Slags & Lawyers Seeking A Payout from Rolf Harris to Cover their Miserable Middle Age

[BangThemHard]

The whinging slags and their lawyers seeking a payout from Rolf Harris to cover their miserable middle-age,
should be thrown out of court, then charged themselves for wasting police & court time to serve their own
vile purpose of financial betterment. Their would be no proceedings if Rolf was poor, it's just a tacky cash grab.
Shame on the ugly gold-diggers playing the victim card 30/40 years after the "life-changing" events.

Good onya Rolf.

[TheOmegaMan]

The whinging slags and their lawyers seeking a payout from Rolf Harris to cover their miserable middle-age,
should be thrown out of court, then charged themselves for wasting police & court time to serve their own
vile purpose of financial betterment. Their would be no proceedings if Rolf was poor, it's just a tacky cash grab.
Shame on the ugly gold-diggers playing the victim card 30/40 years after the "life-changing" events.

Good onya Rolf.


You're right, if Rolf wasn't wealthy and famous, they wouldn't have made a case against him.
Just a horrible grab for cash.

[Sextus]

No-one's biting yet fella(s)! Try again!

[BangThemHard]

No-one's biting yet fella(s)! Try again!

I'm sure you have a view on this, but you're afraid to express it for some reason?

[Gpop]

The "SLAGS" you mention were VERY young when Uncle Rolfe abused them!!

Are you condoning his behavior?????

Just another dirty old rock spider in my world!!

Just like Robert Hughs!!! Hope he gets raped HARD in jail!!!

G.

[Sextus]

I'll just have to wait for the outcome of the trial to know whether Rolf was using his extra leg where he shouldn't have been.

[CunningLinguist]

Now they are coming in pairs!
Looks like TheOmegaMan is another one of the trolls accounts (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again), I'll update the table, I feel another banning is about to happen ...
I reckon condoning child sexual abuse is reason enough to ban the pair of them.

[BangThemHard]

Now they are coming in pairs!
Looks like TheOmegaMan is another one of the trolls accounts (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again), I'll update the table, I feel another banning is about to happen ...
I reckon condoning child sexual abuse is reason enough to ban the pair of them.


Rolf Harris is innocent until proven guilty, you've already made your mind up, of course that's your standard operating mode.

Even by your truly pathetic standards, suggesting I condone abuse is simply the pure vomit of an ignorant degenerate,
and most intelligent folk on the forum know you for what you are.

The point made is true, ie if RH was poor then no case would have been made against him.

[pantydropa]

Now they are coming in pairs!
Looks like TheOmegaMan is another one of the trolls accounts (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again), I'll update the table, I feel another banning is about to happen ...
I reckon condoning child sexual abuse is reason enough to ban the pair of them.

Nobody is condoning child abuse.

[CunningLinguist]

Good onya Rolf.


blah blah disingenuous tripe blah blah trollspeak blah blah

I rest my case troll.

[greybeard_]

Rock spider alert!

Rock spider alert!


the whinging slags and their lawyers seeking a payout from rolf harris to cover their miserable middle-age,
should be thrown out of court, then charged themselves for wasting police & court time to serve their own
vile purpose of financial betterment. Their would be no proceedings if rolf was poor, it's just a tacky cash grab.
Shame on the ugly gold-diggers playing the victim card 30/40 years after the "life-changing" events.

Good onya rolf.

[BangThemHard]

I rest my case troll.

A suitably mono-syllabic response from the forum's moron - don't you know any words with more than one syllable?
Your reputation has not been enhanced in the last few days, thankfully more folk are beginning to see it and say so,
check the threads mon ami. It's a shame the forum has to suffer you, otherwise it might grow in numbers and content.

[Sextus]

Hughes has just got 10 years nine months and 6 and half years non parole.

That is a very stiff sentence compared to most in these kind of cases.

Hardened criminal types take this kind of time on the chin, but for arty types like Hughes the time and the prospect would have a searing mental edge to it.

Hughes's wife is the agent for Cate Blanchette and a few other stars! He is leaving behind a comfortable London townhouse and cafe lifestyle.

[CunningLinguist]

A suitably mono-syllabic response from the forum's moron - don't you know any words with more than one syllable?
Your reputation has not been enhanced in the last few days, thankfully more folk are beginning to see it and say so,
check the threads mon ami. It's a shame the forum has to suffer you, otherwise it might grow in numbers and content.

