris was convicted on all counts.

    (Incidentally someone mentioned Forrest. He was not charged, as I recall, with the sexual act with the young woman. That may have been because she refused to provide evidence of it – and nobody else could – or it could have been because they only had intercourse in France, in which case, see above.)

    Reply
    1. Claire Khaw (@ntfem)

      The porn found on his computer sounded to me to be stills of crotch shots of pubescent girls. Hardly extreme.

      It is absurd that it should be a crime to view anything, since it is logically enough to be told that we must not do certain things eg have sex with children or film an adult doing so.

      What is child porn? We already know that parents have been accused of being child pornographers by employees of Boots simply because they photographed their children in a state of nature.

      If we wished to judge for ourselves the depravity of the porn Harris viewed, then we would be also committing an offence. This is oppressive and absurd.

      Reply
      1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

        Claire Khaw – the porn found on his computer was described as extreme and in any case pornography which involves children is extreme and offensive. No amount of trying to talk it down and or trivialise it changes this, it simply serves to make the explainer sound absurd if not worse.

    2. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      Would you agree or disagree that their exclusion leans too much weight on protection of the rights of the guilty/abuser over the victims and the abused?

      Reply
      1. Andrew

        It’s the right to a fair trial which is paramount. And of course it’s important not to introduce evidence which might lead to a successful appeal. Given Harris’s age and the publicity there has been if for any reason he appeals and succeeds there won’t be a retrial. Let’s hope not. Foul swine.

  7. Pingback: The Barbaric Abuse of Rolf Harris | holocaust21

  8. Pete

    Yes L-E-S it seems like madness that the viewing and downloading of child pornography wasn’t made known to the jury. From the stuff I’ve read today including a lot of stuff direct from the hearing from Peter Walker @ The Guardian it seems (although I may have got this wrong??) that it was the consensus that if the jury were made aware of the child porn that it would be prejudicial to how they would view the other charges. From what I read it was the defence who strongly protested against this and apparently also requested that if those charges were to be heard that they would need greater time to investigate those claims and to check things such as the ages of the girls/women on the child pornography sites that Harris accessed.

    It could be that he is tried separately for those offences at a later date OR it may be that those charges are left now in light of his sentencing today etc. I am not a legal expert – I’m simply relaying what I’ve read throughout the course of today as events unfolded. Still, it doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Surely it would have given a broader picture/impression of the man’s sexual interest in children and pattern of behaviour?? As others have written in other posts, for those viewing/accessing/downloading child pornography it IS still a child being abused and for all the times people access those sites it continues to fuel the abhorrent mistreatment of children and young people and it keeps the cycle of abuse very much in motion while the demand is there.

    Walker mentions a little in this article from earlier today about the child porn charges (though not all…I can’t remember where I got the other info from…..possibly from his tweets sent directly from the hearing earlier today??)
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-jailed-indecent-assault-young-girls

    Reply
    1. holocaust21

      Well, there are plenty of bullshit nonce-sense myths floating around about child porn ‘every image of a child being abused is that child being abused all over again’, ‘child porn is abuse’ etc etc.

      However I recently wrote an article which explains what is wrong with child porn laws: https://holocaust21.wordpress.com/2014/06/29/9-reasons-why-child-porn-laws-are-evil/

      And I’m not the first to point this out either, nor will I be the last. For instance, a couple of years ago a leading politician by the name of Richard Falkvinge, the founder of the world’s first Pirate Party, the Swedish Pirate Party, wrote the following article: http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

      Reply
  9. Caroline

    Andrew & L-E-S
    I *think* the reason they didn’t include the child porn charges was because they weren’t sure they we’re proveable and didn’t want to risk jeopardising any conviction on the assault charges by including something shaky which could provide grounds for an appeal. Presumably they felt the case was strong enough without it (which it obviously was) and including the porn charges would only add a risk of making the conviction unsafe.

