ForumGarden

Rolf Harris, it seems has written a song hitting at his victims, which he plans on releasing when he gets out of prison.

Surely this would come under the category of it being illegal to profit from the result of crimes committed? Mind you, I can't really see any music publishing companies from taking him on, and even if they were, I imagine retailers wouldn't be happy about stocking it.

Rolf Harris writes song mocking his victims as money-grabbing 'wenches', report claims - People - News - The Independent

What really bites is how he says that life behind bars is no real hardship, and according to the report on the radio this morning, he spends all his time in the Art Room doing what he likes doing.

Loss of freedom is the punishment, and what else would an 85 year old artistic type be doing inside or out ?

And also, he pleaded not guilty of course when the case went to court. It does make you wonder just how many of these allegations against various celebrities are, in fact, genuine. Are they all jumping on the 'band wagon' since the Gary Glitter and Jimmy Saville cases ? Is Rolf Harris actually guilty as charged ? What has happened about the Cliff Richard fiasco ? It's gone remarkably quiet along that front.

I'm sure that there are some people who have been victims of sexual assault and I'm sure that the torrent of claims are clouding over the genuine allegations, but to sort out the fact from the fiction is extremely difficult, particularly as hearsay evidence is accepted readily in the courts, for sexual allegations. Of course this means that any girl/woman or fella for that matter can cook up a story that is totally untrue , and so long as they stick to that story it is accepted in a UK court of law ! If the allegations are accepted by a jury and the accused is then found guilty, the 'victim' will be able to claim compensation ! I feel that many of these allegations of sexual assault are 'made up stories' in order to try to obtain compensation ! IMO this is so unfair and not what justice is about.

I've said it before - we should follow the Americans' lead and bring in a 'cut off point' where allegations of sexual assault could not be brought, say a maximum of 20 years from the date of the alleged assault.

The easiest claim to make, especially in the current "climate", and the hardest to refute. It is a pity for the genuine victims of abuse, simply because it IS hard to prove either way, without a witness, or DNA evidence.

There must be many innocents jailed along with the guilty.

I must point out that I am neither defending Or condemning Harris, merely stating my opinion.

As I understand it, sex crimes are classed as a Federal Offence in America & are, therefore, not subject to the Statute of Limitations.

I do, however question the motivation for a lot of the claims, although I have no doubt that most of them are probably justified. Clearly the motivation is most likely the prospect of massive compensation claims. If the case were against some ordinary Man in the Street who was identified as having committed the same sort of crimes about the same amount of time ago would the authorities be bothering with it. Would many people even bother bringing it to anyone's attention?

Perhaps rather than having a Statute of Limitations there could be an incremental cap on how much a person may claim as compensation, making the figure less each year, until such a date at which no compensation could be awarded, although the defendant could still be subject to Criminal Prosecution. This, at least, might deter the gold digging band wagon jumpers. Without the potential for compensation, the testimonies of witnesses would be far more plausible.

@ Smaug and FourPart, I despair at the way you are leaning,(apologies if I am reading it wrong) that the prosecutions are arrived at because of weight of numbers of complainants or the crimes becoming fashionable.The evidence and corroboration from various claimants helps the prosecutions, they don't occur at the whim of a few money grabbing women.

I would imagine the publicity of successful prosecutions, and the passage of years,that help to numb the rawness/guilt feelings of the victims might bring forward even greater numbers. Plus the change of sensitivity amongst the authorities in dealing with such crimes against immature frightened guilt ridden teens and younger.

If these rash of historic prosecutions have garnered the victims monetary compensation worth more than the pain and stress of baring their souls to the world, I would be happy to see the figures involved.

I think I share the same skepticism about justice and the length of time involved, but then try and consider how the victims might feel,and why the time lapse has occurred.

Bruv;1480699 wrote: @ Smaug and FourPart, I despair at the way you are leaning,(apologies if I am reading it wrong) that the prosecutions are arrived at because of weight of numbers of complainants or the crimes becoming fashionable.The evidence and corroboration from various claimants helps the prosecutions, they don't occur at the whim of a few money grabbing women.

I would imagine the publicity of successful prosecutions, and the passage of years,that help to numb the rawness/guilt feelings of the victims might bring forward even greater numbers. Plus the change of sensitivity amongst the authorities in dealing with such crimes against immature frightened guilt ridden teens and younger.

If these rash of historic prosecutions have garnered the victims monetary compensation worth more than the pain and stress of baring their souls to the world, I would be happy to see the figures involved.

I think I share the same skepticism about justice and the length of time involved, but then try and consider how the victims might feel,and why the time lapse has occurred.


For me, you've mis-interpreted slightly. We live in a wicked era, in some ways, and "gold-digging" is an increasingly common ploy. "Gold-diggers" come as many different kinds, male and female, and for many reasons. Unfortunately, there are MANY GENUINE victims of abuse, which is a terrible crime to commit, whatever the abuse, often with far-reaching consequences for the victim(s). You also have to consider the emotion it provokes with the public when we hear about these trials and jailings for various people, and, of course, the victim's ordeal!

It's very difficult to have a fair, unbiased trial under these circumstances, especially after Savile (mis-spell delib!).

It's also possible to maliciously accuse someone of a vile crime, such as SEXUAL abuse, with nothing other than ANECDOTAL or HEARSAY evidence, and win ( a solicitor friend told me this one day, a couple of years ago, whilst we were chatting in a coffee shop!). No witness needed. No DNA. No medical evidence. Nothing. Just a person's testament. And an innocent life may be wrecked.

