Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download BBC on-demand programmes via the iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a TV licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.


As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Monday 30 June 2014

Rolf Harris: Can You Guess What He Is Yet?

Yes, he's yet another convicted nonce strongly related to the BBC.

Rolf Harris, the 84-year-old musician and singer-songwriter, has been found guilty of all 12 counts of indecent assault by a jury at Southwark Crown Court.

The charges relate to a string of offences committed by the veteran entertainer between 1968 and 1986. One of the victims was childhood friend of his daughter Bindi and another was an autograph hunter aged only seven or eight.

Harris, just like BBC grandees Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall before him, arrogantly assumed his celebrity status put him beyond the reach of the law.

The judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, said a custodial term was "uppermost in the court's mind", but he wanted to see a medical report before sentencing.

Harris will be sentenced on Friday.

Edit: Decrepit old pervert Harris was sentenced to a total of 5 years 9 months imprisonment. In his summing up of the case the trial judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, slammed Harris for abusing his celebrity status and showing no remorse whatsoever for his crimes. Harris' sentence has been referred to the Attorney General's Office following complaints that it was unduly lenient.


Unknown said...

The thing that sickens me is that HE suggested doing this:


I came across this on the same site:


It's probably been burned to ashes and then flushed down the nearest toilet or drain. It wouldn't be proper to have it on display anywhere, now that the man who painted it is facing 12 counts of fiddling about.

What is it with the famous people of that generation?! Then again, pretty much all the people we hear about when it comes to charges of this nature are from or associated with the BBC, so we shouldn't be overly surprised I suppose. :/

Richard Heathfield said...

I am a little concerned by some aspects of this child abuse witch-hunt. Where people have fought their corner, I suppose we have to trust that the justice system basically works, and they will probably be correctly judged (whether guilty or not guilty, as the case may be). But the case that really concerns me is that of Stuart Hall, who entered a guilty plea. It is of course possible that he is guilty, but it is also possible that he was bullied into pleading guilty even if he hadn't done anything wrong (and how hard could it be to bully an 84-year-old man?). False confessions happen all the time.

If you're going to go after the BBC paedophiles (and those who really are guilty are indeed the scum of the earth), please try to stick to targets that have been through a full trial process, not one that has been abbreviated by a possibly spurious guilty plea.


Admin said...

I'm afraid I'm missing your point Richard.

Stuart Hall, by virtue of his confession, has been convicted of child sexual offences.

As far as the law is concerned he is a sexual abuser of children.

As far as we are concerned he is a disgusting filthy old liar with morals lower than a snake's belly.

Richard Heathfield said...

You are perfectly correct in saying that, in the eyes of the law, he is guilty. I realise that, but I'm talking about facts, not law (and actually we don't know and can never know the facts for sure).

Perhaps it will help if I draw a parallel with Capita. ;-)

We know from your blog that people are convicted of TV licence evasion, from time to time, on the basis of "confessions" captured by Capita goons. If I recall correctly, you have claimed that, from time to time, goons add extra information on their confession forms after the householder has signed it. Or they can simply trick or intimidate the (non-TV-watching) householder into saying something self-incriminating. For example, "you WILL be convicted for not having a licence and you could be fined a thousand pounds but we can make the fine a lot less - fifty quid or so - if you save us time now by admitting you watch TV" or something like that. If a magistrate is fooled by this, the "confession" will result in a conviction and the victim gets punished while the goon walks free to perjure again.

In the eyes of the law, such a victim is now a convicted licence evader, and in the eyes of Capita he or she is TV-licence-evading scum.

I hope the parallel is now clear.

(Of course, SH may well be guilty in fact. My point is not that he is not guilty, but that he might not be guilty, despite the conviction.)

In any case, this is way off-topic for your blog, for which I apologise, and I'll offer you the last word and promise not to reply again on this matter.

Admin said...

Thanks for your comments Richard. I don't see the need to have the last word, as you are perfectly entitled to express your opinions on the matter.

jonbonanchovi said...

It is my opinion (and the opinion of many) that there is now a witch hunt going on as a result of the hystiria caused by the Jimmy Saville mess.. I don't believe for one second that Rolf Harris's conviction is sound. Obtained in much the same way as any conviction of TV supposed license evaders would be..
read this article....http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt