Rolf Noooooooooooooo!

[StraferJack]

"The sheer number of people coming forward independently of each other" AS WELL AS independantly decribing how things happened

I'm not dismissing the idea of people saying things for compo per se - but in this case, as Jeremy points out, the profile nature would likely have weeded such opportunism out

[Jeremy]

Regarding the "why now" question... perhaps the victims just wanted to forget about it and put it behind them. Or maybe they didn't want to drag up painful history if they weren't sure their story would be taken seriously. Perhaps they felt humiliated over what had happened. Seeing others come forward might have given them the strength to follow suit.

[steveo]

I'd bet there will be claims against Rolf's ?11 million from victims uninvolved in the criminal case.

It's also likely the main fight against those claims will come from his daughter who thought she would get it

[StraferJack]

Again, because of the profile, I don't think it's likely that non-victms will chance their arm Steveo

Anyone "found out" would face quite a public backlash

[steveo]

So you don't think I should give it a whirl then?

[StraferJack]

how far do YOU think you'd get?

[nashoi]

?11m in total? I wonder how much Rebecca Brooks defence council picked up for her trial, amazing what money can buy.

[Otta]

I think there are plenty of people out there that wouldn't give a shit about public backlash if they thought they might make some easy cash.

[Otta]

nashoi Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ?11m in total? I wonder how much Rebecca Brooks

> defence council picked up for her trial, amazing

> what money can buy.

The prosecutor was on a 10th of what some of them were on apparently.

[randombloke]

Rolf Harris has been found guilty of probably the worst most vile crime by the best justice system in the world. The crimes he has committed are a living hell for any of the victims.

Making jokes about it is in very poor taste. Irrespective of the motives of any of the accusers, if he did these awful crimes he should be punished.

As has been suggested paedophiles are extremely skilled at hiding their crimes. We tend to disbelieve they could possibly have been guilty of them. And that is the main issue.

Had he admitted his crimes then perhaps his victims could have avoided a harrowing time in court. He, or his defence team chose not to.

Without going into detail I know someone very well who was abused for over 15 years starting as a 4 year old. She tried to "tell" on him but was never believed. It was something she never recovered from.

Like everyone else I wanted to believe that he had been wrongly accused. It seems he was not.

Part of my childhood has gone. But that is as nothing to the life of shame felt by the victims.

They are the ones we should feel sorry for.

[Jah Lush]

Hear hear!

[civilservant]

seconded

and here I was thinking that the climate had changed enough for people to be able to finally come forward with their story and expect to be given a fair hearing - but not, it seems, in parts of ED.

As for a focus on celebs, a bit of a red herring, steveo. Many of the oldest men in prison at the moment are serving time for crimes similar to those committed by Rolf, Stuart Hall, Gary Glitter, Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith... although no doubt on a smaller scale. So why should celebs be exempt from justice?

Edited to add - according to a Ministry of Justice publication from 2012, "since 1993 the sentenced population for sexual offences has risen by over 7,000. (...) Following the introduction of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the numbers sentenced rose by 31% from 2004 to 2011. Over the same period the average custodial sentence length rose by over 13 months (particularly driven by increases in sentence lengths for the most serious sexual offences). Higher volumes being sentenced, and longer average sentence lengths have combined to drive the increase in the prison population for sexual offences."

[PokerTime]

Thirded.

Sexual abuse is a very serious matter. Celebrities are not above the law.

There will be identifying factors common amongst independent accusers, some of which will be physical characteristics of the accused. Defence teams show little mercy in cross examining victims. There is a reason why some victims of rape for example find the prospect of going to court terrifying. If you look at the progression of the way rape cases have been handled over the past 40 years, it's not hard to see why prosecution now is far easier than it would have been in the 70s for example.

[civilservant]

my edit cross-posted with PokerTime

[LadyDeliah]

One of his victims was his daughter's friend and he admitted to having had sex with her, but reckons it was only after she reached 18. He'd written an apologetic letter to her dad which pretty much admitted his guilt and the girl had years of therapy as a result of the abuse.

In some of these cases, complaints are made but not followed up, or actively suppressed. Piecing together lots of bits of evidence from independent sources would be able to add to the weight given to the victims oral evidence.

Here is a very interesting overview of the appalling stuff that was going on then with lots of these powerful peadophiles.

http://www.scriptonitedaily.com/2013/12/18/uk-establishment-closes-ranks-as-organised-paedophile-network-leads-back-to-no-10/

They were well organised and selected victims with complicit social workers by going through pictures of kids in care homes and reading their report cards as if shopping for a suit from a catalogue.

[Otta]

I must admit, when I read a couple of the charges brought against him (like the autograph hunter) I thought that sounded like a bit of a stretch, and surely easily explained away.

But then I read this line in a BBC piece

"Much of it was too graphic for the mainstream media to report. Inevitably, it will have left the public with a misleading impression of the seriousness of the charges."

[steveo]

Ulp

[the-e-dealer]

The Glass Eyes. Freaky!

[adonirum]

Good post, Randombloke, don't agree about the best justice system in the world though, not really, not anymore.

Also, we now have the breaking news about Westminster, Leon Brittain etc etc. Is there no end to all of this.

How could so many go unchallenged and escape justice for such long periods of time?

[StraferJack]

"don't agree about the best justice system in the world though, not really, not anymore. "

when was it the best then?

[adonirum]

Difficult qustion to answer, SJ, perhaps Randombloke can enlighten us as to what period of time he refers to, but there's no doubt whatsoever that it most certainly is not the case in the here and now

[the-e-dealer]

10 am is usually good.

[StraferJack]

Well you said it wasn't any more. So I'm asking for your frame of reference

When was it good? And which countries do it better now?

If you can't answer you shouldn't make the claim surely?

[the-e-dealer]

It was all those people in the Paedophile ring telling us that the British Justice was so good.

With all the Racism in the Police the stitching up of non Ira People, the ignoring of Jimmy Saville we have to go long way back to find a time when it wasn't corrupt.

[DaveR]

best justice system in the world? I dunno. Most systems have strengths and weaknesses, and v difficult to judge using the criterion most people would instinctively reach for i.e. how good at convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent. Exposed miscarriages of justice are so small in number that they don't give you a great indication.

generally better now than in the past - almost certainly. Better judges (more professional, better selection and training), better rules of evidence and procedure (swings backwards and forwards between being accused of unduly favouring prosecution and defence but overall reasonably well-balanced and sensible) and better juries (this is necessarily a bit speculative, but if people in general are more open-minded and fairer than in the past, and I think that they are, that probably translates to juries)

re Rolf, there's no rule that says someone can't be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness, and as already observed, in his case there were lots of witnesses who appeared to be reasonably consistent in what they described. If witnesses have been or expect to be paid or otherwise make money as a result of giving evidence or the outcome of the trial that has to be disclosed e.g. if someone has sold their story. A speculative hope for future compensation is a bit different but still fair game for cross-examination (but a high risk strategy)