Rolf Harris found guilty on all 12 counts of indecent assault

So he was getting little kids to blow his didgeridoo.

How awful, is there anyone from that period who wasn't a paedophile?

It really is shocking, reading through this thread, just how much people are defending him, claiming it can't be proven because it has been such a long time, he shouldn't be in jail because he probably won't reoffend. Or the big one, "If he really did it, all these alleged victims would have said something sooner", I am fortunate not to have suffered this sort of thing personally, but I can see why a child who has just been sexually abused, would be terrified to come forward and stand against someone, who was clearly hero-worshiped to such an extreme level by so many people. It's as if emotionally, you guys are attached to him (a convicted child-abuser) and want him let off, "because he seemed so nice when I was growing up."

Why is this relevant?

I'm not defending him or saying it didn't happen (only those involved know what really happened). I just don't understand how such things can go on for so long and to so many people without someone directly or indirectly involved bringing it to attention and how it's proved when so many years have passed and when it comes down to someone saying something against someone else. How do you reach a conclusion? It can't be easy, it must come down to who do you believe more, who sounds more credible.

yo radical one - The point suggesting not giving him a custodial term is a relevant one; it is one of the stated aims in custodial sentencing. It is not, however, the only consideration. He will probably get a custodial sentence due to the impact on the victims, the age of the victims and the seriousness of the offence.

This just sounds like a massive rationalisation of the fact that someone who was well known and loved, turning out to be a pretty terrible human being.

There does seem, clearly in light of this thread, that even now there is a collective mentality that people who have this level of status and acclaim can just be given a free reign to behave in the most horrific way, and I can imagine it being much worse decades ago, I mean Jimmy Savile, used this to his advantage and we now know, loads of people (probably people who are public figures even today) were aware of his actions and said nothing. I wasn't on the jury, but they would have been instructed very clearly to only reach a guilty verdict if his guilt is beyond reasonable doubt, they would have been presented with the evidence (evidence neither you nor I have seen) and the judge would have told them to ignore evidence which is very suspect, so whilst I do agree as a general point innocent people do go to prison, it's highly unlikely that Harris was innocent and this constant making excuses, or simply refusing to accept the facts is exactly the sort of thing, which allows what he did to happen in such a rampant and unchecked way.

There should be an element of punishment in the judicial system, punishment isn't innately bad

Yes. Guilty and all, fine, ok.

Is there really any point putting him jail, though? He's hardly likely to re-offend, he's no longer a threat to the public. Are we getting to the point where being put in jail is thought of as a punishment, rather than a place to keep someone until they're not a threat to others and are rehabilitated?
Surely house arrest is a better - and cheaper - option?

Another great idea, I don't know how you keep coming up with them

What did I just listen to? I feel like I was just violated.

Witness testimony should be thrown out if they haven't come forward for decades. There should be a statute of limitations on it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Also found guilty on the count where he said he was in Australia at the time of the alleged assault, and I've not read anywhere that that alibi was found to be false.

Until someone writes out an article explicitly showing us the proof that guided the jury, I'm not going to believe it.

Witness testimony should be thrown out if they haven't come forward for decades. There should be a statute of limitations on it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah that is right pal...

All your information is media based. Let me think here. A! Jury those people that hear the evidence and decide whether beyond reasonable doubt.

So therefore from what you say, no decision from a Jury you believe. Yet another that thinks by reading a newspaper etc gives them a better position .

Idiot!

I'm sorry, I can't speak/read retard

Please learn to phrase your sentences and thoughts coherently and try again, thanks

Tit. Yet another on here that.....

I would like to issue an apology to KT Tunstall for choosing to see Rolf Harris at a festival ten years or so ago instead of her.