Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Mods, strike this from the record.
fucking paedo piece of shit
At least he'll never play any his god-awful music in the car again.
and our boy started asking questions about who he was, so I patiently explained about Jim'll Fix It and what that was about and how actually it turned out he was a VERY BAD MAN.
Now he's going on about he wishes "Jimmy Savile was still alive" because he "REALLY wants to meet Fernando Torres and Captain America".
- torres is proper proper turd
Yes, a custodial sentence.
Nothing to do with it being bad taste. Just look at it.
russell brand stole your joke
was one of the most impressive Renaissance men of our age - a beloved TV personality, a critically acclaimed artist who'd taken commissions as highly sought after as the Queen, and a successful musician.
Probably not how he'll be remembered now.
just a guess
is trying to create a new reality schism where nonce Rolf doesn't exist.
William Roach isn't a bad man but Rolf the lover of puppies is? This is just fucking deplorable :(
"A short distance away his wife, Alwen Hughes, his daughter Bindi, his niece Jenny and other relatives and supporters looked on.
Twelve times the forewoman of the jury said the word "guilty". Harris remained completely impassive. Bindi widened her eyes, looking stunned. Jenny turned to Harris's wife and gently shook her head.
They had been convinced of his innocence. But the jury was sure of his guilt."
Oh man :(
He could run the art class in the nonce wing.
imagine sitting through an hour of that
like Donnovan changing that lyric to "I love 14 year old girls" or whatever it was. Weird to think how much young teenage girls were thought of as 'fair game' back then. Literally every man who had a high profile role on TV in the 60s & 70s, or was in a band or whatever must be shitting themselves these days.
Makes you wonder, doesnt it? #moker
but ultimately this is a positive outcome- all those women have finally been listened to, justice has been done and perhaps it will bring closure for some of them.
It's really sad that Rolf Harris has done awful things. I don't buy the whole "he was a thinly veiled monster, all those times he appeared really empathetic and approachable and nice were a lie!!" angle though. I'm not religious, I don't believe in good and evil. People just do stuff, and there is never one core trait that defines their character. Someone can do amazing, brilliant stuff in their life and really horrible stuff too without it being a contradiction.
Obviously I'm not defending him, I'm just thinking about all this because my first reaction to the verdict was "oh god I'm so sad, this has completely tainted all my memories of watching Animal Hospital as a kid", but when I thought about it, it hasn't really- I liked him in Animal Hospital because he was a great tv presenter, which is still true. However he's also done some awful, unrelated stuff, and I'm glad he's being punished for it.
Still sad though. Really sad.
This is fairly bizarre:
Apparently he was the guy who suggested it, which makes me wonder if he wanted to get caught or something. Or else he really did have some weird ability to block out bits of his brain from other bits.
Horrific stuff, anyway.
He is obviously a deeply flawed man who has committed awful crimes but I think 'people' want to believe that things are black or white with as little grey as possible, and sections of the press don't help because they like to magnify this and build up monsters.
I think now is the right time for us to look into why he was so obsessed with tying those kangaroos down
is the armies of people defending them saying that the victims were in it for the money or some kind of personal vendetta if they get off. Or even if they are found guilty. If only they knew what it was like to get to trial, and how little they would get in compo anyway.
...uhh ...second worst thing maybe?
There are no known incidences of paedophiles trying to tie kangaroos down.
but that does seem short for the number of awful crimes he committed. Even in light of them being committed a long time ago and being sentenced under old guidelines.
Like with Hall in a way I think the prison sentence is irrelevant, he's effectively got a life sentence now anyway.
he wasd tied under the legislatoin as it applied at the time, which was lax to say the least and reflective of a permissive society that turned a blind eye to men feeling up young women as a matter of course.
Had he been tried under the current legislaton it would be more like ten years.
I actually think the sentence is a little harsh, in non-emotive strictly legal reasoning terms. I haven't read teh sentencing report and could be wrong but i'm guessing the judge made some of the sentences run consecutively and not all concurrently.
Do they have an influence on the length of the sentence?
the cirinal jhustice act asks a judge to consider when sentencing 'any harm which the criome caused' or words to that effect) so the statement is a very clear way for the judge to hear first hand.
*shopping and pub, but can aswer this more fully in an hour.
Some light reading on threads we did earlier here in the meantime-
Watkins (I also link in here to another discussion on the matter ref stuart hall) http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4440018#r7871960
max clifford- http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4447432#r8072512
and dont think it works.
but this was a really long-term pattern of abuse - he could see that he was effectively destroying the youth of his daughter's best friend and driving her to alcoholism.
there's probably loads of other offences he wasnt tried for as well.
the opportunistic nature (as opposed to premeditated, I guess) was used as a mitigating factor in his sentencing. The fact that he committed 12 crimes over 20 years wasn't really mentioned - does the long-term serial nature of the offending not come into play?
