As someone with a slight interest in art I find that attitude rather strange, possibly not with his prints which are all part of the general "flavour of the month" faddy art market, (the fact that you can buy them on ebay tells you that) but his original artwork is still high quality artwork, despite what you think about him he is still a fine artist and his original work does not alter for the fact that he is a sex offender, nor (in my opinion) will that devalue it in the long term, it may even make it more valuable especially the fact that there won't be much new work for a while.

The bohemian nature of artists in the past should make us question their sexual predatory nature and should in theory devalue their works but it doesn't, did any question Picasso when he, in today terminology "groomed" a teenage girl when he was in his sixties and then married her when she was 21, did anyone ever question Gauguin when he fled France and exiled himself in Tahiti and made a career of painting young naked Tahitian girls - well maybe they did at the time but we see them, and many others, as great artists now...

The problem with the offences that were supposed to take place in 1975/76 when he only went there in 1978 is that the fact he went there in 1978 was used as evidence he was liar.

He said he had no recollection of ever having been to Cambridge before 2000. Then it comes out he went in 1978 so despite the fact he wasn't there or on the show the victim said the assault occurred on in 1975/76 he is now branded a liar.

Now you might say it was unreasonable to expect the victim to pinpoint the date or even mention the correct show this assault occurred on but then it's surely unreasonable to effectively go fishing for a date when he was in this location and imply that must be when it happened. Likewise the fact he said he'd never been there before 2000 is not an unreasonable thing to suggest but suppose he had recalled being there in 1978? That would have been a straightforward and verifiable contradiction of the evidence before the jury but because he said 2000 it works against him.

Even if this particular case had been found not-guilty (which it wasn't) it would still have been being used as a mechanism to paint Harris as a liar trying to talk his way out of his crimes.

In the sentencing hearing this morning the prosecuting counsel told the court that police had found a substantial amount of child porn on Harris' computer after he was arrested. Those offences have been allowed to lie on file. It's clear that he had an unhealthy interest in children and I'd be surprised if there weren't many other victims over the years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ldren.html 33 images is enough but not what most would call "substantial", nor was it ever provable that the "teenage" girls in the images were underage as you can read in the article above - this is a major problem with crimes like this and also with the reporting of such crimes. Its quite easy for a crappy tabloid, lets say The Mail for instance, with a record of featuring under 18 year olds on their web site sidebar of shame clad in very few clothes and calling them "leggy" or admiring the way they are developing, its quite easy for such a publication to state "substantial" without ever having to explain that none of the images may actually have been illegal or that nothing of the sort has actually been proven in a court of law. What is VERY interesting about this case is that Harris was one of the first "names" to have been arrested right back at the start of Yewtree but his lawyers successfully pressurised the media into not naming him for over twelve months until one of them finally broke ranks, in the meantime several other "names" who were interviewed were all named instantly in the media - why them and not him ? Having an interest in his art I saw allegations printed on a forum on his web site right at the start which were quickly removed and the forum shut down and at one point a statement mentioned that police enquiries were rigorously denied and no further comment would be made - his web site and the selling part of his web site has now been removed. You may wonder if the evidence against him at that point was not enough to write a tabloid headline over or whether the threat of a several times millionaire taking them to a libel court may have persuaded them otherwise, but why not Freddie Starr (for instance) who's "evidence" was even more flimsy, too flimsy to even bother with a court case and yet he was still named immediately ? Is this the reason why jimmy Savile got away with it for so long ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ldren.html 33 images is enough but not what most would call "substantial", nor was it ever provable that the "teenage" girls in the images were underage as you can read in the article above - this is a major problem with crimes like this and also with the reporting of such crimes. Its quite easy for a crappy tabloid, lets say The Mail for instance, with a record of featuring under 18 year olds on their web site sidebar of shame clad in very few clothes and calling them "leggy" or admiring the way they are developing, its quite easy for such a publication to state "substantial" without ever having to explain that none of the images may actually have been illegal or that nothing of the sort has actually been proven in a court of law. What is VERY interesting about this case is that Harris was one of the first "names" to have been arrested right back at the start of Yewtree but his lawyers successfully pressurised the media into not naming him for over twelve months until one of them finally broke ranks, in the meantime several other "names" who were interviewed were all named instantly in the media - why them and not him ? Having an interest in his art I saw allegations printed on a forum on his web site right at the start which were quickly removed and the forum shut down and at one point a statement mentioned that police enquiries were rigorously denied and no further comment would be made - his web site and the selling part of his web site has now been removed. You may wonder if the evidence against him at that point was not enough to write a tabloid headline over or whether the threat of a several times millionaire taking them to a libel court may have persuaded them otherwise, but why not Freddie Starr (for instance) who's "evidence" was even more flimsy, too flimsy to even bother with a court case and yet he was still named immediately ? Is this the reason why jimmy Savile got away with it for so long ?