Derr, I think you may be the moron here since you have been banned 15 times now ...
You obviously have a learning impediment, so best to keep the message simple for you.
I think you do more harm than most by your frequent shop bumps, fake ARs, rude posts, and worst of all bad poetry, I do note that you have not been brave enough to try anymore poetry ...

[CunningLinguist]

Hughes has just got 10 years nine months and 6 and half years non parole.

That is a very stiff sentence compared to most in these kind of cases.

Hardened criminal types take this kind of time on the chin, but for arty types like Hughes the time and the prospect would have a searing mental edge to it.

Hughes's wife is the agent for Cate Blanchette and a few other stars! He is leaving behind a comfortable London townhouse and cafe lifestyle.

They don't take kindly to child molesters in jail, he is not going to have fun ...

[Licker]

Ban Them Hard
then put them in jail and
Bang Them Hard

[wilisno]

Ban Them Hard
then put them in jail and
Bang Them Hard
Haha ! What a name he chose ! :miao:

[CunningLinguist]

Haha ! What a name he chose ! :miao:

He only lasted one day this time before getting banned :)
It's not really sporting anymore, maybe we should let him post his trollspeak for a few days before we hold him to account ...

[EatmyhairyassholeBitch]

I think the op is upset that he didn't get a piece of the action on Rh.

[TheOmegaMan]

Hughes has just got 10 years nine months and 6 and half years non parole.

That is a very stiff sentence compared to most in these kind of cases.

Hardened criminal types take this kind of time on the chin, but for arty types like Hughes the time and the prospect would have a searing mental edge to it.

Hughes's wife is the agent for Cate Blanchette and a few other stars! He is leaving behind a comfortable London townhouse and cafe lifestyle.

The scum animals who king hit and murdered the young men in King's Cross and elsewhere, got a less severe sentence than the above - interesting aye?

[TheOmegaMan]

Another interesting thread where the OP is summarily banned by an ignorant degenerate
whose woeful primary or pre-school mentality of "it's my ball, if you don't play my way, you can't play"
ladens the place with the odious smell of low brow totalitarian dictatorship -
and this they like to call a "Forum."

The degenerate shit-peddler requires members to descend the evolutionary scale to his/her level,
in order for them to comfortablty fit in at his/her Forum.

[goulash]

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time... I have no sympathy for this man...


Hughes has just got 10 years nine months and 6 and half years non parole.

That is a very stiff sentence compared to most in these kind of cases.

Hardened criminal types take this kind of time on the chin, but for arty types like Hughes the time and the prospect would have a searing mental edge to it.

Hughes's wife is the agent for Cate Blanchette and a few other stars! He is leaving behind a comfortable London townhouse and cafe lifestyle.

[Sextus]

I was making the observation that the sentence is about double what these guys usually get, if they get gaol at all - and that on top of the lifestyle he is swapping for gaol.

The judge said he was sentencing according to the "practices of the 80s" when the offences took place. But these type of offenders previously have been getting off a lot lighter than that. Suspended sentences etc. Judges are usually immune to public opinion about sentencing, but this one has said one thing about his sentencing intentions and acted out the opposite.

I'm interested because judges are famous for outraging public opinion with their light sentencing. It isn't about having sympathy for Hughes, I am merely making the true observation that because of his refined nature and lifestyle, he will be doing it a lot tougher inside than the meatheads that make up 99% of the prison population. None of those ***t's would've seen the inside of an art gallery for example! :shout:

That extreme contrast on top of the long sentence will make the sentence seem much longer to Hughes.

[Licker]

None of those ***t's would've seen the inside of an art gallery for example! :shout:


How do you know?

Some of them may have been caught inside an art gallery :)

[CunningLinguist]

Another interesting thread where the OP is summarily banned by an ignorant degenerate
whose woeful primary or pre-school mentality of "it's my ball, if you don't play my way, you can't play"
ladens the place with the odious smell of low brow totalitarian dictatorship -
and this they like to call a "Forum."

The degenerate shit-peddler requires members to descend the evolutionary scale to his/her level,
in order for them to comfortablty fit in at his/her Forum.

Oh poor troll got banned (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again) again ...
This time you lasted one day!
Thats the thing about trolls they dont' learn from their mistakes.

