Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think Rolf Harris should be stripped of his assets and not earn 1300 a day

27 replies

bloomingMargaret · 15/02/2015 11:09

Can't believe he earns so much a day, while he has ruined so many lives.

I think he should be stripped of these assets.

OP posts:
TiggyD · 15/02/2015 11:18

His victims should sue.

I do think glitter/King/Harris/etc should be left with enough money for them to never try to make a comeback in any way.

Icimoi · 15/02/2015 11:44

His sentence was imprisonment, nothing more. There's an appropriate system in place to allow his victims to sue and I believe that some of them at least are using it. It's not up to the state to pre-empt that process.

redexpat · 15/02/2015 11:48

Came onto say exactly what icimoi has said. She said it better than I would have done.

ilovesooty · 15/02/2015 11:50

Agree - Icimoi is right.

engeika · 15/02/2015 11:59

Icimoi puts it well. You can't play around with the law to suit yourself and how you feel about a particular person.

TheFecklessFairy · 15/02/2015 11:59

Icimoi is absolutely right.

Nomama · 15/02/2015 12:01

I am a bit disappointed the icimoi has already responded. I probably wouldn't have been to succinct (or polite).

TheWitTank · 15/02/2015 12:07

Icimoi is spot on. In all reality, Harris will never be able to enjoy his earnings again anyway. He is an elderly man with a (rightly) destroyed reputation who will never work in 'showbiz' again or be able to go out publicly without condemnation. Hopefully the victims successfully sue.

TattyDevine · 15/02/2015 12:34

He also has a wife and a grown up child who didn't ruin anyone's life, and whilst they may well have their own money and own incomes, if they do have a stake in the general wealth, should not necessarily have to suffer from this being taken as well (separate to any victims who want to sue)

If you seize the assets, who gets them?

As Icimoi says, you can't just pick and choose. He is doing his time, that is his punishment, the rest is just his own individual circumstances.

FyreFly · 15/02/2015 12:49

What Icimoi said.

If his victims want to sue through the appropriate channels then by all means they should. Until then his finances should be left alone.

26Point2Miles · 15/02/2015 14:18

thank goodness theres a voice of reason on this thread!!!

the ridiculous title makes me worry that people really do think they can pick and choose what happens to certain people who have broken laws.....we have a judicial system. .

WishICouldBeLikeTheCoolKids · 15/02/2015 14:27

the ridiculous title makes me worry that people really do think they can pick and choose what happens to certain people who have broken laws.....we have a judicial system

Completely agree.

People can be rather naive and have no idea about the floodgates it could open.

Chertsey · 15/02/2015 14:40

The whole thing will have cost him financially. I listened to sounds of 1970 (or whatever it's called) on R2 yesterday. Two Little Boys was at c. no7, but they didn't play it, no-one's showing repeats of his TV stuff.

The victims are at liberty to sue as they see fit - he'll need some money to pay them.

MythicalKings · 15/02/2015 14:43

All Hail Icimoi! Beautifully put.

lbsjob87 · 16/02/2015 03:10

Yep, what icimoi said.

He's destroyed his reputation and will probably never work again, but he earned that money. It's just the way it is.

If it was interest from money he'd stolen, or from selling drugs, then obviously he should have his assets stripped, but if you start going down that route, you are going to have to take houses away from offenders families or close bank accounts so they can't accrue interest.

You can punish someone for breaking the law, but being rich isn't illegal. He'll probably lose most of it when he's sued anyway.

Tryharder · 16/02/2015 07:35

YABU.

In that case, anyone ever who went to prison should have their wealth and assets stripped from them. The State cannot confiscate money as a punishment unless the money was earned illegally.

He legitimately earned the money and as someone said, he has dependants who may rely on the income.

Chertsey · 16/02/2015 07:40

I do think, perhaps, there should be some sort of system where those that can, cover some of the cost of their "keep" while in prison.

Bakeoffcake · 16/02/2015 07:50

The State do actually take assets from some criminals once convicted. I know it's the proceeds of crime they can take but RH wouldn't have made all his money if his crimes had been taken seriously at the time.

One of his charges dated back to 1968, if society was different and the child concerned had been able to tell someone, he wouldn't now be a millionaire.

Bakeoffcake · 16/02/2015 07:53

And to add, he made his money because of his TV persona.

He was a sex abuser. Why should he be allowed to keep that money, which he made, based on a lie?

needaholidaynow · 16/02/2015 11:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SaucyMare · 16/02/2015 11:14

What the hell does he do to earn £1300 a day In prison???

i just checked this out, his investments. so not actual new income just wise handling of his earnings.

SaucyMare · 16/02/2015 11:15

sorry but just read a bit further from the daily mail "could be earning" what a weasly phrase, so we have no bloody idea really.

MonstrousRatbag · 16/02/2015 11:28

Another one agreeing with Icimoi, because of the very important principle 'nulla poena sine lege' or 'no punishment without law'.

You can't do things to people based on anger or disapproval and a desire to give them extra punishment. You can only punish them according to the laws already in place at the time they committed their crimes.

There's no mechanism in place to take people's assets because they've been convicted of a crime except where they earned those assets through crime in the first place or for minor offences where they can be ordered to pay a Victim Compensation Order (I think that is what it's called).

His wife is elderly and an invalid. She hasn't been convicted of anything, and I wouldn't like to see her turfed out of her home and made reliant on benefits while the state performs an asset grab because of her husband's crimes.

vienna1981 · 16/02/2015 11:39

Unrelated to this story, however, I remember several years ago a man was imprisoned having been convicted of rape. Either while still inside or after release he won a very substantial sum of money on the lottery. His victim attempted to claim some of the money. I don't remember if she succeeded or what legal basis there was for the claim.

MonstrousRatbag · 16/02/2015 11:58

I think the legal basis was her suing him in a civil action for damages for what he had done to her. Rolf Harris' victims are doing the same thing.