Well, I'd never have thought this ...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

How is the phone hacking trial going?

Obviously got to be careful on comments on this trial.

No need really. They already know what you've said !!

[jaffka]

How is the phone hacking trial going?

Obviously got to be careful on comments on this trial.

No need really. They already know what you've said !!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Is there a statute of limitations on hamster eating?

[thebish]

[wigan white]

[bobo the clown]

Ha. Jut made me smirk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort ... s-27576122" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobo the clown]

.... & yesterday, in the dock, while giving evidence, Rolf Harris decided he'd sing 'Jake the Peg' to the Court.

wtf ??

[thebish]

that song has a whole new sinister vibe to it now... extra leg, indeed... eughhh

[Bruce Rioja]

.... & yesterday, in the dock, while giving evidence, Rolf Harris decided he'd sing 'Jake the Peg' to the Court.

wtf ??

It'll be to divert attention away from his 'Kids in the water...' public information film.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I've never recovered from the first time I heard "Two Little Boys..."

[Prufrock]

Was reading the sentencing remarks for Max Clifford today. There was a video doing the rounds of him coming out of court behind a news reporter acting like a knob. Turns out the judge took it into account as an aggravating factor. Good, the prick.

[Bruce Rioja]

Was reading the sentencing remarks for Max Clifford today. There was a video doing the rounds of him coming out of court behind a news reporter acting like a knob. Turns out the judge took it into account as an aggravating factor. Good, the prick.

Ha

Here you go;

[Prufrock]

That's the one.

"19. Not unnaturally, what she looks for is some sort of apology from you or an acknowledgment as to what you have been responsible for. She has been extremely upset by your public denials before trial, the reports of your attitude during trial – laughing and shaking your head in the dock at the accusations made against you. For my part I would add something that since the jury have returned verdicts I have discovered that you appeared behind a reporter outside this court whilst he was making his report of your evidence and during which you mimicked his actions in a way that was designed to trivialise these events. I find your behaviour to be quite extraordinary and a further indication that you show no remorse.

"20. Whilst there is a difference in degree between your reaction to what then were allegations of indecent assault and those of a defendant who makes public denials and then pleads guilty, this additional element of trauma caused by your contemptuous attitude is something that I shall take into account in sentence. I can only hope that these proceedings will provide all your victims with some sort of closure."

[Prufrock]

Rolf Harris guilty on all twelve counts.

[Bruce Rioja]

Rolf Harris guilty on all twelve counts.

Aye, just read this;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28094561" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bobo the clown]

Wow.

I've got used to them all being found not-guilty.

[Prufrock]

I haven't followed Harris' case in detail but will be interested to see the sentencing remarks of the judge.

Max Clifford's were difficult reading, but put paid to the idea that Operation Yewtree was just a witch-hunt going after pretty minor stuff that was 'of its time'.

[Bruce Rioja]

I haven't followed Harris' case in detail but will be interested to see the sentencing remarks of the judge.

Indeed, because from here it just looks like conflicting versions of events. I'm not saying I think he's not guilty, but I'm interested to know how they got to 'guilty beyond all reasonable doubt'.

[BWFC_Insane]

I haven't followed Harris' case in detail but will be interested to see the sentencing remarks of the judge.

Indeed, because from here it just looks like conflicting versions of events. I'm not saying I think he's not guilty, but I'm interested to know how they got to 'guilty beyond all reasonable doubt'.

Reasonable doubt has different meanings in different scenarios though does it not? No way can you absolutely prove a case like this 100%. So it comes down to believeability of witnesses, victims and the defendant I guess....

[Prufrock]

I'm not 100% sure what you mean BWFC-i, but I'd hesitate a 'no'. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' means what it says and is, rightly, a very high standard. The word 'reasonable' is important though, it's not '100%, absolutely, couldn't possibly not be, got him on camera, with forensic evidence and a confession'. It means that the jury found there were no doubts, or any doubts there were were so unlikely as to be discounted. That kind of verdict is hard to get when it's just one person's word against another, hence the problem the criminal law has dealing with domestic violence (where there are often no witnesses). In this case though, from a quick BBC summary, it sounds like there were several people all saying he'd abused them, and him saying he hadn't. Bearing in mind all will have been thoroughly examined and cross-examined, it's far from impossible that you could listen to the consistent, cogent testimony of several 'victims', and the shambolic, inconsistent testimony of one 'perpetrator' and find that you were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the crimes had been committed.

Brucie, I wouldn't hold you breath on that front, you might get a bit of insight into the evidence produced, but these sentencing remarks can't explain the reasons a jury finds X, and rarely speculate as to what they might be. What they may do is set out in more detail the accusations against him which will be presented now as 'fact'.