[SmilingGiraffe]

The key Australian female witness in the Rolf Harris case, has admitted under oath about lying to the police
when they asked her if she had sought payment for her story from the media. She told the police she had not.
Even though she had already found an agent to bargain her story to the highest media bidder. Apparently she got
$30K for her story, and has admitted, under oath, to lying about this to police. Had they known, their investigation
would have stopped. 30/40 years after the event, the so-called victim goes to the media before going to the police,
and lies to the police about it when interviewed.

This gold-digging lying slag hasn't got an ounce of credibility left, and has shown herself, under oath, for what she is.
Rolf Harris is innocent until proven guilty and he won't be proven guilty now.

[CunningLinguist]

The whinging slags and their lawyers seeking a payout from Rolf Harris to cover their miserable middle-age,
should be thrown out of court, then charged themselves for wasting police & court time to serve their own
vile purpose of financial betterment. Their would be no proceedings if Rolf was poor, it's just a tacky cash grab.
Shame on the ugly gold-diggers playing the victim card 30/40 years after the "life-changing" events.

Good onya Rolf.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/rolf-harris-guilty-of-indecently-assaulting-four-girls/5542644

Rolf Harris has been found guilty of indecently assaulting four girls in the UK between 1968 and 1986.

The jury took eight days to deliver unanimous verdicts on all 12 charges of indecent assault in London.

What are your thoughts on Rolf now troll ?

[ilovefs]

I'll just have to wait for the outcome of the trial to know whether Rolf was using his extra leg where he shouldn't have been.

Imagine the fun we'd have at 64 with an extra leg. Or in one of your infamous gang bangs LOL

[ilovefs]

That is a very stiff sentence

That's what caused this mess in the first place!

[Sextus]

I wish Rolf had restricted his wandering hands away from kids!

I heard a female Australian journalist on the radio this morning complaining that she was being photographed with him when she felt his hand descend to just above her rear. Then it explored a little lower...and lower still, before giving her arse a couple of healthy squeezes!

She looked darts at him and objected:

"Do you mind?"

But for reply all Rolf did was give her a wink and a devilish grin.

I must admit I laughed at the story. Because I've had my own arse squeezed at a party for 40 something ladies!

If he'd done no more than that - what is still a national sport in Italy - then we might just be having a laugh about his music hall sensibility and innuendo. But as it is, Rolf, oh Rolf, how could you?

[CunningLinguist]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-01/rolf-harris-guilty-of-indecently-assaulting-four-girls/5542644


What are your thoughts on Rolf now troll ?

Hmm the troll has been silent about this, I did PM him so that he knows about this question.
Typical troll he avoids the issue when he knows he is wrong and can't think of any more fallacious arguments no matter how tenuous ...

[jimiuk]

The whinging slags and their lawyers seeking a payout from Rolf Harris to cover their miserable middle-age,
should be thrown out of court, then charged themselves for wasting police & court time to serve their own
vile purpose of financial betterment. Their would be no proceedings if Rolf was poor, it's just a tacky cash grab.
Shame on the ugly gold-diggers playing the victim card 30/40 years after the "life-changing" events.

Good onya Rolf.

You stupid cunt.

[SirLaughsAlot]

Rolf Harris was “innocent until proven guilty.” The presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of a the judicial system. Others here believed Rolf was “guilty until proven innocent” – this is contrary to the rule of law, i.e it is trial by media or even worse by social media – this is highly unsavoury and is akin to mob rule. Indeed, these days the media behaves like the ancient mob of Rome.

However, now that he has been found guilty, he will rightly have to face the music. Although there may be an appeal of some kind, during which time he will be placed in cutstody at her majesty’s pleasure. But there are some very important issues worth mentioning on this matter:

1) If Rolf happened to be poor, no proceedings would have been brought against him. All “victims” were, and are, looking for compensation, thirty years after the so-called “life-changing” events. And more “victims” have already emerged since the end of the trial, again seeking compensation. It has become a very dubious and unsavoury compensation industry.

2). The British Police did “sweet f@ck all” with Jimmy Saville over several decades when he was alive and active in the UK. Their pathetic performance with Saville, or rather their no performance, generated a massive amount of criticism of the Police. As a result, any subsequent allegations made against celebrities are seen by the police as an opportunity to redeem themselves in both the public’s and media’s eyes. This has added to the toxic social climate. There was a police spokesman on the news yesterday, visibly salivating as he discussed all the good work done by authorities. It looked odd for the police to be so overtly celebratory, after all they were just doing their job, right.