    They’ve apparently decided not to pursue the porn charges now, and I think Harris claimed he had downloaded the images “by accident”. I think Andrew hits the nail on the head re the grey area – he could perhaps have claimed that the images were from a legal porn site and he didn’t know they were underage. He was apparently viewing sites with names like “teeny teenage girlfriends” and “my little nieces” which probably try to cater for men (or women) with padeophilic tastes but within legal boundaries ie by using 18/19-year-old models who look younger. Grim, yes. But potentially not illegal. Maybe they couldn’t identify the models to verify their ages, or he might be able to argue the legal fault lies with the website if it provides a guarantee that all models are over 18.

    Re Harris vs Forrest, yeah I appreciate that the sentencing guidelines have changed but from what I can tell Harris didn’t get anywhere near what he could have got even on the old guidelines. They seem to have taken his age and “good character” into account. I’m not convinced that getting away with it for 50 years should count in his favour tbh. (Forrest was charged and pleaded guilty to the sexual relationship btw, I think that made up most of his sentence and he got a bit extra for the “abduction”.)

    Reply
  10. Georgina

    Will be out in 17 months and on home monitoring for another 15 momths……..thats standard for this sentence and offender……….remember this sentence for his age and health is severe in our system

    Reply
  11. Richard Bunce

    Could someone explain the issues around compensation in cases like this, or point me to where I can find out?

    Would the victims have to bring a civil case against Harris, or is it handled by the Criminal Injuries compensation board?

    Reply
  12. Pete

    For the record, my comments were most certainly not sourced from the ‘ping back’ –
    ‘The Barbaric Abuse Of Rolf Harris’ at the top of my post. I am unclear if ‘Holocaust 21’ was able to post that above my points having now seen this post and link to the website its on.

    Just to restate, I don’t agree with the view point and claims that what Harris has done is ‘trivial’ and ‘merely bottom touching’ as Holocaust 21 writes about in the links provided above my post. The judiciary sentencing remarks and some posts above quote in detail far more serious abuse from Harris.

    Reply
    1. holocaust21

      Pete, your intense desire to make sure everyone knows you don’t agree with me is remarkable! In any case, I think it was just coincidence that you posted just after I sent a pingback.

      The issue I have is that the cases from two of the victims were so trivial that they should NEVER have gone to court yet the fact that they actually went to court and the jury convicted him on those offences should make anyone doubt the integrity of the more ‘serious cases’ in his trial and indeed our entire criminal justice system. And even if we pretend that the prosecutors hadn’t pursued such ridiculous cases then the more serious cases still seem to have basically no evidence to back them up except allegations. And as Claire pointed out to you above the woman kept going back for more for I believe 16 years!?!

      We must of course always remind ourselves of the sickening injustice in the Jeremy Forrest case, which, by the way, happens all the time – it’s just the media try not to publicise those cases in a truthful way.

      Reply
      1. Andrew

        What evidence do you expect other than “allegations”? As for the repeat victim,she went where her family told her to go. What choice had she?

        What injustice in the Forrest case? He was a teacher. It was his job to control himself and say no to her. Caroline, you are of course right, he was charged with sexual activity with her – why he waived his rights under “specialty” I cannot imagine. Presumably this was sexual activity in this jurisdiction before they did a runner.

      2. Pete

        Not at all – Its ‘unremarkable’ that I would want to make clear that I have no affiliation with your website nor the view that Rolf Harris has been ‘barbarically abused’ which was the post of yours that appeared above my comment.

      3. holocaust21

        Andrew, if you’re happy to convict someone based on allegations alone then I think it would be better to legalise murder. At least with legalised murder it’s risky to murder your neighbour (they might seek revenge, you might fail etc) but for allegations there is absolutely no risk to the accuser. Quite frankly, I find it unbelievable that you think it’s OK to convict based on allegations, history has shown that times when this were true (such as the witch trials) were dark times indeed.

        As for the Jeremy Forrest case all you came out with is dogmas not arguments. Why should he not have sex with her because he was a teacher? Your word play is not very nice either: You say he should ‘control himself’ which plays into the hands of the feminist idea of the ‘sexual predator’ – he was hardly a sexual predator. He controlled himself very well in the relationship I thought – he did exactly what she asked him to do!