I haven't read any of the subsequent replies. I clicked on the link for the judges summation and it was NA. But I will just quickly respond to you.

I've explained at very long length my reasons for feeling uneasy at him being sent to prison. I've implored someone to point me to examples of why his jail sentence is justified. No one has offered anything as to why he deserves to be labelled a paedo and his life in extreme danger unless he is massively protected in prison.

But everyone pretty much seems to support him going to jail for a long lime and will probably cheer if he doesn't last a week inside before being killed.

IMO the only reason for this is that he's been labelled as a paedophile. Apart from the 8 year old girl, the label isn't even appropriate. But because he's labelled as a paedo people seem to instinctively want him dead.

If Harris did touch the 8 year old girl inappropriately then TBH I join in with everyone else in hoping he's killed. If he did that then let him swing. But if you're happy with a he said, she said 40 years after the event that's your right. It leaves me with a profound sense of unease.

I've hinted in my posts, perhaps badly, about times in my life when people were in the grips of a media frenzy. The nonsense fabrication of satanic ritual abuse, the issue of repressed and fabricated memories, Roseanne Barr and her allegation that nearly everyone's been abused, we just don't remember it. Most of these frenzies turn out to be nonsense. IMO with the death of Savile and post death feeding frenzy we've gone from one extreme to the other.

are you for real, the guy molested kids, he was a paedophile and a rapist (if you believe some of the girls were of age of consent), I don't want him to die quickly, I hope he rots slowly and has time to suffer like his victims have for many years.

I suggest you wouldn't be expressing these opinions in public, in person, you like the "shock an awe anonymity" that RLFans affords, which is fine, am guilty of that myself, but not in defence of people like Harris, I am sure he probably did have two little boys with two little toys, rot in hell Harris.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:I haven't read any of the subsequent replies. I clicked on the link for the judges summation and it was NA. But I will just quickly respond to you. I've explained at very long length my reasons for feeling uneasy at him being sent to prison. I've implored someone to point me to examples of why his jail sentence is justified. No one has offered anything as to why he deserves to be labelled a paedo and his life in extreme danger unless he is massively protected in prison. But everyone pretty much seems to support him going to jail for a long lime and will probably cheer if he doesn't last a week inside before being killed. IMO the only reason for this is that he's been labelled as a paedophile. Apart from the 8 year old girl, the label isn't even appropriate. But because he's labelled as a paedo people seem to instinctively want him dead. If Harris did touch the 8 year old girl inappropriately then TBH I join in with everyone else in hoping he's killed. If he did that then let him swing. But if you're happy with a he said, she said 40 years after the event that's your right. It leaves me with a profound sense of unease. I've hinted in my posts, perhaps badly, about times in my life when people were in the grips of a media frenzy. The nonsense fabrication of satanic ritual abuse, the issue of repressed and fabricated memories, Roseanne Barr and her allegation that nearly everyone's been abused, we just don't remember it. Most of these frenzies turn out to be nonsense. IMO with the death of Savile and post death feeding frenzy we've gone from one extreme to the other. The sentencing remarks are here... http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/ ... arris1.pdf

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:I haven't read any of the subsequent replies. I clicked on the link for the judges summation and it was NA. But I will just quickly respond to you. I've explained at very long length my reasons for feeling uneasy at him being sent to prison. I've implored someone to point me to examples of why his jail sentence is justified. No one has offered anything as to why he deserves to be labelled a paedo and his life in extreme danger unless he is massively protected in prison. But everyone pretty much seems to support him going to jail for a long lime and will probably cheer if he doesn't last a week inside before being killed. IMO the only reason for this is that he's been labelled as a paedophile. Apart from the 8 year old girl, the label isn't even appropriate. But because he's labelled as a paedo people seem to instinctively want him dead. If Harris did touch the 8 year old girl inappropriately then TBH I join in with everyone else in hoping he's killed. If he did that then let him swing. But if you're happy with a he said, she said 40 years after the event that's your right. It leaves me with a profound sense of unease. I've hinted in my posts, perhaps badly, about times in my life when people were in the grips of a media frenzy. The nonsense fabrication of satanic ritual abuse, the issue of repressed and fabricated memories, Roseanne Barr and her allegation that nearly everyone's been abused, we just don't remember it. Most of these frenzies turn out to be nonsense. IMO with the death of Savile and post death feeding frenzy we've gone from one extreme to the other. The sentencing remarks are here... http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/ ... arris1.pdf

I agree I wouldn't have these conversations in public. Because I'd be tarred as a paedo myself. And someone would probably try and cave my head in with a brick as a consequence.