3). The BBC, ABC and most other mainstream media have created a toxic public & social climate. By constantly and relentlessly promoting allegations & accusations of sexual abuse, they have created a climate where the “weight” of allegation makes any defendant look guilty, and therefore the media will get their sensational story regardless of reality. Hence, the public/social climate in which the judicial system operates has been rendered toxic by the pervasive global media. Juries are obviously derived from the general community living in the current climate. Accordingly, the expectation of impartiality and objectivity is entirely lost.

Consequently, there are questions to be asked of the jury’s judgement, particularly with respect to one specific case, i.e the aussie female who admitted under oath to lying to the police. This alone should have been grounds for demonstrating clear and “reasonable doubt” in that specific case. Nevertheless, Rolf was still found guilty in that case.

For the above reasons, I say Rolf Harris did not get a truly “fair trial” because it was a judicial & media "show trial,” in response to the current social climate and recent sexual abuse controversies. The current toxic public/social environment requires that people who are accused of something through the media be instantaneously regarded as “guilty” and demonised, and then the accused are expected to prove their innocence, whereas the onus should always be on legitimately proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a sobering thought that the Rolf Harris story has become a media & compensation industry, with monumental coverage, even though no one got killed, beaten up, kidnapped, tortured, etc. Whereas the young Chinese lady viciously murdered recently in Melbourne by the vagrant, whose naked body was found by a jogger in the park, her tragic story and media coverage for some reason pales in significance on both the mainstream media and social media. This lady did not work for the ABC, so I don’t think there’ll be any marches on the streets for her. Yet, the Rolf Harris story will grow and grow, with an increasing number of “victims” emerging from the dark to partake of the industry.

Regards,
SirLaughsAlot

[SirLaughsAlot]

The above post seems to have put a stop to some of the verbal diarrhoea on this thread.
Game, set and match to the Poet.

[OblOng]

You are right to say Rolf deserved the benefit of the doubt during the trial (innocent until proven guilty etc). But I don't think its fair to call the young girls who he sexually assaulted 'slags' - they were only 12 or 13 years old at the time

[CunningLinguist]

Rolf was found guilty by unanimous verdict on 12 charges ...

Last century he was involved in promoting anti child sexual abuse messages on TV, which was at the same time that he was doing it ...

You (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again) seem to be saying that Rolf's only crime was being famous ...

[SirLaughsAlot]

Rolf was found guilty by unanimous verdict on 12 charges ...

You (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again) seem to be saying that Rolf's only crime was being famous ...

I refer you to a three paragraphs from my previous post: (Perhaps you should respond to what I've said, not what you wish I might have said)


However, now that he has been found guilty, he will rightly have to face the music. Although there may be an appeal of some kind, during which time he will be placed in cutstody at her majesty’s pleasure. But there are some very important issues worth mentioning on this matter:

1) If Rolf happened to be poor, no proceedings would have been brought against him. All “victims” were, and are, looking for compensation, thirty years after the so-called “life-changing” events. And more “victims” have already emerged since the end of the trial, again seeking compensation. It has become a very dubious and unsavoury compensation industry.
.................................................. ............
.................................................. ............
It is a sobering thought that the Rolf Harris story has become a media & compensation industry, with monumental coverage, even though no one got killed, beaten up, kidnapped, tortured, etc. Whereas the young Chinese lady viciously murdered recently in Melbourne by the vagrant, whose naked body was found by a jogger in the park, her tragic story and media coverage for some reason pales in significance on both the mainstream media and social media. This lady did not work for the ABC, so I don’t think there’ll be any marches on the streets for her. Yet, the Rolf Harris story will grow and grow, with an increasing number of “victims” emerging from the dark to partake of the industry.

[CunningLinguist]

I wonder if the troll (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again) remembers that I don't care what he says or thinks, the only reason I respond is to warn others about this lying fool (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42871-1st-Keats-Wordsworth-Blake-then-CrazyMonkey-ChairmanPlough-SirLaughsAlot-Poem&p=514496&viewfull=1#post514496), I guess he is probably too much of a narcissist (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42455-Psychological-profile-of-the-quot-poet-quot-troll) to realise ...

