Am I being enormously cynical?

[ferrarilover]

I know what Scorer will say, so I'll save him the effort. However, I wonder if normal people see this the way I do or if I'm being unkind...

These women, a dozen or so who have come out of the woodwork to claim compensation based on being sexually abused by Rolf Harris (and others).

Is it only me who thinks that this is very, very obviously bollocks. There's absolutely no way that all these girls just happened, after almost half a century of suffering in silence, to have found the inner strength to come forward the minute that Harris is found guilty.

I wonder if the answer is that, for occurrences which can be both tortious and criminal, it is a prerequisite for the success of the civil action that their evidence formed part of the criminal trial? At very least, the complaint must have been made before the suspect is charged.

The way it is presently, it's a case of simply following any case of this nature and then filling in some forms.
The criminal conviction can be used as evidence at the civil trial, so it's far too convenient that these women have waited until now to seek redress.

Matt.

[Gullscorer]

Yes Matt, I agree, you're not being too cynical. It's difficult to believe that the compensation pay-outs by the BBC following the Jimmy Savile disclosures did not include a number made to those who saw the opportunity to make some easy money with a false claim. The way things are set up in these cases is an open invitation for women (and even a few men) to make false accusations in the hope of turning a nice profit. And in the unlikely event of them being found out, they will get away, except in the most blatent cases, with little more than a slap on the wrist. What is worse, this makes it more likely for innocent men, faced with an accuser and a number of others hoping to cash in, to be convicted.

This is not to say that all accusations are without merit. But evidence is such cases is almost non-existent, and a verdict can easily come down to whom the jury believes, a protesting defendant or half a dozen shrill accusers. The scales may be even more weighted, thanks to the influences of feminist ideologues, by politically correct directions laid down to judges and juries as to what evidence may be admissible and how evidence should be considered, by the introduction of feminist-influenced training of judges, and the possibility of the extension of jury-free trials. A woman in such cases is always to be believed, she will always, from the outset, be a victim and never simply an accuser, and a man will be considered guilty until proven innocent and the mere fact that he is a man may be counted against him.

It all smacks of witch-hunt and of totalitarianism. When ideology formulates the law, justice is likely to go out of the window. At the risk of overstating my case, look at what happened in Nazi Germany and Communist USSR, or in states controlled by religious zealots.

[EmetEdadsBeard]

Well I'm afraid I couldn't agree more with you Matt. No "at last the mans behind bars" or "thank God that's over with justice has been done", instead an immediate response by 12 women claiming the magic 'C' word.

Undermines the whole case from where I'm sitting, very uncomfortable with the conviction now.

[Dave]

Do think I've seen such a display of utter ignorance in the history.

Rolf Harris a proven liar, fact....http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ro ... 71269.html

Hers what his victims, yes victims did say....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28140334

His youngest victim was just 8 years old, how can anyone in there right mind even begin to defend this man, hope he dies in prison personally.

[Gullscorer]

Do think I've seen such a display of utter ignorance in the history.
Rolf Harris a proven liar, fact....http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ro ... 71269.html
Hers what his victims, yes victims did say....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28140334
His youngest victim was just 8 years old, how can anyone in there right mind even begin to defend this man, hope he dies in prison personally.

Nobody's agreeing nor disagreeing with you, Forever, because it looks as if you've been mis-reading this thread. Read the thread again carefully, and you'll find that it's not actually about the guilt or innocence of Rolf Harris.

Individual posters have indeed mentioned the case, but this is because it has prompted renewed considerations of the workings of the justice system generally as it is currently applied in cases of sexual abuse, and the consequences thereof, namely the encouragement this gives to gold-diggers and false accusers.

That, and not Rolf Harris's guilt or innocence, is the issue under discussion, with which you are of course free to agree or disagree, and hopefully to provide reasoned argument to support your opinion.

[Dave]

No, I've not miss-read this thread at all, I get the sentiment of it, however I deliberately choose not to quote certain things written, but there quite clearly is suggestions that these 12 victims have made it up for financial gain, also an implication the convictions may not even be safe.

As for the compensation angle here, who says these victims will need a civil case, victims of crime have been entitled to compensation from the criminal injuries compensation board, now known as Authority for 50 years, that's anything from death to physical or mental injury, so if these victims wanted to make money they could have come forward at anytime, to to mention press interest this case would have got at any time.

