Naff BBC judging Rolf Harris quilty after he has been aquitted

[mercalia]

Listened to Womens hour ( by accident ) and it "told the story of a woman who accussed Rolf Harris of assaulting her" Really naff abuse of the BBC as he was aquitted. Since the lady told her own story you were invited to identify with her ( she had a nice middle class home counties BBC voice ) and therefore believe her story and that it was just too long ago and the jury would not be able to convict him. This is realy disgusting abuse of the BBC I think - judging him quilty when the judge declared him not quilty as the jury couldnt agree and the prosecution decided not to try again. This technique has happened before with a story about a putative drink rape on a uni campus that never went to court where a lady found her self in the morning in the bed of a fellow student having got herself drunk the previous night. There the lady in a video told her story on the BBC news website. The BBC wouldnt consider it had engaged in bad journalism comparing that case with a burglary as having happened - no doubt in other words. I was tempted to take it further but why bother when the organisation is so lacking in journalistic standards these days and just a mouth piece for "friends" and their axes to grind - no better than the press in fact.

[meic]

He has already served time for the same sort of offence.
But still proclaims his innocence.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i- ... f-10553524

It is rather difficult to decide the facts in a case of one person's word against another's.
I cant imagine there is much point in him suing the BBC for libel when he is already branded, not much loss of reputation to be had there.

[mercalia]

He has already served time for the same sort of offence.
But still proclaims his innocence.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/i- ... f-10553524

It is rather difficult to decide the facts in a case of one person's word against another's.
I cant imagine there is much point in him suing the BBC for libel when he is already branded, not much loss of reputation to be had there.

you are missing the point, the BBC has circumvented the role of the courts? The uni "rape" case I also mentioned was a similar trial by media - the BBC came back to me that it was alright as they didnt mention the guys name but that a crime had been commited ( by comparing it to that of a burglary that has obviously happened or not). Is it no accident in both cases the editors were women......

[meic]

What about free speech?
If you were wrongly convicted of a crime should you be banned from proclaiming your innocence (as Rolf Harris is now)?

We dont know if what she said is true or not. If it is true it would be a great injustice if she was denied the freedom to speak the truth.

As for female editors, it isnt just females who ascribe to the view that anybody accused of sexual offences is to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.

[blackbike]

What about free speech?

That depends if you have politically correct views or not.

Questioning the courts and judges if you are politically correct is perfectly OK.

If anyone else does it then it is an outrage, as we saw with Gina Miler's recent case.

As a rule of thumb, people who claim to be 'liberal' and 'progressive' can say what they like and the rest of us have to walk on eggshells for fear of offending them.

At least that's how these 'liberal's would like it to work.

[pwa]

Do I think Harris probably did what he was acquitted of? Yes, in view of his past conviction. Do I think the BBC should present Harris as the guilty party, in view of his acquittal? No, it's not their job to find people guilty when the courts have done otherwise. But I can't get worked up over it. He's not the nice man he pretended to be.

[broadway]

Do I think Harris probably did what he was acquitted of? Yes, in view of his past conviction. Do I think the BBC should present Harris as the guilty party, in view of his acquittal? No, it's not their job to find people guilty when the courts have done otherwise. But I can't get worked up over it. He's not the nice man he pretended to be.

From what I read he didn't give evidence, so all that was known was one side and is presumably her testimony was in the public record. Sounds more like a BBC hater having a rant.

[thirdcrank]

In theory at least, the prosecution evidence should be carefully considered at several stages: first, by the CPS to ensure that it is sufficient to go to court and then at the conclusion of the prosecution case by the judge to ensure there is a "case to answer" ie sufficient evidence for the jury to be able to reach a guilty verdict unless the defence case raises at least a reasonable doubt. In addition to the protections now given to some prosecution witnesses in a cases of sexual assault, there is the general restriction on a defence advocate during cross-examination who knows their client will not give evidence: while they can question the witness's evidence, they cannot introduce anything which will not be heard in evidence.

We'll probably never know what lead to the inability to reach verdicts. It seems unlikely that they did not believe the prosecution case. My guess is that at least three jurors decided "enough is enough." RH is 87, he's been to prison for similar offences and they have effectively taken a decision which they felt the CPS should have taken sooner: prosecution not in the public interest.

By coincidence, American comedian Bill Cosby is currently on trial for an historic sexual offence. It seems numerous allegations have emerged which cannot now result in criminal prosecutions because of statutes of limitations in the US. (I don't know if these are federal laws, or is they vary from state to state.)

[reohn2]

This insignificant excuse for humanity doesn't need any help from the BBC in destroying his slimey and disgusting character

[pwa]

This insignificant excuse for humanity doesn't need any help from the BBC in destroying his slimey and disgusting character

Like other well known and now disgraced celebrities he will end his life knowing that the "nice guy" image he built up over decades has been destroyed, and all our memories of everything he ever did are now remodeled. He can never again walk into a cafe and relax, or talk to a child in the street. All he has to do is wait for his wooden box. So yes, he has made his own punishment.

[reohn2]

This insignificant excuse for humanity doesn't need any help from the BBC in destroying his slimey and disgusting character

Like other well known and now disgraced celebrities he will end his life knowing that the "nice guy" image he built up over decades has been destroyed, and all our memories of everything he ever did are now remodeled. He can never again walk into a cafe and relax, or talk to a child in the street. All he has to do is wait for his wooden box. So yes, he has made his own punishment.

And well deserved IMHO.
I once did some work for a not long retired high ranking police officer,during the course of the work I asked him who were the most hardened criminals he'd encountered, without a second thought he said child molesters.
He'd spent some time investigating such people,( his wife told me later it was the most traumatic part of his career),he told me they were the only people who wouldn't even recognise their crimes he said he'd shown seized videos of themselves carrying out the abuse and they'd point blank deny it was them.
It seems to me these people are a rarety in that they can't be rehabilitated as they don't see themselves or their crimes as wrong and in light of that can't be trusted in society,IMHO they should be locked up for life.


EDIT:-just to clarify I'm not meaning two 15yearolds or an 18year old and a 15 year old rolling in the sheets,but systematic child abuse of small pre pubesent children by adults who know what they're doing to those children is damaging to their development as human beings that casts long dark shadows on their lives.IMHO there is degrees of sex abuse and they'd as with unlawful killing such matters are IMHO by degrees and need clarifying within the legal system,which is something that to me as a layperson seems wolly and blurred IMHO.

[Boyd]

There are a lot of people who should be locked up for life. I wonder if you think it should also included terrorists?

[reohn2]

There are a lot of people who should be locked up for life. I wonder if you think it should also included terrorists?

You're dead right it does,is that clear enough for you?
Now,your point is?

[Boyd]

There are a lot of people who should be locked up for life. I wonder if you think it should also included terrorists?

You're dead right it does,is that clear enough for you?
Now,your point is?

It was question that's what the question mark means.
The problem with your reply is that you constantly say "can you blame them" or words to that effect. So obviously I would have difficulty in believing you would support terrorist going to jail for life.

[Vorpal]

No one has said 'can you blame them'. Saying our (Western countries') actions contribute to cause of terrorism should not be taken to imply terrorists should be exhonerated. People who have done horrible things like bombing or attacking innocent people should, if they survive the event, be locked up for life, or at least a very, very long time.

I'm completely in agreement with that, and although I don't want to speak for anyone on here, I doubt that anyone disagrees.

On other threads, the disagreement, it seems to me, is mainly about our (Western countries') contribution and responsibility.