[Wayne]

I wonder if the troll (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again) remembers that I don't care what he says or thinks, the only reason I respond is to warn others about this lying fool (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42871-1st-Keats-Wordsworth-Blake-then-CrazyMonkey-ChairmanPlough-SirLaughsAlot-Poem&p=514496&viewfull=1#post514496), I guess he is probably too much of a narcissist (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42455-Psychological-profile-of-the-quot-poet-quot-troll) to realise ...

There are a few narcissists around. The Harris story is similar to the Lance Armstrong one. A very good liar manages to fool a critical mass of people; and this simple weight of public opinion manages to silence the victims, who are demonised for saying anything against the popularist. Rather like our current prime minister, who the troll loves so dearly. Of course, our troll is irrelevant. His only known victim is that poor Korean working girl he tried to shame. Harris is finally being called to account for his crimes: victims of his toxic racism and misogyny were being silenced way back in the 1960s. Armstrong's crimes are yet to be brought to trial. I guess we will need to wait a while yet before Abbott's crimes are exposed - not until, at least, Murdoch is brought to account.

[SirLaughsAlot]

There are a few narcissists around. The Harris story is similar to the Lance Armstrong one. A very good liar manages to fool a critical mass of people; and this simple weight of public opinion manages to silence the victims, who are demonised for saying anything against the popularist. Rather like our current prime minister, who the troll loves so dearly. Of course, our troll is irrelevant. His only known victim is that poor Korean working girl he tried to shame. Harris is finally being called to account for his crimes: victims of his toxic racism and misogyny were being silenced way back in the 1960s. Armstrong's crimes are yet to be brought to trial. I guess we will need to wait a while yet before Abbott's crimes are exposed - not until, at least, Murdoch is brought to account.

Batman and Robin strike again, that is CunningLinguist and Wayne, or should I say tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.
Can't you find someone else to back each other up? Then you can be the three stooges - haha. They same duo over and over, it's laughable.
Instead of attempting to spread your complete fabrications, how about you respond in detail to my well articulated previous post on this thread.
I include it here for your convenience. I don't expect you will, because I don't believe you are able. You prefer to return safely to your default position
of spreading your pathetic fabrications, and then backing each other - tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber. At least you have each other for company.


Rolf Harris was “innocent until proven guilty.” The presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of a the judicial system. Others here believed Rolf was “guilty until proven innocent” – this is contrary to the rule of law, i.e it is trial by media or even worse by social media – this is highly unsavoury and is akin to mob rule. Indeed, these days the media behaves like the ancient mob of Rome.

However, now that he has been found guilty, he will rightly have to face the music. Although there may be an appeal of some kind, during which time he will be placed in cutstody at her majesty’s pleasure. But there are some very important issues worth mentioning on this matter:

1) If Rolf happened to be poor, no proceedings would have been brought against him. All “victims” were, and are, looking for compensation, thirty years after the so-called “life-changing” events. And more “victims” have already emerged since the end of the trial, again seeking compensation. It has become a very dubious and unsavoury compensation industry.

2). The British Police did “sweet f@ck all” with Jimmy Saville over several decades when he was alive and active in the UK. Their pathetic performance with Saville, or rather their no performance, generated a massive amount of criticism of the Police. As a result, any subsequent allegations made against celebrities are seen by the police as an opportunity to redeem themselves in both the public’s and media’s eyes. This has added to the toxic social climate. There was a police spokesman on the news yesterday, visibly salivating as he discussed all the good work done by authorities. It looked odd for the police to be so overtly celebratory, after all they were just doing their job, right.

3). The BBC, ABC and most other mainstream media have created a toxic public & social climate. By constantly and relentlessly promoting allegations & accusations of sexual abuse, they have created a climate where the “weight” of allegation makes any defendant look guilty, and therefore the media will get their sensational story regardless of reality. Hence, the public/social climate in which the judicial system operates has been rendered toxic by the pervasive global media. Juries are obviously derived from the general community living in the current climate. Accordingly, the expectation of impartiality and objectivity is entirely lost.

Consequently, there are questions to be asked of the jury’s judgement, particularly with respect to one specific case, i.e the aussie female who admitted under oath to lying to the police. This alone should have been grounds for demonstrating clear and “reasonable doubt” in that specific case. Nevertheless, Rolf was still found guilty in that case.

