Rolf Harris

Frequently, Ana and judges will sometimes comment that they are constrained by the maximum length as they would often hand down longer sentences. Then you get those at the other end of the spectrum who say the 11 year old girl was 'no angel' and give light sentences. Usually, judges work down from maximum on mitigation and go back up with aggravation, then factor in all the other stuff.

Those are all maximum sentences, though, and how often do those seem to be handed out?

Agreed petallus. I suppose with the famous ones, all that adulation makes them believe their own publicity, that they are wonderful and that the women they grope or whatever will be pleased and grateful. I have often thought that if you are feted and made a fuss of for years you may start to believe that you are special. Personally, I wouldn't know!

Here's some sentences (scroll down a good way for sexual offences). The judge will take into account aggravating and mitigating factors, attitude, whether he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, number of offences and number of victims, level of harm caused and so on.

www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/maximums.php

Yuk!

That story has the ring of truth about it.

How dare he? He dares easily, as do many other men, I'd say.

A woman was just interviewed on the news who was 'assaulted' by Rolf in the 1990s. She was not one of those who had complained about him to the police. She said she, and a camera man, were following him as he was teaching children in Belfast how to paint. She said he was perfectly amiable and pleasant, told her about his daughter and asked about her family. Then when the piece was over and they were leaving, the camera man went first and she was left with Rolf. She held her hand out to say goodbye and he grabbed her face in his hands and pulled her towards him and put his tongue into her mouth. Whilst this is not a serious assault or an assault on a child, it was an utterly revolting thing to do. How dare he!

Sexual assault probably.

I wonder if a custodial sentence would be imposed.

Oh, and I don't mean to suggest that there would be offences with those specific names, but behaviour like that, whatever it is called.

Grabbing a breast
placing a hand on the genitals
forcing someone to kiss against their will
penetration by a finger

That sort of thing.

There's no offence called groping an adult? Can you be more specific?

What's a typical sentence, when, for say, groping an adult?

I'm surprised an offence like that would even get to court.

Why, jingls? Not sure why offences against women (or men) over the age of 18 should be ignored.

How many of those people could be considered vulnerable young adults? Or, if not vulnerable, then afraid for their job, not believing what actually happened, thinking that they were the only one and/or that no-one would ever believe them if they said anything.

Petallus prisons are full of Joe Bloggs who got commensurate prison sentences for the same offences, many of them in their 70s and 80s, too. They just aren't as newsworthy as this sex offender.

Incidentally, has anyone else heard that there is a call for an investigation into a supposed Westminster based paedophile ring?

Seems the last time it was brought up, important documents went missing!

I'm not holding my breath that anything will come of it. Too many powerful people in Westminster.

I agree jinglbellsfrocks.

Or if offences against women over the age of 16 (or 18) are taken into account, these should only attract the usual penalty, not a greater one.

If Joe Bloggs was found guilty of groping or sexual assault of an adult (male or female) I wonder what his sentence would be likely to be.

These cases are high profile because of the celebrity of the people charged with the offences. There may seem to be more of them because of that fact, but, sadly, there are many cases going on which are not splashed across the media. Out there are a myriad of people working to bring these people to justice, to look after them in custody and to try to rehabilitate them.

Selina, I think that it is also a fact that these 'stars' were able to perpetrate some of these acts because of their fame - people admiring them, particularly very young girls, and parents wanting their children to speak to the celebrity, get their autograph, etc. No thought would have passed through the minds of most ordinary people that the jolly personae hid anything sinister or that the motives of the celebrities was to do anything other than entertain.

They did the deed and I think they should pay the price, however old the crime.

I think that all offences should be addressed, just like any other criminal.

I think that only the abuse against underage children should be taken into account in these trials.

He hasn't been ordered to pay compensation, although I expect victims can claim under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

Sorry, you said 'fuck little children'.

Welcome selina. Brave post. I have the same reservations.

As soon as the guilty verdict came in, victims were instructing their solicitors, according to the Guardian.

Although I understand that people are entitled to compensation, I am uncomfortable that so much money is at stake.

Elegran referring back to your earlier post, was Rolf Harris actually charged with 'fucking little children'? I didn't see that anywhere.

Yes, I'd read when he was arrested that pornographic images of children, including infants, had been found on his computer. I've wondered why this wasn't included in the prosecution. I'm satisfied with the guilty finding, and the sentence.
I'm impressed by the Judges comments, well done you Judge

he has just got 5 years 9 months.

You put it better than I did aka, and I wouldnt want to put Selina off from joining in with GN.

I wouldn't want Selina to be put off posting on GN.

She has a point, but I think there is a world of difference between an adult fending off the typical kind of male advances that were quite common years ago and the kind of deliberate sexual abuse that has been revealed in Operation Yewtree.