| Royals Rendezvous Statement |
| Royals Rendezvous has moved to a new location, please go to royalsrendezvous.co.uk to continue the discussion. |
| Rolf Harris | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 21 Apr 2013, 07:03 AM (4,996 Views) | |
| Hayes | 21 Apr 2013, 07:03 AM Post #1 |
|
The lawyers of Rolf threatened the press under the Leveson Report in order they did not print the story.Some of us knew months ago,and of a person is actually arrested why is it not in the public interest?This report could now be used on a number of things and celebrities could get up to things we may never know.As it happens I hope Rolf is innocent,he has been a good entertainer over the years.I put this in local issues because Rolf lives in Bray. |
|
https://www.facebook.com/groups/www.readingfc.co.uk/?ref=bookmarks | |
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| SuffolkRoyal | 4 Jul 2014, 03:51 PM Post #101 |
|
Just read the following on the BBC: The sentence of five years and nine months has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme". When this happened with Stuart Hall, his sentence was doubled. Justice might be done after all. |
![]() |
|
| Tilehurstsouthbank | 4 Jul 2014, 04:17 PM Post #102 |
|
Indeed. If there is any justice, he'll live out his remaining years behind bars. |
![]() ![]() Kennet Island Royal! | |
![]() |
|
| daib0 | 5 Jul 2014, 10:04 PM Post #103 |
|
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!
|
BBC News Experts have disagreed on whether the prison term handed to Rolf Harris represents sufficient punishment. The disgraced entertainer was jailed for five years and nine months for 12 indecent assaults on four victims. The Association of Child Abuse Lawyers' president said sentencing Harris under old guidelines was "bizarre" and his term should be extended. Police commissioner Vera Baird said he should not serve longer than the law demanded at the time of the offences. Harris was prosecuted based on the law when his offences were committed, when the maximum sentence for indecent assault was two years in prison, or five years for victims under 13. His sentence has already been referred to the Attorney General's Office under the "unduly lenient sentence scheme". The offences took place between 1968 and 1986 against four girls aged seven or eight to 19. |
|
Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share ! | |
![]() |
|
| daib0 | 30 Jul 2014, 12:29 PM Post #104 |
|
Inter-Forum Gamemaster!
|
BBC News No appeal over Rolf Harris sex offences sentence Rolf Harris's sex offences sentence will not be referred to the Court of Appeal, despite 150 complaints over its "leniency", the attorney general's office has said. The disgraced entertainer was jailed for five years and nine months for 12 indecent assaults on four girls. Complaints were lodged following his sentencing earlier this month. In a statement, the office said the attorney general understood the decision would cause disappointment. It said Attorney General Jeremy Wright would not refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal as "he did not think they would find it to be unduly lenient and increase it". The office said the judge had been required to take Harris's age into account. "The sentencing judge was bound by the maximum sentence in force at the time of the offending," it added. "The judge made some of the sentences consecutive to reach the total sentence, but he could not simply add up sentences on individual counts; the overall sentence had to be just and proportionate to the overall offending." |
|
Royals Rendezvous - a specialist and friendly Reading FC fan forum Cello man... VIDEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEVmGOEMJLE&t=12s Please share ! | |
![]() |
|
| Tilehurstsouthbank | 30 Jul 2014, 02:13 PM Post #105 |
|
They could placate people by saying there's no chance of early release. |
![]() ![]() Kennet Island Royal! | |
![]() |
|
| SuffolkRoyal | 30 Jul 2014, 03:30 PM Post #106 |
|
That decision is as disgusting as the original sentence. That means he'll serve less than 3 months, when half remission is taken into account, for each offence. And that is because he is a paedophile by the name of Rolf Harris. Had that been someone none of us had ever heard of they'd have banged him up and thrown away the key. Generally I have faith in British justice, but this is a clear example of where someones name and money have cheated the law. |
![]() |
|
| Owlish52 | 30 Jul 2014, 04:25 PM Post #107 |
|
RR Foreign Legion - Across the Pond - View from Texas
|
Alas, 'justice', as handed out by any State, is often the best that money can buy - and I do most specifically include in the USA in that.
Edited by Owlish52, 30 Jul 2014, 04:26 PM.
|
| "It could have been worse with Hillary..." - Owlish52 | |
![]() |
|
| bmb | 5 Aug 2014, 12:18 AM Post #108 |
![]()
Invading AFCB Fan & sole member of the Viktor Kassai fanclub!
|
For sentences of 4 years and over - time served is 2/3 so he'll serve 3 years 10 months in prison (less any time on remand) then spend another 23 months on conditional licence. As you say that equates to around 3 months served per offence - nowhere near enough. He won't be eligible for early release. I don't understand why they have to take his age into account - it's not like he took the young girls ages into account before forcing himself upon them is it... I know the law says they have to go by the sentencing guidelines at the time of the offences but then they should judge his age as it was at the time of the offences as well, not give it the but he's an old man now rubbish. The only thing he deserves now is to die in prison The sentences should have all been consecutive not some concurrent. Fair & just should be reserved for the victims - not the criminal!
|
| AFCB fan in peace! | |
![]() |
|
| Bahamoth | 5 Aug 2014, 03:25 AM Post #109 |
|
Back in the US, I believe (correct me if I am wrong) it wasn't considered murder to kill a slave but it was considered destruction of property or something like that. That may just be one of those urban myths though, not sure. So, if that were actually true, and there was new evidence in a 'murder' case of a slave that convicted someone, surely the defendant wouldn't be charged with anything less than murder (or something similar). Why should it be any different for paedophile law? So the law was stupidly lenient when he committed the crimes?! That doesn't mean that we should look upon it in the same stupid light that caused the leniency in the first place?! We should judge it by modern standards under the assumption that the previous leniency was unjust. |
![]() |
|
| SuffolkRoyal | 5 Aug 2014, 08:34 AM Post #110 |
|
Hopefully his appeal, if granted, will backfire big time. Once it's in the hands of the appeal court judges they might correct the wrong that has been done and increase his sentence. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Local Issues · Next Topic » |








The sentences should have all been consecutive not some concurrent. Fair & just should be reserved for the victims - not the criminal!
2:28 PM Jul 11