For the above reasons, I say Rolf Harris did not get a truly “fair trial” because it was a judicial & media "show trial,” in response to the current social climate and recent sexual abuse controversies. The current toxic public/social environment requires that people who are accused of something through the media be instantaneously regarded as “guilty” and demonised, and then the accused are expected to prove their innocence, whereas the onus should always be on legitimately proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a sobering thought that the Rolf Harris story has become a media & compensation industry, with monumental coverage, even though no one got killed, beaten up, kidnapped, tortured, etc. Whereas the young Chinese lady viciously murdered recently in Melbourne by the vagrant, whose naked body was found by a jogger in the park, her tragic story and media coverage for some reason pales in significance on both the mainstream media and social media. This lady did not work for the ABC, so I don’t think there’ll be any marches on the streets for her. Yet, the Rolf Harris story will grow and grow, with an increasing number of “victims” emerging from the dark to partake of the industry.

Regards,
SirLaughsAlot

[Wayne]

Batman and Robin strike again, that is CunningLinguist and Wayne, or should I say tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.
Can't you find someone else to back each other up? Then you can be the three stooges - haha. They same duo over and over, it's laughable.
Instead of attempting to spread your complete fabrications, how about you respond in detail to my well articulated previous post on this thread.
I include it here for your convenience. I don't expect you will, because I don't believe you are able. You prefer to return safely to your default position
of spreading your pathetic fabrications, and then backing each other - tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.

There is no point in responding to arguments based on disingenuous premises. There is nothing I won't debate, provided my opponent has an interest in exploring a subject. But if that opponent consistently demonstrates a single motivation stir then whatever goodwill is exhausted.

Previously you have defended child molesters, racists, misogynists and all manner of socially objectionable types. Whatever argument you now put forward is invalidated by your past behaviour. Given the amount of time you have, and your dynamic IP, you will continue to troll this forum. My only interest now is to periodically expose your facist agenda.

[SirLaughsAlot]

There is no point in responding to arguments based on disingenuous premises. There is nothing I won't debate, provided my opponent has an interest in exploring a subject. But if that opponent consistently demonstrates a single motivation stir then whatever goodwill is exhausted.

Previously you have defended child molesters, racists, misogynists and all manner of socially objectionable types. Whatever argument you now put forward is invalidated by your past behaviour. Given the amount of time you have, and your dynamic IP, you will continue to troll this forum. My only interest now is to periodically expose your facist agenda.

Again with your spleen, and again with your great reluctance to engage in a civil debate, and respond directly to what I have openly stated above.
It is very telling, you quickly return to your safe default position of grubby fabricated shit-peddling, I guess it comes natural to some folk, aye.
I won't hold my breath waiting for an intelligant response from you, to the subject matter of this thread and my previous detailed & eloquent post.
See you later tweedle dumb, or is it dumber - you two try hard modicums are so similar I can't see any difference. Haha.

[Wayne]

Again with your spleen, and again with your great reluctance to engage in a civil debate, and respond directly to what I have openly stated above.
It is very telling, you quickly return to your safe default position of grubby fabricated shit-peddling, I guess it comes natural to some folk, aye.
I won't hold my breath waiting for an intelligant response from you, to the subject matter of this thread and my previous detailed & eloquent post.
See you later tweedle dumb, or is it dumber - you two try hard modicums are so similar I can't see any difference. Haha.

ok then, justify your racism, misogyny and support for a child molester. Give us the reason you say it is justified to insult, offend and belittle others according to their gender or ethnicity. If you can produce a cogent argument then I will respond in kind.

[CunningLinguist]

trollspeak

In case anyone bothers to read the trollspeak just remember he has been proven to be a liar, among other things:
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42871-1st-Keats-Wordsworth-Blake-then-CrazyMonkey-ChairmanPlough-SirLaughsAlot-Poem&p=514496&viewfull=1#post514496
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42455-Psychological-profile-of-the-quot-poet-quot-troll

[OblOng]

I'm sorry but I don't think you are being fair.

He defended Rolf Harris (prior to any verdict) by saying he was NOT a child molester. This is very different from defending child molesters for child molesting which is what you seem to be implying. Or are you suggesting it is wrong to ever defend anyone after that have been accused of child molesting?

You said before you were prepared to give sensible answers to sensible questions so I'd be grateful if you would provide specific and direct responses to those questions please.

i apologise if I sound terse but the trial by media and court of public opinion for things like this really gets up my nose. Ok if he is found guilty lets condemn him but why denounce hia supporters and throw around these labels on the basis of an accusation alone?


