Rolf Harris

[kat1]

Hes been arrested now regarding sexual abuse! What i don't understand is all these celebrities named but none charged?

[DTCwordfan]

He hasn't been charged only bailed. Unless there is a charge, the inquest and need for arrest could be for a host of different reasons that we will probably never know. I'd recommend waiting and not speculating.

I would hope that the Yewtree mob are taking all measures to be sure of their facts, in fact double sure, given the high profile of many that they have arrested (yes, I accept that this ought to be the modus operandi for the person on the Clapham Omnibus - but life ain't like that).

[Peter Pedant]

Sqad I am pretty sure they have geriatric units in some prisons.

Dr Vickers who if you recollect poisoned his wife with cis-platin in 1976 - [dobbed in by his secretary who was also his...lover and she got acquitted] - has difficulty in accepting he did it, so HE is still inside and he must at least be in his eighties....

[ludwig]

Has anyone made a joke involving the phrase 'Can you tell what it is yet?' .

I can't be bothered to read the whole thread to find out.

[Sharingan]

Peter I've seen you mention this case twice on AB, but I can't find any trace of it elsewhere, do you have a link for it please?

[vulcan42]

I assume it's this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/surgeons-conviction-for-poisoning-wife-unsafe-1392663.html

[askyourgran]

I think the other 82 year old was Stewart Hall, Rolf Harris and Jim Davidson were hauled in to answer to old offences unrelated to the Jimmy Saville/ paedophile cases.

[Sharingan]

Thank you Vulcan, I couldn't find anything about it anywhere :)

[FredPuli43]

1) Lord Leveson, in his report, and various High Court judges, have deplored the practice of the press naming persons arrested. They have suggested that any paper that does so should be automatically liable for damages. Extending contempt of court principles to such cases would also help in stopping others from naming, but it's the press that is the main problem. The police's standard practice is never to name a suspect arrested. A person is arrested because the arresting officer has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the person has committed a crime; there may be no admissible evidence to prove it, or the information may be utterly false and provided out of malice, but that does not stop there being reasonable grounds at the time. If they are charged, the CPS thinks a) there is enough admissible evidence to mean that there is a probability of conviction b) prosecuting is in the public interest. Then the person is named.

2) Let's dispose of this nonsense that people will falsely accuse someone famous because they'll get damages or compensation. They won't get any. They could only get compensation if the crime is proved. They won't get an offer of settlement because it could never be in the interests of someone accused to make such an offer and, if the person sues, the defendant would demand proof be established; not to the highest standard of a criminal prosecution, but effectively higher (because a crime is alleged) than the mere balance of probabilities. Of course, than doesn't stop someone making a false accusation ,in hope, but nothing does , unless its fear of being prosecuted for wasting police time

[Connemmara]

I haven't read all of the threads too many - perhaps and I say perhaps - even if all the afore-mentioned. Jim Savile (methinks guilty), however, Jim Davidson, Stuart Hall, and now Rolf Harris. Perhaps in the 1960s there were loads of groupies who were willing to give "it" to them - they are in the wrong too - I know when I was 16-20 if anybody touched me - I would have run a mile - some of these ladies came back for more. So too much to this story. GROUPIES RUN A MILE AND ALSO THOSE FOR LOOKING FOR COMPO

[Old_Geezer]

Aye Peter, but the point was why would someone be arrested on suspicion unless it was anticipated they were going to run away or something ? That was what I was asking. What the point was.

[jackthehat]

OG - See my explanation of 9.15 am yesterday......

[Baldric]

Goodsoulette @ 16:39, Did Daddy have a beard?

[Sqad]

Peter...thanks I remember him well...he was an Orthopaedic Surgeon if my memory serves me......

No my point really, to sentence a a young or middle aged man to life or an extended period of custodial sentence is quite acceptable, depending upon the crime, but what IS the point in sentencing arm chaired octogenarians to long custodial sentences?

[RATTER15]

Sqad, maybe a punishment for what he has subjected his victims to?

[Sqad]

RATTER...fine......

[ummmm]

Conn....read Fred's second point.

[AlwaysConfused]

Well, I'm not surprised by this news - Rolf is well known for getting his didgeridoo out in public!

[Connemmara]

Ummm - yes I read Fred's second point and it was lawfully put but at the end of it these people who have been arrested/suspected - as someone back at the beginning of this thread "mud sticks" - I know Rolf nor manys a one will ever be the same - if it was myself I couldn't rear myself from this ugly soil. It would follow you wherever you go. I just hope Rolf is innocent and the police would stop at all these people who like 40 years ago are coming forward now.

[xstitcher]

I so agree with you connemarra

[FredPuli43]

Yes, "mud sticks". There's an argument (not mine) for saying that nobody should be named until convicted. At least then there's more than mud, but a proven crime and proven criminal. Me, I'd settle for naming them when charged. There's always the hazard, faced by the ordinary person, that the press splash every detail of the prosecution's opening across front pages, as though it proves itself, but usually forget to mention that the defendant is triumphantly acquitted, or, if they do mention that, mention it in a piece relegated to some minor sentences on an inside page