I choose to highlight one charge for a reason, it shows just why it can take many years for a victim of this type of crime to build up the emotional strength to come forward. When one allegation was put forward to Rolf Harris, his response seems to have been, she's 'obviously lying' I haven't been to Cambridge until 4 years ago, and I was in Canada at the time .

When video evidence is out to him that proved he was exactly were and at the time the complainant said he was , he RH suddenly became a frail old man with sketchy memory, well, there seemed to be nothing wrong with his memory when he was protesting he was in Canada at the time , proven bare faced lair who is prepared to do ever he needs to get away with it.

When we're talking about the justice system here, I think it's quite clearly worked in Rolf Harris' favour, sure Matt will correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the historical nature of these offences Rolf Harris could only be charged with a offences that stood at the time and be sentenced under sentencing guidelines that stood at the time of these offences, had he been 'allowed' to be charged and sentenced under todays guidelines it's highly likely he would have got 10 years not 5, he can also think himself lucky that it seems he's not going to face any further prosecution for any fresh allegations.

Don't see any gold diggers here, just 12 genuine victims. Of course where there's money there's theft, and where there's compensation there's fraud, that's a very sad fact of life, more often that not false allegations are quickly established and thrown out, the odd does indeed slip the net, in this case, that hasn't happened in my view.

[Scott Brehaut]

Interesting article: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/curren ... able-doubt

[Dave]

Yes Scott I had read that article and dismissed it as utter tripe, the same people wrote this..http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/curren ... -rape-porn all the proof anyone should need.

[EmetEdadsBeard]

Vanessa Feltz is now claiming Rolf Harris groped her.
If that doesn't undermine the accusations agains't him, nothing will. She 's a publicity seeking munter of the worst kind.


In my honest opinion of course.

[ferrarilover]

Do think I've seen such a display of utter ignorance in the history.

You've not been to the Bristol Rovers board...

Rolf Harris a proven liar, fact....http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ro ... 71269.html

Where were you on the 9th February 1981?

You can't remember? LIAR!!!!

Rolf Harris is a man who has visited 1000s of towns and villages, that he can't remember one entirely unspectacular day from 40 years ago is hardly a surprise*

Hers what his victims, yes victims did say....http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28140334

Absolutely no problem with this. His victims should be offered our support and good wishes. These are not the people to whom I am referring. My post is questioning the motives of those who are not victims, in the established sense. Those who played no part in his criminal trial, where their evidence could be rigorously tested for truth and accuracy to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt". My post relates to those who have only now come to the fore and claimed to have been abused and whose evidence shall be tested to the standard of "the balance of probabilities". Those who are acting with the intention not of righting a moral and legal wrong by assisting the Crown in prosecuting a sexual offender, but by claiming financial compensation.

His youngest victim was just 8 years old, how can anyone in there right mind even begin to defend this man, hope he dies in prison personally.

No one is defending him, what I am saying is that I am dubious about these fresh claims being made 'after the Lord Mayor's Show' and what Beardy is saying is that this type of claim just goes to show (in his mind and mine too) that there are people out there who would allege that they have been the victims of all sorts of abysmal things when they have not, for nothing more than a shot at some compo. If people will do that for a couple of grand, there's nothing stopping equally deranged people doing the same for shits and giggles and to get their names in the paper.
These people exist. Beardy feels uneasy about the conviction because he knows just how easy it is for a Jury to be swayed by a meek and mild girl, all prim in her little white dress, bawling her eyes out on the stand and pointing on the teddy bear where the nasty man touched her.
Barristers, clerks and Judges are known as Court Actors for a reason. The whole thing is a show. Choreographed just like any West-End musical, with acts, plots, heroes and villains, winners and losers. He knows how a skilled barrister (or a ham fisted barrister, in the specific example) can take a slip of the memory and use it to prove that the accused is an habitual liar. We have seen in this very thread how it's possible to make an ordinary man, an ordinary juror, believe that another man is a proven liar, simply because he recalls erroneously a date from the dim and distant past.

I do not share Beardy's reservations about the safety of the conviction. I have faith in the system which made the decision that he is a guilty man. I know it has been wrong before and I know it will be wrong again (and in circumstances where it believes itself to be equally as right as it does in this case), but I do not believe that it is wrong in this instance.

Matt.

*Rolf Harris IS a liar, but I don't think this particular example proves it.

