Rolf Harris

[Izabarack]

Rolf Harris has been arrested again. Three stories on the internet this morning and headlines on the morning TV news. The latest arrest has been in response to what Police have said are new allegations. (Quote)Now police say new allegations against Harris have come to light.(Unquote)

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wo ... z2b8434OkT

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/ce ... 6691762168

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-06/r ... ns/4866848

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/wo ... 6691763209

Given the high profile nature of this investigation, I figure the Police are being pretty careful. Charges have not been laid but I figure his reputation if gone forever, no matter what happens from here.

Iza

[Dot]

He was on tv last night doing a concert in UK where he thanked his fans for their support IF these claims are proven, I hope the "casualties" of his actions get just as much and more support for their stuffed lives.

[Greynomad]

Dottie,
He's still entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
And how do you do that after so many years?
He said/she said.
If the accuser is protected with anonymity, the accused deserves the same.
Anyone can make groundless accusations about what happened 20+ years ago.
And if a man denies the accusation, the common response is, "Of course he'd say that."
What is an innocent man to do? Admit to something he didn't do?
Damned if he does; damned if he doesn't.

[Dot]

Agreed but I did say IF.

[Izabarack]

If the accuser is protected with anonymity, the accused deserves the same.

No they don't. Anonymity for the accuser is in place to prevent further victimisation and to encourage victims to speak up. Naming the accused is in the public interest. In cases like this, often the press coverage will encourage other victims to come forth as they think they have a better chance of being believed. Seems that is the reason the new allegations have surfaced.

Guilty or innocent, I expect any accused to deny the accusations. I'm happy to focus on letting the police do their job and discover if there is any evidence to support the allegations. The she said/he said thing is not quite even sided in these cases. English law acknowledges that an accuser usually has little motivation to tell lies while the accused is highly motivated to lie as a way of avoiding conviction.

Iza

[T1 Terry]

These things often end up as a method of either extracting money through private press interviews or some sort of tall poppy thing. If he really did do something wrong, why wait 20 yrs? No doubt this will sell newspapers and get some sort of tv news ratings.

[John M]

Dottie,
He's still entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
And how do you do that after so many years?
He said/she said.
If the accuser is protected with anonymity, the accused deserves the same.
Anyone can make groundless accusations about what happened 20+ years ago.
And if a man denies the accusation, the common response is, "Of course he'd say that."
What is an innocent man to do? Admit to something he didn't do?
Damned if he does; damned if he doesn't.

Surely that could not be possible, "not have trial by media". How would the news media survive without petty sensationalism! "The man is merely assisting the officers with their investigation" he could even be providing evidence as a witness, there have been no charges laid or the finger even pointed by any one other than the media. it is about time charges of Subjudicea are laid. (not sure of the spelling but is related commenting publicly on a case, before there has been a trial, thereby removing any possibility of a fair or unprejudiced trial)

[Dot]

These things often end up as a method of either extracting money through private press interviews or some sort of tall poppy thing. If he really did do something wrong, why wait 20 yrs? No doubt this will sell newspapers and get some sort of tv news ratings.

Some girls/women can not bring charges for all sorts of reasons,, age, unable to go through the system, the sheer embarrassment /guilt, religious mothers (there is a story there) but as time goes by they either get stronger, able to face things, support they never had before etc etc. Police do not charge people unless there looks like a good case to go to court. They have to have some degree of evidence not just a complaint. I have been there many yrs ago but I had the support the evidence at the time but they had Mr Galbally QC (the old one) and that made a big difference. If I could have another bite at the cherry would I after 50yrs?? you betcha. Why?? because my memory is as fresh as the day the crime was committed,(maybe that's why I defend the ones making the claims) those others concerned wouldn't have a clue, it was just a game and ok for them and they had the $$$, Would it make a difference if the victims were male of female?? what about those filthy priests and the boys they have destroyed and that is well over 20 yrs. .Those priests have been protected for generations, but now the stones are gathering moss and evidence is being bought to light. Never know who has what evidence and in what form it may be. Just like your problems with your case Terry, time has no limits to get justice.. End of lecture

[Izabarack]

If he really did do something wrong, why wait 20 yrs?

Quite often it's because the victims come up against people who put them down as only wanting money through private press interviews or some sort of tall poppy thing. The victims also fear being subject to the unjustified anger of those who think they are only speaking out so newspapers get sold and tv news ratings go up. The repeated and extended victimisation of those who speak out, by people completely devoid of empathy for an injured person, is the main reason that victims often wait years before making their experience public. Professionally, I see many people who can only disclose abuse after the abuser has died, such is the fear of instilled in them by their attacker. Rather than have a go at the victims, they should be praised for having the courage to speak up.

Once allegations are made, it is the alleged abuser who needs to be on trial, not the person disclosing the abuse.

Iza

[T1 Terry]

If it is honest and fair dinks then yes I agree, but is that what has happened here, or has the press sensationalised the tiniest snipet of a story destroying a tall poppies reputation needlessly. Unless you have been at the end of a mindless personal attack for what ever jollies the attacker gets from it you will always have a one sided oppinion of it. It has got so rediculous these days that grandfathers are scared to touch their grandkids in any affectionite way just in case in future yrs it's twisted to become a completely different story. It's a doble edged sword, it needs to be swung very carefully or many innocent people get injured in the excitment