Seems fair enough. If you consider that prison is about: punishment, rehabilitation and public safety then only the first of those really applies in this instance. He's only going to get let out on health grounds in a few months anyway.
his health is, but otherwise he should be sentenced independent of how old he is (which i think has been the case)
He's shown no remorse, he pleaded not guilty, he's lied to the victims and their families. He IMO should be spending a lot longer behind bars as a punishment.
I don't know really, I just feel that locking up someone for the rest of their life should only occur when they're likely to be a serious threat to the public if they're released earlier.
And whilst it probably shouldn't be a consideration, someone's celebrity status does effect the impact of this sort of trial. He's ruined now, and will probably be more so once his victims start getting compensation (which I assume they will?). I've no sympathy for him but I don't see how adding another two or three years to his sentence would be of benefit to anybody.
your last sentence - maybe the victims would feel a stronger sense of justice?
I don't want to go all daily mail but a man committed at least 12 awful sexual assaults on young (some pre-pubescent) girls over 20 years. He caused a huge amount of hurt and damage to people's lives and he went on to live a life of relative luxury. The idea that he'll be out in 3 years to me doesn't seem right, irrespective of all the mitigating factors and the fact that he's an old man and prison doesn't benefit anyone particularly much.
I appreciate that times have fortunately changed and sentences for these crimes in present day would be longer. but still.
you can never change the fact that he was wealthy for years before he got nicked. Again, it's drifting into dodgy areas if someone's wealth or social status should be held against them when they're punished.
Same with the victims' idea of justice - not comfortable with the idea of punishment being set on those grounds, and sadly I don't think there's any punishment that will make any of the victims feel a particularly satisfying sense of judgement.
Unpleasant reading but sound reasoning
Sentence about right given the restrictions placed by timings of the offenses
The Ian Watkins one still upsets me
for obvious reasons, that is what gets me. I hope anyone who thinks he is innocent or stitched up somehow reads this kind of document.
thought all the other yewtree type people are total creeps anyway and it wasnt surprising. for some reason i had actually liked him before this.
like there had been with Saville, Clifford etc
And probably because everyone of a certain age remembers Rolf's Cartoon time as a TV highlight of the weekend
were telling me years ago that Rolf was a notorious sex pest. Well known throughout TV and the like for being very touchy-feely and a creep. Although this was limited to adults and was not suggested to be anything of the nature we've seen in the sentencing reports. One of my friends, even knowing he was a serial harrasser, has still been surprised that he's abused underage girls to the violent extent that he has. Seems his darkest side was unexposed to even those who knew he had a pretty dark one.
Grim all round. Amazing how someone capable of emitting such warmth on screen could have such sinister traits, but then I guess we shouldn't be surprised by anything any more...
"Well known throughout TV and the like for being very touchy-feely and a creep" is so so fucked up
And it's something which the Savile case has exposed to its most horrendous end. But this is the product of a culture where sexual harassment was part and parcel of every day life. My Mum was telling me it was the same at her work in the 1960s. `There was some offices you just tried not to go in` she said, in relation to people in them who were known gropers. No-one said anything. Shoulders were shrugged and everything just continued as it was...
Doesn't bear thinking about how many peoples lives have been destroyed by a) the widespread abuse and b) the `don't speak don't tell` culture which fell out of it as a result. It's beyond saddening.
had a conversation about the fact that there are STILL 'offices you don't go into'. One of my colleagues used to work at the same company as me and she was telling me about her line manager - a guy I had a passing working relationship with - who propositioned her. She managed to deflect it and said nothing but since leaving she has found out that he took similar liberties with two of her erstwhile female colleagues.
If anything good comes of these trials hopefully it will be that women will feel a little more confident that they will be listened to if they raise sexual harrassment issues
Never liked Saville or Clifford. But Rolf?
Always used to watch the Rolf on art program on the BBC on Sundays with my mum where he painted in the style of people like the impressionists. Its really sad cause i have good memories of that program and how happy and such a nice man he seemed :/
Grim reading. The basic factual structure of the reports make them somehow more shocking.
They also remove any infinitesimal pity one might have for the perpetrator
The sentence of five years and nine months has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme".
and thinking it's the long-hand version of Cliff Richard.
Next you'll be saying Barney The Dinosaur is a cat burglar
regardless of nonce status that is fucking terrible planning