[Dave]

Nice one Matt, yes I remember exactly where I was Feb 9th 1981, it was the day after my 12th birthday and I spent the day trying to learn something at Cuthbert Mayne school Torquay, see.

The point wasn't about how someone of older years can struggle to remember things, I accept that, the point was he claimed to have been in Canada at the time, doesn't matter how bad someone's memory, they can remember what country and when they went there, my dad 77 former 30 years plus career soldier, he can remember pretty much to month of a year what country he was in, or did RF go to Canada the day after filming that show , what a convenient, coincidence.

[Gullscorer]

Some people's memories are excellent. My own memory is the worst imaginable. And it's well known that the memory plays tricks. So I'm inclined to agree with Matt here: such incidences do not necessarily prove a lie, any more than a thirty or forty year old memory proves the truth.

Other evidence, if any, must be relied upon to corroborate an accusation, if only in the form of other witnesses, whose truthfulness must be tested and judged. But it should be remembered that an accusation, or even a handful of accusations, is not by itself proof of guilt. Corroborating evidence of some sort must normally be required, though sometimes the evidence from a number of witnesses may be so impressive as to amount to sufficient evidence.

But where the justice system effectively invites women to come forward with accusations, there are those who will do so falsely in the hope of settling grudges, making some easy money, or simply out of an ideological hatred for men, knowing that they will almost certainly get away with it even if they are found out. We must beware lest an atmosphere of hysteria leads us into situations such as the Salem witch trials.

And as a general principle, in the absence of any corroborating evidence an accused person should always be acquitted. It's a principle some people cannot accept because for them, presumably, it is better that a dozen innocent men are convicted than for one genuine victim to be denied justice.

Finally, dare I mention False Memory Syndrome, the disproven Satanic Ritual Abuse allegations, and discredited expert witnesses such as the paediatrician who saw child sexual abuse in every kiddy's private parts. It's so easy to rush to judgement, and when even established authorities make mistakes, there will continue to be injustice: innocent people will sometimes be convicted, and the guilty will occasionally get away with their crimes.

[Gullscorer]

I forgot to mention the Libertarian View articles:

I'm with Scott on the Rolf Harris article, which to me is logical, well-reasoned, and makes perfect sense.

But I agree with Forever regarding the pornography article, mainly because I have no time for pornography, which in my opinion appeals to the basest nature of human beings. (Erotica, on the other hand, is something completely different).

Where I take issue with Forever is his inference that because somebody wrote an article which he feels is nonsensical twaddle (or worse), then the other article must likewise be dismissed as utter tripe. This is patently absurd, since any one of us could, at any one time, hold one opinion which does not stand up to scrutiny, together with a view on a different topic which may be perfectly sensible.

[Glostergull]

Where was i on the day in 1981 matt. I dont remember. but then i cant remember what i did yesterday let alone in 1981.
in fact who are you anyway?

[Dave]

I forgot to mention the Libertarian View articles:

I'm with Scott on the Rolf Harris article, which to me is logical, well-reasoned, and makes perfect sense.

But I agree with Forever regarding the pornography article, mainly because I have no time for pornography, which in my opinion appeals to the basest nature of human beings. (Erotica, on the other hand, is something completely different).

Where I take issue with Forever is his inference that because somebody wrote an article which he feels is nonsensical twaddle (or worse), then the other article must likewise be dismissed as utter tripe. This is patently absurd, since any one of us could, at any one time, hold one opinion which does not stand up to scrutiny, together with a view on a different topic which may be perfectly sensible.

I've never denied anyone the right to hold or express an opinion. Was the author of that article in court to hear all the evidence ? were you in court to hear all the evidence ? I certainly wasn't in court, so how can any of us say that's a well reasoned, logical article that makes perfect sense, unless we were court to all the evidence, we can't say for sure whether that is a well reasoned article, we just don't know. It could be.

Those two articles are very much connected , anyone who believes people have a perfect right to watch rape porn, acts of sexual violence committed against women, not talking about flipping through a nudey mag here, more than likely will believe that a man has a perfect right to do what he wants to a woman, and see nothing wrong in what RF has done.

On a side issue most people wrongly convicted tend to appeal, they tend to protest their innocence to anyone and everyone who will listen, they tend to kick and scream at their cell door wanting to know what their lawyer is doing to get them out(so to speak) cant see any appeal launched yet , and if there isn't one, a full a admission of guilt in my book.