        Pete, I think it was already obvious you didn’t agree with me. The only reason I can see for you to want to make that extra clear is if you’re afraid of what the ‘paedophile unit’ might do to you if they thought you agreed with me. Which seems to back up my view that this is a witch hunt that is escalating to totalitarianism and genocide – it does not back up your view. It is indeed somewhat ironic that many self-proclaimed paedofinder generals like Max Clifford are now being convicted for paedophilia themselves. Oh the hypocrisy!

  13. Caroline

    People don’t usually video themselves having sex so “allegations” will always be the primary source of evidence in such cases. It’s up to the jury to assess the credibility of the allegations and in Harris’ case they found them credible.

    Andrew – of course Forrest should have said no to her but I must say 5 and a half years seems excessive for something that would have been legal in a few months. He had already (and deservedly) lost his job and career and spent several months in jail, I don’t really see what the point of sending him down for years is. He sounds like an irresponsible fool not a dangerous predator (unlike Harris). A rapist with good mitigation wouldn’t get much more jail time.

    I hasten to add that I could not disagree more with the other sentiments expressed by holocaust21 though.

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      I disagree with you on one point Caroline, Forrest was a sexual predator he knew exactly how old the child was when he made the decision to break the law by having sex with her and when he chose to abduct her to France. He was in a position of trust, which he abused, it would not have been legal in a few months. I believe in the teacher/pupil scenario it’s 18 or 19 years of age before he would be legally allowed put the moves on one of his pupils.

      If we don’t continue to draw the line in the sand and reinforce its existence the paedophiles and the would be paedo’s will continually attempt with their disgusting rhetoric and actions to push on the age by which they are legally allow to hunt our children, their prey. Even now children as young as 12 are being snared by these monsters and ‘blamed’ for the criminal offence of looking older than 12 (hold mother nature to account). Make no mistake these people are monsters who do not deserve to be in civilised society with civilised people.

      Reply
      1. Andrew

        18 with a pupil. Leaves some near A-Level types not covered, the same with recent school-leavers of 16 or 17 but you have to draw a line somewhere.

      2. Caroline

        I never said I thought what Forrest did shouldn’t be against the law or that he shouldn’t be punished for it. As Andrew said he should have controlled himself and said no, but there’s a difference between that and a sexual predator. A few months later, if he had resigned or if she had gone to a different college for A levels, it would’ve been legal (and he wouldn’t be charged with “abduction” if they’d run away), so giving him a sentence not far off what he’d have got for rape makes the law look unjust and inconsistent. I read about another teacher in court recently for a similar relationship but the girl was 16 so he got a suspended sentence.

      3. mraemiller

        “so giving him a sentence not far off what he’d have got for rape makes the law look unjust and inconsistent”

        It’s not inconsistent at alll. Both Jeremy Forrest and Rolf Harris were dirty old men who got themselves into positions where they were in loco parentis (looking after someone else’s kid as legal guardian or teacher) so they could groom underage girls so they could have sex with them. Jeremy Forrest didn’t take the girl to France by accident any more than Rolf Harris took his daughter’s friend to Hawaii by accident. They groom these girls then they try to get them somewhere where they are isolated from their family to assault/have underage sex with them because that’s … what sex offenders do. Indeally somewhere abroad because they believe that makes it harder for them to be caught/prosecuted. The only difference between Forrest and Harris is Harris has lived longer so has more crimes to account for and Harris also assaulted women.

  14. Pete

    holocaust21 – you are clearly nutty and have some deeply disturbing views – the only thing I would ‘be afraid of’ as you put it would be that women think all men share these views of yours…we don’t!

    Reply
    1. Liberte, Egalite, Sororite

      Pete I think the overwhelming majority of us are with you on this brother.

      Reply
      1. Caroline

        Agreed, and don’t worry women don’t think most or even many men have those sorts of views! I imagine there is a small minority of men and probably women too who think like that, but the vast majority of both sexes would be repulsed.

        And the formatting does make it look a bit like the pingback was part of your original comment so I’m not surprised you wanted to clarify that it wasn’t anything to do with you.

