Lord Herbert wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:



well you are pretty pathetic.,..this is our culture.. in others where children are married off it is their culture.. therefore taken for granted...

in our society it is against the law...

MEN being able to have intercourse with children in other societies..

DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT..

 

because men think it is their right...



do you also think men should be allowed to rape at will??... as that too is also the norm in some societies...its always the womens fault..

what about setting an unwanted wife on fire.??


women in our culture should just suck it up..

in some societies men are castrated so they can work in the Kings harems 

how would it be if you were castrated as a young boy.. would you be able to  learn to live with it.. as if it never happened?

red baron wrote on May 12^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:




Funny that hey? 

Lord Herbert wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 8:45pm:


A good lawyer will tell you that in an imperfect legal and justice system with many failures, maintaining innocence means that regardless you can say for the rest of your life that you are innocent.

Admitting guilt, as the bribe goes in so as to gain 'leniency' for 'remorse', is very tempting, but an innocent person does not do that.

To me, one of the most corrupt aspects of our judicial system is this leniency for saying 'sorry' - even if you are not guilty.

Such a view automatically predisposes a 'win' for the accuser, contrary to the rule of law, on the basis of "defend yourself and we bash you more; lay down and take it and we bash you less."

Disgraceful.

Ergo - Robert Hughes maintains his innocence.  Really - only he and his accusers know the full truth......

As for Rolf - so far he is doing pretty well in taking apart the stories... some going back over fifty years, which makes one wonder how it took so long.

Let us not rush to judgement or lose track of the demand of the law for innocence until proven guilty to a proper standard, and let us not fall into the grievous error of according guilt by accusation or on emotion.  Lo do the latter creates more victims - not less - and makes every person fair game.

“It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, "whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection," and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

― John Adams.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/rolf-harris-trial-recap-updates-3544166

I recall on the news last night that the defence lawyer said that Harris was not at the town at the time - I would assume he has diaries etc kept by a secretary or whatever.... most do....

Let us wait upon the facts....

Lord Herbert wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 10:38am:


Ayatollah Herb - a judge is obliged to deal with facts - not emotions, though we all know how true that is in reality.

I am simply saying that some facts can be verified and when they can be - such as mayhap Rolf not being in town on the day or the woman in the stand's own diary saying the day she claims abuse was the best day of her life with no mention of anything else - it does sort of tend to show a lack of hard fact, 'cha reckon?

Name-calling over years is not proof or even evidence, and if it were so many a politician would be hung as a c0unt, and you are assuming that every recollection of the accusers is real and not confused or mistaken or even amplified after fifty years or so, or perhaps has a motive.

Let us await on facts, not emotions.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 16^th, 2014 at 4:04pm:

I have often wondered if it is some inadequacy that makes men prey on children didnt rolfie start off his career as a childrens entertainer??..

this kind of puts a cloud over all clowns I guess... but I do wonder???? it seems to have been all girls. what would drive a man for all those years to want to touch and look at childrens bodies??...

if I ever see my grandson running naked around the house I just love to see the free spirit...his happiness at the freedom of being so young.. the thought of anyone looking at him in any other way feels me with horror..

what is it?? is it a defective gene???...

Don't shoot me - I'm not defending the guilty - merely defending the innocent, including those innocent until proven guilty to the proper standard.

Let us await on facts.... and so far these are a bit unsound as regards the accusations... just commenting on what has passed in the court to date.... instead of some revenge mission that ends up with all dead.....Allow me to encapsulate what I've heard and read so far:-

Woman 1 says - 'molested on trip to Hawaii at age 13' - her diary on the day in question says nothing about this and says 'happiest day of my life'.  She says that after the Jimmy whoever thing it is more likely she woukd be believed, of which I have no doubt judging by Herb's response.

Witness 2 says - I was told by my sister that RH had molested her causing her years of alcohol abuse.  Not much substance there - second hand years after the event from a dedicated alcoholic.

Woman 2 says - RH touched my bum and held it during a show etc.  The defence has quoted that RH was not in that town on that day.  I am awaiting the defence offering something like a diary or whatever to show RH's gigs, but they do not need to do so since the burden of proof is on the accuser.

RH sends a letter of apology after being told Woman 1 did not refuse sex with him due to feeling in awe of RH.  In that letter he says how low he feels - but also says that all contact was after she turned 18 - and it continued for nine years after that.  Read that as you wish.

People years after the event now come up with 'he's a grub and I always said so' - then why not say so publicly before?

As I said - I am not defending the guilty - I am defending the rule of law here and of evidence and I am trying to not allow emotions to colour my judgement.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:


Pray do not confuse the two cases - one is settled on what are the accepted facts as stated - the other is still under consideration, and under no circumstances may you find guilt in a case totally separate in every way from one already concluded on an entirely different set of issues. 

You must deal, mambas of the jury, with the FACTS as presented and proven properly at THIS trial - and no other!

Lord Herbert wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 12:00pm:
No, he wasnt. You think any prison officer is going  to stick their fingers up a prisoners arse.  Not in the contract old boy.