Donate SIGN UP
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro, Try this one.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/public_guide_totality_for_web.pdf

The police saw the pictures.

Why are you so keen for him to be exonerated?
Good link. Thanks for posting Naomi. Explains what I was wondering very well.
You're welcome.
so what happens now, compo?, prosecutions?
Question Author
##"For example:
Someone driving while disqualified means the offender will also be committing an offence of
driving without insurance (as you can’t get insurance when you are disqualified).
• Committing a series of offences against the same victim and once one of these was revealed the
series was revealed, such as a series of thefts over a number of months from an employer"##

It isn't quite the same as a series of different offences against different people in different circumstances, is it?

"The police saw the pictures", and described them as pornographic but no one seems to know exactly what they were, so you take the view of Mr Plod?
It's not 'the plod' who decide whether or not to prosecute.
And Khandro - it wasn't just one victim.
what happens now

the case continues?
the convictions were for charges involving four women.
Anyone prosecuted on witness statements only will do what Rolf is doing - assuming they have the money, of course.
It doesn't indicate to me that he is innocent, or guilty.
Question Author
"The charges were brought after detectives examined Harris's computer and found 33 images of possibly underage models amongst thousands of adult pornographic images. Harris never entered a plea on the charges, as his lawyers argued successfully that the charges should be severed from the twelve sexual assault charges and tried separately. In the aftermath of Harris's conviction, it was reported that his legal team had obtained the identity documents of the models involved, confirming they were adults over eighteen. The websites Harris had visited, according to the Internet Watch Foundation, are not known for illegal images of children. The prosecution informed the court that they would not be proceeding with the indecent images charges."
Wiki.
Khandro, // Jury were not told how detectives discovered entertainer had visited sites such as 'Tiny teen girlfriends' and 'My little nieces' ….Harris had searched online for terms such as "just teens" and "younger girls…. The charges on which Harris was eventually convicted covered victims aged from about eight upwards.//

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/04/rolf-harris-websites-indecent-images-children

And there’s more there^.

Rolf Harries is a dirty, disgusting old man. Why are you defending him?
Question Author
You are entitled to your view, but I don't share it, I think he has been shafted, he may have done silly things, but he hasn't harmed anyone - no matter what they say.
By the way, near where I live there are buildings packed with two and three dimensional images of small children, completely naked showing off explicitly bare bottoms and bodies and the cops don't do a damn thing about it, why? ............because they are in baroque churches and they are called putti.
Khandro, that’s a ridiculous analogy – and I think you know that really.
Pathetic.
I wonder why there is a group of (mainly) older men who steadfastly refuse to admit that other older men may actually have done the things of which they stand accused and convicted?
Khandro, searching for pornographic images of children on the internet is not a 'silly thing'.
What it is his brief has probably found a loophole or some such and has given the dirty old git a reason to think he may get off !
His brief has seen an opportunity to make a lot of money
holidng my nose somewhat, I had a look at the nieces site.( The other site named doesn't seem to exist.) It's mostly a portal but I have to say it doesn't look like a paedophile site, nor do any of the links seem to lead to one. It's not unknown for websites to promise things they can't deliver, and it's at least possible Harris wasn't accessing such material, or trying to.

He was however convicted of actual physical assaults, not of unpleasant browsing habits.

21 to 40 of 59rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Fabricated Evidence Against Rolf?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.