    2. holocaust21

      I can’t for the life of me see how I can be more nutty than some of your allies who seem to think that burning witches at the stake based on an accusation alone is a good idea. There is nothing wrong with campaigning against collective hatred directed towards some scapegoat. Afterall, scapegoating is what happened in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, Inquisition etc…

      I actually think a lot of women have been screwed over by these sex laws as well, especially ones who have had their older boyfriends jailed because they were underage at the time. But I guess you’re afraid that unless you support feminist sex laws then you won’t get a girlfriend/your girlfriend will leave you…

      Reply
      1. Andrew

        Your screen-name is so offensive that I won’t type it. But perhaps you will suggest how any sexual offence is to be prosecuted except on “allegations” (what the rest of us call “the evidence of the witness”) – unless you are only willing to countenance prosecution where there is physical injury still visible and DNA still available from the perpetrator?

        To be sure, when allegation meets denial the judge must and will tell the jury not to convict unless they are sure beyond reasonable doubt. And that will lead to some mistaken acquittals – and to some prosecutions not being brought where there is in fact guilt. That is a corollary of the need for a fair trial.

      2. holocaust21

        My screen name is supposed to represent the enormity of what is happening with sexual offence legislation. With nearly 1 million men classed as subhuman sex offenders in the United States alone the situation is getting close to being on the order of magnitude of the holocaust. Thus, the point is that I see a 21st century holocaust as a bad thing, not a good thing.

        I am only willing to allow prosecutions where there is actual evidence. Someone merely making claims allows anyone to put anyone away for any reason. I wouldn’t say physical injury must ‘still’ be visible as none of Rolf Harris’s offences were violent thus there never were any injuries. It is fundamentally problematic to put someone away for years or decades for a crime which may have never even happened and it is certainly not a fair trial. With murder at least you usually have a dead body, so something bad happened. But with radical feminist definitions of rape there is no body, no injuries, just a victim claiming that their life has been ruined.

        Unless the ‘victim’ was held hostage for years it seems hard to see how their life could be ruined or at least not without them sharing some of the blame. If a woman married a man for 20 years but gradually the relationship broke down would you say the man should be jailed simply because the woman regretted ever marrying him? You could say her life was ruined because she married someone who she later realised she despised, but she must surely take some of the blame for that and thus a prosecution is simply trying to make a bad situation worse.

      3. Andrew

        “My screen name is supposed to represent the enormity of what is happening with sexual offence legislation. With nearly 1 million men classed as subhuman sex offenders in the United States alone the situation is getting close to being on the order of magnitude of the holocaust.”

        Your screen name, like all attempts to define anything except the Holocaust in terms of the Holocaust, is an abomination.

        “I am only willing to allow prosecutions where there is actual evidence. Someone merely making claims allows anyone to put anyone away for any reason.”

        If by actual evidence you mean physical evidence: if a rape victim does not resist for fear of worse injuries and has a bath before complaining – and that is the instinctive reaction of many of them – so that there is no DNA there may be no physical evidence. On your theory there can be no prosecution.

        “It is fundamentally problematic to put someone away for years or decades for a crime which may have never even happened and it is certainly not a fair trial. With murder at least you usually have a dead body, so something bad happened. But with radical feminist definitions of rape there is no body, no injuries, just a victim claiming that their life has been ruined.”

        The definition of rape – sexual penetration without consent – is neither radical nor feminist. There are plenty of ways for a man to ruin a woman’s life – and vice versa – which are not rape.

        “Unless the ‘victim’ was held hostage for years it seems hard to see how their life could be ruined or at least not without them sharing some of the blame.”

        See the last sentence of my last interpolation.

        “If a woman married a man for 20 years but gradually the relationship broke down would you say the man should be jailed simply because the woman regretted ever marrying him?”

        No, and so far as I know neither would anybody else. Divorced, yes, but not jailed.

        “You could say her life was ruined because she married someone who she later realised she despised, but she must surely take some of the blame for that and thus a prosecution is simply trying to make a bad situation worse.”

        Indeed if there was a prosecution but unless he rapes her or injures her physically there won’t be.

        Would you care to think how much offence you are giving, or is that your intention?

      4. Caroline

        If you are mugged at gunpoint and you hand over your wallet rather than risk getting shot, there is no evidence for the crime except your “allegation”. The jury may not believe you if it’s just you (hence many rape trials end in acquittal) but if there are several people all identifying the same mugger and describing similar incidents a jury is likely to convict even if there is no physical evidence. That’s because witness testimony IS evidence whether certain people think so or not.

