Australian entertainer arrested in Jimmy Savile case

[Jezza]

Sentencing to be on Friday. The judge told him to expect a prison sentence which isn't surprising at all considering the serious nature of these crimes he's been found guilty of.

I read somewhere that if found guilty he may face up to 10 years in prison. My guess is somewhere between 5-7 years but I'm unaware of what the sentencing has been like in England with similar cases to this in previous times so at the end of the day I have no idea what his sentence could be.

[David]

[Jezza]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014 ... directions

Harris is charged with 12 counts of indecent assault against four girls in the UK between 1968 and 1986. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of two years' jail.

This article from the Guardian on June 21 says that each charge carries a maximum sentence of two years jail. This might help gives us a little bit more of an idea of what kind of sentence he may receive on Friday. We now know he's been found guilty of all 12 counts of indecent assault so I'd think it may be five years at least for him.

[Wokko]

My guess:

2 years on each charge, served concurrently, 18 month minimum. I'm actually surprised things got as far as they did, usually there's a payoff and it all goes away, whether the charges are true or not (see Mr. M Jackson).

[Jezza]

Assuming if he's not sentenced concurrently, Harris could serve a maximum of 24 years for all counts of indecent assault technically speaking. Is that right?

Anyway I've heard that his defence team is planning to argue a case for a significant sentence reduction because of his old age and concerning health issues of some kind.

[London Dave]

Will die in the nick

[David]

Anyone seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0qejLm1CRQ

Surprisingly thoughtful and sensitive educational film that's way less creepy and saccharine than the sort of thing put out by contemporary organisations like Bravehearts. Makes him seem like a pretty decent guy who genuinely wanted to do something about child abuse. Perhaps that was just the impression he wanted to convey, or perhaps there was a real cognitive dissonance there between the sort of person he wanted to be and what he did.

[stui magpie]

^

I genuinely think he had a mental blind spot and did not recognise what he did was child abuse.

Hell, under the way society was at the time some at least of the instances borderline wasn't.

I'd still put Rolf in a category way below Jimmy Savile though, that pharker seems to have been utterly and unapologetically depraved.

[think positive]

^

I genuinely think he had a mental blind spot and did not recognise what he did was child abuse.

.

So what?

Lock him up and throw away the key.

His victims deserve that

No sympathy, no wobble board, nothing

[1061]

^

I genuinely think he had a mental blind spot and did not recognise what he did was child abuse.

.

So what?

Lock him up and throw away the key.

His victims deserve that

No sympathy, no wobble board, nothing

Well said TP.

[stui magpie]

^

I genuinely think he had a mental blind spot and did not recognise what he did was child abuse.

.

So what?

Lock him up and throw away the key.

His victims deserve that

No sympathy, no wobble board, nothing

Not trying to justify anything, agreed it doesn't help the victims in any way. Just means I do feel a tad of sympathy for him. He was allowed and empowered to act this way, let to get away with it, until society changed and he got pinned with stuff he should have been pulled up on 30 years or more ago

[David]

I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling sympathy for him. He's screwed up his own life and has to live with the fact he's screwed up many others'. I would not want to have that on my conscience.

[Morrigu]

I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling sympathy for him. He's screwed up his own life and has to live with the fact he's screwed up many others'. I would not want to have that on my conscience.

^ to live with the fact means acknowledging what you did was wrong and to date I have seen no evidence of that from him so I doubt his conscience is even mildly pricked.

Pray tell how this has " screwed up" his life given he is now 84 and until recently not been called for his behaviour and enjoyed the benefits of his loveable public persona?

[David]

^ I have no idea whether that's the case or not, Morrigu, and I doubt anyone else here does either. Guilt is a personal thing, and repeat offending doesn't necessarily prove its absence. Whatever the case, he has been brought to account for his actions now and, guilty consience or not, he is suffering the consequences.

[1061]

We must not assume but instead go on his very public utterances and going by those he has no shame.