Rolf Harris charged with multiple nonce crimes..

Holsten

All people accused of any crime should be granted anonymity.

Easy fix to any problems.

Piliger

Holsten wrote: »

All people accused of any crime should be granted anonymity.

Easy fix to any problems.

Perhaps. We should also adopt the system (is it Scottish ?) where accused people can be declared INNOCENT by a judge after a trial where the evidence is discredited or p1ss poor.

Holsten

Piliger wrote: »

Perhaps. We should also adopt the system (is it Scottish ?) where accused people can be declared INNOCENT by a judge after a trial where the evidence is discredited or p1ss poor.

Doesn't go far enough. If you are found not guilty the whole attempted prosecution/trial would not be made public so no problems with people who will still believe whoever is guilty just they "got off".

It's absolute madness the way it works now. You have peoples names and faces blasted all over the media sometimes before they are even charged.

Piliger

Holsten wrote: »

Doesn't go far enough. If you are found not guilty the whole attempted prosecution/trial would not be made public so no problems with people who will still believe whoever is guilty just they "got off".

It's absolute madness the way it works now. You have peoples names and faces blasted all over the media sometimes before they are even charged.

Sadly the media abuse their unregulated freedom to destroy people in the name of profits. They revel in weeks and weeks of printing pure allegations all over the front pages, based on nothing but people making 'claims'.

Look at the appalling trashing of Nigella Lawson, who wasn't even on trial ! Yet I read outrageous allegations by a couple of disgusting chancers splashed across the media as FACT.

I agree that legal anonymity is the only action. However we have to remember how that social media is trashing anonymity ...

Sunglasses Ron

My name is URL wrote: »

Showing that the system works?

The system works?

The system brought almost certainly trumped up charges against him. Charges that had been earlier inestigated and dropped due to the lack of a strong case to answer. He nearly lost his job, according to some he was on the verge of suicide. 50 years from now the details of this case will remain on his Wikipedia for his grand kids to see.

But after 9 or so months, he is acquitted and it is all grand, because the system worked? :eek: The worst thing is that when there is irrefutable proof that one of these cases was a false claim and the complainant is charged, when found guilty they are usually given a sentence that is a tenth as harsh as what the originally accused would have received if he was found guilty. False allegations like these should, at a minimum, incur the same sentence length as the typical sentence given for the crime they accused the original defendant of.

And there was one complaint against him, Harris and Mike Baldwin or whatever his name is

Ken and Mike were never the best of buds :pac:

Doesn't mean they're guilty, or that any of the claims are true. But why doubt it before even the jury is shown the evidence? If the evidence is weak then the court will view it accordingly, I'm sure.

I neither doubt it nor think they are guilty, as I have not read the evidence. Certainly in the case of Rolf Harris, this allegation of producing indecent images (which doesn't mean making necessarily, it can cover just possessing them) will take some explaining. The police clearly found something suspicious on his computer- I suppose the crux of the defense will be to argue he was not the only person with access to said device. Yes, there are cases where a famous person has been arrested over a claim and I have instantly thought it was bollocks- between 5 and 10 years ago half of the f'ucking premiership was getting arrested fortnightly on what were usually nonsense claims by tarts trying to get a few grand off the News of the World. But as for Harris and Roache, I'm not too sure. The indecent image case against Harris sounds damning on first glance, and Roache is into some strange religion and made some bizarre batsh'it statement about celebs being accused of this stuff not long before his own arrest.

That, of course, is not proof of anything, but it makes me more doubtful than the rape allegation years back against Cristiano Ronaldo (and I am far from a Utd fan! But he doesn't drink , do drugs and seems to be the consumate professional, so from the outset it looked unlikely)

Piliger

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

The system works?

The system brought almost certainly trumped up charges against him. Charges that had been earlier inestigated and dropped due to the lack of a strong case to answer. He nearly lost his job, according to some he was on the verge of suicide. 50 years from now the details of this case will remain on his Wikipedia for his grand kids to see.

It is appalling. Truly appalling.

False allegations like these should, at a minimum, incur the same sentence length as the typical sentence given for the crime they accused the original defendant of.

At the moment it is a lottery for accusers. They stand to make a fortune if they win and lose nothing if they lose. Meanwhile the accused loses either way.

I neither doubt it nor think they are guilty, as I have not read the evidence. Certainly in the case of Rolf Harris, this allegation of producing indecent images (which doesn't mean making necessarily, it can cover just possessing them) will take some explaining. The police clearly found something suspicious on his computer- I suppose the crux of the defense will be to argue he was not the only person with access to said device. [/QUOTE]We don't know anything about the images. They could be images of his grandchild taking a bath for all we know. Unless I have missed something.

Yes, there are cases where a famous person has been arrested over a claim and I have instantly thought it was bollocks- between 5 and 10 years ago half of the f'ucking premiership was getting arrested fortnightly on what were usually nonsense claims by tarts trying to get a few grand off the News of the World. But as for Harris and Roache, I'm not too sure. The indecent image case against Harris sounds damning on first glance, and Roache is into some strange religion and made some bizarre batsh'it statement about celebs being accused of this stuff not long before his own arrest.

For me I have no sympathy for them if they are guilty of disgusting things they are accused of.

I just hope that there is actual EVIDENCE and not just hearsay and 'she said he said' and 'my friend saw it all' BS.

Femme_Fatale

Look at the way people even on this forum, which is relatively intelligent, post nonsense convicting people who haven't even had a trial yet. Anonymity should be mandatory when possible (e.g. it's not possible in the case of the mother of that little boy in Edinburgh).

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Femme_Fatale

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well it wouldn't be possible to keep a lid on it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

briany

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You could slap a ban on press coverage but if a name leaks, it leaks, and it'll be all over social networks like a virus in no time. Even if you slap a ban on the social network side of things, all they can do is take it down, but if enough people post, it'll be going up faster than it can it can be taken off. You can try direct action against people posting leaks but such people in the habit of doing this are usually pretty good at hiding their identity and semi-famous blogites like Peaches Geldof can bluster their way out of any real trouble for posting names with a whole lot of I-didn't-knows and sorrys.

Press can also report on the next best thing, which is the leak itself, such as in the Ryan Giggs scandal and basically get vicarious coverage that way.

Piliger

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You mean like the super injunctions in the UK ? the names were all over Twitter ... and worse, the WRONG names as well.

On the other hand I would still support anonymity - especially for these kinds of alleged crimes.

Piliger

briany wrote: »

You could slap a ban on press coverage but if a name leaks, it leaks, and it'll be all over social networks like a virus in no time. Even if you slap a ban on the social network side of things, all they can do is take it down, but if enough people post, it'll be going up faster than it can it can be taken off. You can try direct action against people posting leaks but such people in the habit of doing this are usually pretty good at hiding their identity and semi-famous blogites like Peaches Geldof can bluster their way out of any real trouble for posting names with a whole lot of I-didn't-knows and sorrys.

Press can also report on the next best thing, which is the leak itself, such as in the Ryan Giggs scandal and basically get vicarious coverage that way.

Especially as there has been no reform of the press after leveson. They are leeches who live off exploiting people's misery.