Large compensation payments can be a pretty big incentive to an unscrupulous, convincing liar. Which is a hindering nuisance for the many genuine victims out there, and I feel very sorry indeed for their situations/problems, and who need looking after, compensating(if that's possible after such a harrowing ordeal) and encouraging positively.

It's a VERY difficult situation, TBH, and I don't think I've got a quick fix for it anytime soon!!

Hope this gives you some clarification, Bruv. I'm very "torn" on this issue, which is about "as clear as mud"!!! (I'm also rather tired at the mo, had a busy day!)

So we are pretty much in agreement then.

Watching a documentary 'The Detectives' recently about pursuing and then prosecuting abusers and rapists, they showed how the guilty verdict affected two of the victims. One of the victims cases was found unproved or not guilty on that count, the lady was devastated, having invested so much in coming forward and revealing so much of her 'secret' despite the fact that the man was found guilty on other counts and jailed.

It's almost inevitable that people will all have a slightly different "take" on this most delicate and complex set of issues. How the hell are we going to sort it all out whilst being fair and impartial to all?

Even an unfounded claim, especially to someone in the public eye can ruin their career. Look at the ones that have been found Not Guilty (Dave Lee Travis & William Roache, for example). Despite being exonerated, there will always be those that take the "No Smoke Without Fire" attitude. Yes, there are those that have a fully justified claim. However, the fact remains that when people see the potential to be gained with compensation claims more & more people will jump on the bandwagon, whether it's a legitimate case or not. In the case of Rolf Harris & Jimmy Savile the evidence was overwhelming from many independent sources & while I have no doubt that most of the witnesses were legitimate, I also have no doubt that many were not & just in it to see what they could get.

As for timescale, these cases should have been reported at the time - although at the time they might not even have been considered as being as unacceptable as it is today. That, of course, doesn't justify anything, but it doesn't seem right that someone should be faced with things so long after the event simply because of who they are & what money they have. If it were just a matter of being your everyday Joe Public, the Police wouldn't want anything to do with it.

What makes matters even worse is that even after someone has been cleared of the crimes they were accused of, and therefore not subject to having to pay any compensation, the 'witnesses' still tend to roll in the money by selling their stories to the scandal rags. For them it's a Win-Win situation.

While there is a financial incentive of compensation, there is a much greater question as to a person's credibility. If the incentive of compensation is removed & the accusation is made purely on the grounds of serving justice, that credibility moves onto a much more secure plain.

How much compensation has been paid so far ?

None actually paid yet, but little doubt that it will be.

Jimmy Savile abuse payouts: 120 victims of paedophile presenter to receive average of £33,000 from BBC - Mirror Online

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

Victims' concern over Max Clifford's unexplained loan on £3.5m mansion - Telegraph

FourPart;1480788 wrote: Even an unfounded claim, especially to someone in the public eye can ruin their career. Look at the ones that have been found Not Guilty (Dave Lee Travis & William Roache, for example). Despite being exonerated, there will always be those that take the "No Smoke Without Fire" attitude. Yes, there are those that have a fully justified claim. However, the fact remains that when people see the potential to be gained with compensation claims more & more people will jump on the bandwagon, whether it's a legitimate case or not. In the case of Rolf Harris & Jimmy Savile the evidence was overwhelming from many independent sources & while I have no doubt that most of the witnesses were legitimate, I also have no doubt that many were not & just in it to see what they could get.

As for timescale, these cases should have been reported at the time - although at the time they might not even have been considered as being as unacceptable as it is today. That, of course, doesn't justify anything, but it doesn't seem right that someone should be faced with things so long after the event simply because of who they are & what money they have. If it were just a matter of being your everyday Joe Public, the Police wouldn't want anything to do with it.

What makes matters even worse is that even after someone has been cleared of the crimes they were accused of, and therefore not subject to having to pay any compensation, the 'witnesses' still tend to roll in the money by selling their stories to the scandal rags. For them it's a Win-Win situation.

While there is a financial incentive of compensation, there is a much greater question as to a person's credibility. If the incentive of compensation is removed & the accusation is made purely on the grounds of serving justice, that credibility moves onto a much more secure plain.


Unless, of course, that person is out to wreck someone's life anyway they can, and aren't too bothered about money. But it would, as you say FourPart, put it on a more reliable footing from the start.

Smaug;1480836 wrote: Unless, of course, that person is out to wreck someone's life anyway they can, and aren't too bothered about money. But it would, as you say FourPart, put it on a more reliable footing from the start.


Mind you, despite most of the claims about him, in my view being proven beyond a shadow of doubt - even with a letter of apology from him for his disgraceful actions used in evidence against him, I do have my concerns about the Leigh Park incident. There was no evidence to show that he ever was ever in Leigh Park, but evidence does exist to show that he was in Australia at the time. News reports mentioned that he showed no trace of emotion or remorse at all the other cases, but that he did seem to show indications of genuine confusion when it came to the Leigh Park accusation.

Of course, as all the sentences are running concurrently it makes no difference whether he did or not, as far as his sentence is concerned, but I have my suspicions as to whether he really was responsible for that incident or not. Mind you, there is also talk of his facing further charges when he gets out. That way they might get to add more sentences on top.