There is no point in responding to arguments based on disingenuous premises. There is nothing I won't debate, provided my opponent has an interest in exploring a subject. But if that opponent consistently demonstrates a single motivation stir then whatever goodwill is exhausted.

Previously you have defended child molesters, racists, misogynists and all manner of socially objectionable types. Whatever argument you now put forward is invalidated by your past behaviour. Given the amount of time you have, and your dynamic IP, you will continue to troll this forum. My only interest now is to periodically expose your facist agenda.

[SirLaughsAlot]

I'm sorry but I don't think you are being fair.

He defended Rolf Harris (prior to any verdict) by saying he was NOT a child molester. This is very different from defending child molesters for child molesting which is what you seem to be implying. Or are you suggesting it is wrong to ever defend anyone after that have been accused of child molesting?

You said before you were prepared to give sensible answers to sensible questions so I'd be grateful if you would provide specific and direct responses to those questions please.

i apologise if I sound terse but the trial by media and court of public opinion for things like this really gets up my nose. Ok if he is found guilty lets condemn him but why denounce hia supporters and throw around these labels on the basis of an accusation alone?

Save your breath mon ami, Batman and Robin (Wayne & CunningLinguist) are a double act spewing their rubbish to diminish freedom of speech and
freedom of thought. Their bile on the Rolf Harris affair suggests they consider his offences are worse than the those of the vagrant who recently murdered
the Chinese lady in Melbourne and left her naked body in a park. And, as you know, for them Rolf was "guilty until proven innocent." They have the mentality of
the ancient Roman city mob or an Alabama lynch mob, this is their modus operandi. They are terrified of opinions that diverge from their own. It's sadly pathetic and
has now become quite simply laughable. I prefer to think of them as tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber.

[Wayne]

I'm sorry but I don't think you are being fair.

He defended Rolf Harris (prior to any verdict) by saying he was NOT a child molester. This is very different from defending child molesters for child molesting which is what you seem to be implying. Or are you suggesting it is wrong to ever defend anyone after that have been accused of child molesting?

You said before you were prepared to give sensible answers to sensible questions so I'd be grateful if you would provide specific and direct responses to those questions please.

i apologise if I sound terse but the trial by media and court of public opinion for things like this really gets up my nose. Ok if he is found guilty lets condemn him but why denounce hia supporters and throw around these labels on the basis of an accusation alone?

You are correct, and there is a huge difference between defending child molestation and defending someone accused of child molestation. That distinction is the basis of our legal system.

Two points need to be made in response to your question. One, once a conviction is made then those who defended the convicted must justify their defence. This might seem harsh but it is essential for the victims.

Two, the bloke who started this thread has a long history of trolling. He gets off by baiting then refusing to participate in the discussion he begins. There is nothing wrong in being an agent provocateur. But this bloke has been exposed as having a very specific political agenda. I don't call him racist, misogynist and a supporter of a child molester lightly. I can't be bothered going through all the evidence, but it is extensive.

[wilisno]

Their bile on the Rolf Harris affair suggests they consider his offences are worse than the those of the vagrant who recently murdered
the Chinese lady in Melbourne and left her naked body in a park. And, as you know, for them Rolf was "guilty until proven innocent."

Where did you get this idea ?

Wayne and CunningLinguist didn't say anything regarding the Melbourne murder, let alone comparing the two cases, this thread was about Rolf Harris, it was you who deliberately diverted the debate to a separate issue, as always !

[CunningLinguist]

Lets not forget the troll is a troll and can't be reasoned with, by definition.
He has been banned many times. (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again)
He is a proven liar. (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42871-1st-Keats-Wordsworth-Blake-then-CrazyMonkey-ChairmanPlough-SirLaughsAlot-Poem&p=514496&viewfull=1#post514496)

He thinks he can use words to convince people without using logic or facts.

My bet is he is a retired lonely narcissist. (http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42455-Psychological-profile-of-the-quot-poet-quot-troll) with nothing better to do between bumping his shop threads and wishing he could still get it up. A frustrated loser taking it out on the forum.

[CunningLinguist]

I'm sorry but I don't think you are being fair.

He defended Rolf Harris (prior to any verdict) by saying he was NOT a child molester. This is very different from defending child molesters for child molesting which is what you seem to be implying. Or are you suggesting it is wrong to ever defend anyone after that have been accused of child molesting?