That's how absolutely extreme hatred is towards paedophiles.

Which is why we should only label paedophiles as people who actually are paeodohiles.

You are happy that a man is convicted of molesting an 8 year old in a situation where he was the star attraction. There will have probably been tens, if not hundreds of people in the room. The girls parent or a guardian must have surely been close providing supervision. You are happy to accept her word that Harris touched her up in that situation. I'm not. I believe that stars get a certain freedom to act in a certain way because of "star power" but they don't have the freedom to stick their hand in an 8 year old's crotch in front of dozens of people and get away with it.

IMO having no statute of limitations on murder, rape, genuine child abuse is absolutely fine. These crimes are utterly deplorable and people committing these crimes should spend the rest of their loves worrying. But putting your hand on a 16 year old girls butt is not child abuse and it is a travesty that it is linked with serious crimes.

IMO the allegation of the grope of the 8 year old girl was worthy of a standalone trial. As was the allegation by his daughter's friend. The rest is utter BS.

All of these women are going to end up with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds for having their booty felt. And some of these might not have even happened. It's clearly fine by you, it's a situation to celebrate. I'm troubled by it. I think people are genuinely having their lives ruined on decades old allegations because of a clear flaw in the law.

If these girls were alleging murder of their friend or full rape the men wouldn't be sent to prison because their word would not be enough to convict. It's ridiculous that alleged gropings, in full view of other people is likely to get man sent to prison where an even worse allegation of murder or rape would never see a court room.

Derwent wrote:The sentencing remarks are here... http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/ ... arris1.pdf Okay, copying and pasting that does not work. I'm not going to waste time cleaning it up. On the issue of the Cambridge allegation. The woman said that she was 13 years old when Harris groped her. It is supposed to have had a traumatic affect on her life. Her trust in men was devastated. This will have had a massive impact on her childhood. Her schooling would have been damaged. Relationships with boys would have been devastated. The ages of 13 and 16 are massively, massively different. When you're 13 years old you're halfway through your secondary school education. When you are 16 high school is ending or is close to ending. That's when the major exams are. If she claims she was 13 when this happened when she actually met Harris when she was 16 her testimony simply cannot be trusted. If she was 3 years out of date when the offence was committed, maybe he didn't grope her butt but he actually just put his arm around her. How many famous people did you meet when you were a kid? Apart from RL players and football players I think I met one - Ted Rodgers, when I was 11 years old at Wembley Stadium. I'd suggest that most people generally have a similar experience of meeting stars. It's a massive rarity. And even more rare will be when a star decides to grab their butt. If this happened, she'd be able to work out how old she was. She wasn't. IMO it didn't happen.

Derwent wrote:The sentencing remarks are here... http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/ ... arris1.pdf Okay, copying and pasting that does not work. I'm not going to waste time cleaning it up. On the issue of the Cambridge allegation. The woman said that she was 13 years old when Harris groped her. It is supposed to have had a traumatic affect on her life. Her trust in men was devastated. This will have had a massive impact on her childhood. Her schooling would have been damaged. Relationships with boys would have been devastated. The ages of 13 and 16 are massively, massively different. When you're 13 years old you're halfway through your secondary school education. When you are 16 high school is ending or is close to ending. That's when the major exams are. If she claims she was 13 when this happened when she actually met Harris when she was 16 her testimony simply cannot be trusted. If she was 3 years out of date when the offence was committed, maybe he didn't grope her butt but he actually just put his arm around her. How many famous people did you meet when you were a kid? Apart from RL players and football players I think I met one - Ted Rodgers, when I was 11 years old at Wembley Stadium. I'd suggest that most people generally have a similar experience of meeting stars. It's a massive rarity. And even more rare will be when a star decides to grab their butt. If this happened, she'd be able to work out how old she was. She wasn't. IMO it didn't happen.

you disgust me, utterly and totally.

I hope someone stabs you just a little bit, that wont be murder by your logic.

what a reprehensible member of the species you are.