Rolf Harris NOT charged(35 Posts)
Rolf Harris has not been charged with any offence. I suppose I should still say 'yet' - BUT it was on R4 this morning that no grounds for charging him have been found so far.
Hooray! I just can't believe he's a slimeball, I feel so sure he's NOT.
The other thing the R4 news item talked about, was the doubtful ethics of naming someone in connection with a crime when no charge has been laid.
of all the celebs who have been named or rumoured to be involved in stuff, this was the one that most shocked me. Rolf has to be a genuine good guy, he just HAS - he cried with people whose dogs were dying. He looked compassionate and sincere. Not at all up himself like some. I grew up listening to his songs. he has had a long and happy marriage. I want him to be innocent.
Innocent or not - i think this highlights exactly why peoples names should be kept secret before they are charged with a crime, not just celebrities - mud sticks and even if he is found guilty, rolf harris will never be able to get round this.
I agree that mud sticks.
some will say "there's no smoke without fire...." but what if it's FAKE smoke?
Reports of him being really badly affected by this too. If he is innocent, as this may appear to suggest now (and I really hope he is), then he has been really put through the mill and "mud sticks." This could result in the end of his career even though he is not being charged.
I shall be very pleased if Rolf gets a clean bill of health, he's the only celeb caught up in this that I've been shocked by.
But current moves to suppress the names of people who have been arrested are both wrong and dangerous. Justice must be open and transparent. Secret arrests are the hallmark of oppressive regimes, not civilised democracies.
Often it is publicity about arrests that encourages more victims to come forward, or helps the police in their investigations. Stuart Hall is just one of many examples here.
Being honest and open about arrests also safeguards the arrested by making sure other people know their whereabouts - sadly some teenagers have killed themselves after being arrested when the police - illegally- refused to allow them to call their parents.
Being arrested is embarrassing, of course, that's why the police should use arrests appropriately and not as fishing expeditions. And why they should be reported carefully - ensuring there is no implication of guilt. Any publication that implies the arrested person is guilty of any particular crime can already be prosecuted for contempt or sued for libel. We already have laws to deal with these issues, they just need to be applied. Media practice has already rowed back from the days a while back when the tabloids really did push too far on contempt.
well said Edam, by naming them many more abused people can come forward , they may have thought they were the only one and would not be believed so stayed silent
I too am pleased, I am quite fond of Rod
My Dad looks like him
Hearing he had been arrested made me feel decidedly odd.
I can't agree with Edam. I don't believe anyone should be named until charged. Once charged the person has their chance to have their say and give their side in an open court, when a person is arrested but not charged they have no such oportunity and are followed by the gossip and what Ifs forever.
Not necessarily Nancy, sometimes charges are dropped. And sometimes people are wrongly convicted. Justice is imperfect, but we should do our level best to avoid mistakes - and one of the safeguards against injustice and tyranny is openness.
Why should sex crimes be treated any different to any other crime? Oh, because they have 'stigma' attached to them, as if that's a bad thing, but crimes like child abuse have much more stigma against them. So why no anonymity for child abusers? What about terrorists? Serial killers? Why just sex crimes?
Oh, that's right, because it's another way of perpetuating the myth that, unlike any other crime, a large percentage of rape accusation are false and malicious. When in actuality they are no higher than any other crime. Yay, rape culture!
Meanwhile, there are around 500,000 sexual assaults a year and around 70,000 rapes, of which only 3,000 are reported and 1,000 result in convictions. But, yes, let's focus on helping fucking rapists - which is exactly who this ridiculous law will help.
who said sex crimes should be treated differently to other crimes?
What ridiculous law?
But current moves to suppress the names of people who have been arrested are both wrong and dangerous. Justice must be open and transparent
This isn't justice though, it's trial and mudslinging by mob. Make itbpublic when they are charged.
Celebrating if this is so. I realise that often people get tarnished by this sort of thing and never do recover, in the public view, but Rolf - well so many people were amazed that he might have anything to do with it.
I don't feel that sense that 'there was something dodgy about him but he got off' like I did/do about certain other people.
Like, that doesn't make me right or anything. Just the way I feel about it.
I don't think problem is being named without charges; I think problem is a culture that likes to leap to Guilty until Proven Innocent.
The police said that many more victims came forward when Stuart Hall's arrest was announced. In that case he may well have got away with it if his identity was secret. It's tricky.
the thing I worry about is that there is a massive failing to charge/prosecute in general in terms of sexual assault or rape or whatever, and that means that even if someone does 'get off' as it were, without being charged, you just don't know if that's due to the general failing or because they actually didn't do owt.
Which makes it all the more important that genuine crimes are prosecuted successfully.
My exDH worked with RH a few years ago and said he was a really nice man. Totally genuine and lovely...what you see on TV is what you meet in RL.
I'm really pleased about this too.
I always liked him, and was another that was that he was arrested.
I still think naming does some good though, as it gives other victims the courage to come forward, Stuart Hall being an example of this.
If only this had happened before Jimmy Savile died.
I'm very relieved. The idea that he might be a slimey git was horrible. Even dh was upset by it.
I know that mud sticks, but am not entirely sure that it will this time. I haven't met anyone who was not thoroughly disbelieving about RH. A lot will be to do with the impression that Joe Bloggs has of whoever it is, and that is
usually often then fanned by the papers.
Rather than not name people being investigated, I think it would be more useful to curb the frothing by the papers which goes on, and encourages people to take it as truth before charges have even been brought. If the journalists we have were sensible and responsible about reporting it would make a great deal of difference.
I do think it is vital that our system is seen to be open.
Like others his was the only name that upset me when it was mentioned, I hope he is innocent at it appears at the moment.
My ex met him once said he was lovely, friendly and genuine, was happy to sign a million autographs for the crew....
"Panzee Fri 17-May-13 07:46:09
The police said that many more victims came forward when Stuart Hall's arrest was announced. In that case he may well have got away with it if his identity was secret. It's tricky."
Very good point. I complketely agree with Edam. And (complete pure speculation follows) he has not been charged yet that may relate to the fact he has been named publically and yet no more evidence has come out about him. So it may have worked in his favour iyswim.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.