      5. Pete

        My God…..your comments just get worse. I just wonder where you stand on the sexual abuse of boys and men or if your tirade is simply everything against women?! (this is rhetorical!)

        Seems to me the only people being scapegoated are all those who have suffered any form of sexual abuse……and that would be women only from your perspective given the thread of comments here and the detritus on your website.

        As Andrew notes – you are deeply offensive.

        You might want to consider the impact your comments have on others using this site – some of which most probably have suffered sexual abuse. You might also want to consider who we all are, you really have no idea. You may want to tread a little lighter.
        Just a suggestion.

      6. holocaust21

        Andrew, the definition of rape is a radical feminist definition because they kept REDEFINING IT. Previously the definition of rape was often of a man using force or serious threats against a woman. However, that has been watered down to the idea of a woman who doesn’t keep reiterating her consent being ‘raped’ to a woman who has had a couple of glasses of wine being ‘raped’ to a woman below the ever raising age of consent being ‘raped’.

        You also completely missed my point about the divorced woman example – I’m pointing out that given that we don’t jail people in that example, which can be argued to ruin peoples lives to an equal amount as some of these lesser rapes (e.g. coercion rapes like in Rolf’s case) then we shouldn’t be handing out massive sentences for these lesser ‘rape’ crimes.

        Pete & Andrew, you both use some political correctness attack to tell me to stop saying what I think seemingly because of ‘you can’t say THAT’ ideology. PC is all about population control. PC is the reason sexual offence legislation doesn’t get wider criticism. You claim I am offensive but I actually found your comments on here offensive. You claim I’m offensive to sexual abuse victims but how about Jeremy Forrest’s lover? Somehow I think she would find YOUR views offensive, not mine. You would happily call him a sexual predator which is a revolting inflammatory term that is nothing short of a blatant lie.

        I’ve been involuntarily celibate my whole life because of feminist sex laws. I had to watch as the government made more and more sexual acts serious crimes, as they threatened me with being arrested for paedophilia or rape in their propaganda shows they call ‘the news’. Quite frankly, I would have loved to have been ‘sexually abused’ by a woman when I was younger, but alas, that didn’t happen. So I think I have a right to take my stake in society by making my views known – so far it’s been denied to me.

        You’ll probably just say ‘oh now your post is even more offensive’. Whatever. If you don’t like it bury your head in the sand. But if you think you can use nasty inflammatory language to destroy the lives of non-violent men without criticism then no, I’m not going to just be quiet and say nothing.

        In any case, I think we’ve said everything we need to for now. Unless you have anything in particular you want to add – otherwise we’ll just be going around in circles.

  15. bbrhuft

    With regards to the dropped Child Porn Charges.

    33 images were found of possibly under-age models amongst either “thousands” or “hundreds” adult pornographic images. Of these images one appeared to involve a child under 13 years.

    However, after enquiries by his defence team a Ukrainian website provided identity documents of the models involved proving they were over 18. Furthermore, his defence team argued that of the many websites he visited, only 4% of page views involved websites featuring younger models and the websites from which the supposed underage images originated are not known by the Internet Watch Foundation for putting up indecent images of children.

    It was also explained by his defence team that Mr. Harris’ search terms when looking for pornography was “kind girls” and “babes”, that he was not looking for child pornography but adult porn. The defence team claimed his page views involving younger looking models occurred due to Mr Harris clicking website links accidentally.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-caught-33-child-3807271 (Ignore sensationalised headline)

    Reply
    1. Andrew

      In any event if he was now tried on these charges first it is difficult to see how he could get a fair trial and second he would get a concurrent sentence – so the decision not tosles pragmatic sense .

      Reply
  16. Andrew

    Damn predictive texting and I don’t know what “tosles” are either. I meant “so the decision not to seems pragmatic sense”.

    Reply
  17. mraemiller

    “only 4% of page views involved websites featuring younger models”

    Call me old fashion but you either are or aren’t a nonce.
    “I’m only 4% nonce” doesn’t wash very well with me.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s