You said before you were prepared to give sensible answers to sensible questions so I'd be grateful if you would provide specific and direct responses to those questions please.

i apologise if I sound terse but the trial by media and court of public opinion for things like this really gets up my nose. Ok if he is found guilty lets condemn him but why denounce hia supporters and throw around these labels on the basis of an accusation alone?

Remember the troll called those 12/13 year old girls:

whinging slags

then he said they:


should be thrown out of court, then charged themselves for wasting police & court time

then this, I think the quotes are significant, they suggest something to me about how he perceives the seriousness of these crimes and perhaps more than that ...

"life-changing" events.

then this:

Good onya Rolf.

[OblOng]

One of the girls he sexually assaulted was seven. Can someone explain to me how a girl that young can be a slag? She was a victim!

A Readers Digest poll before the trial listed Rolf as one of Australia's most trusted people. He was awarded an AO and a CBE. He was seen as a pillar of the community so I'm not surprised people refused to believe the accusations and defended his reputation.

[SirLaughsAlot]

Rolf Harris was “innocent until proven guilty.” The presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of a the judicial system. Others here believed Rolf was “guilty until proven innocent” – this is contrary to the rule of law, i.e it is trial by media or even worse by social media – this is highly unsavoury and is akin to mob rule. Indeed, these days the media behaves like the ancient mob of Rome.

However, now that he has been found guilty, he will rightly have to face the music. Although there may be an appeal of some kind, during which time he will be placed in cutstody at her majesty’s pleasure. But there are some very important issues worth mentioning on this matter:

1) If Rolf happened to be poor, no proceedings would have been brought against him. All “victims” were, and are, looking for compensation, thirty years after the so-called “life-changing” events. And more “victims” have already emerged since the end of the trial, again seeking compensation. It has become a very dubious and unsavoury compensation industry.

2). The British Police did “sweet f@ck all” with Jimmy Saville over several decades when he was alive and active in the UK. Their pathetic performance with Saville, or rather their no performance, generated a massive amount of criticism of the Police. As a result, any subsequent allegations made against celebrities are seen by the police as an opportunity to redeem themselves in both the public’s and media’s eyes. This has added to the toxic social climate. There was a police spokesman on the news yesterday, visibly salivating as he discussed all the good work done by authorities. It looked odd for the police to be so overtly celebratory, after all they were just doing their job, right.

3). The BBC, ABC and most other mainstream media have created a toxic public & social climate. By constantly and relentlessly promoting allegations & accusations of sexual abuse, they have created a climate where the “weight” of allegation makes any defendant look guilty, and therefore the media will get their sensational story regardless of reality. Hence, the public/social climate in which the judicial system operates has been rendered toxic by the pervasive global media. Juries are obviously derived from the general community living in the current climate. Accordingly, the expectation of impartiality and objectivity is entirely lost.

Consequently, there are questions to be asked of the jury’s judgement, particularly with respect to one specific case, i.e the aussie female who admitted under oath to lying to the police. This alone should have been grounds for demonstrating clear and “reasonable doubt” in that specific case. Nevertheless, Rolf was still found guilty in that case.

For the above reasons, I say Rolf Harris did not get a truly “fair trial” because it was a judicial & media "show trial,” in response to the current social climate and recent sexual abuse controversies. The current toxic public/social environment requires that people who are accused of something through the media be instantaneously regarded as “guilty” and demonised, and then the accused are expected to prove their innocence, whereas the onus should always be on legitimately proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a sobering thought that the Rolf Harris story has become a media & compensation industry, with monumental coverage, even though no one got killed, beaten up, kidnapped, tortured, etc. Whereas the young Chinese lady viciously murdered recently in Melbourne by the vagrant, whose naked body was found by a jogger in the park, her tragic story and media coverage for some reason pales in significance on both the mainstream media and social media. This lady did not work for the ABC, so I don’t think there’ll be any marches on the streets for her. Yet, the Rolf Harris story will grow and grow, with an increasing number of “victims” emerging from the dark to partake of the industry.

Regards,
SirLaughsAlot

It's very telling that "tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber" have not directly responded to the above statement.
As usual they return to their safe and terribly weak default position of fabrication and shit-peddling.
If either of them wants to debate what I've said, as opposed to what they have fabricated, they can let me know.
I don't expect they will, because they are never able to do so. They'll continue with their lame excuses and default tripe.

[CunningLinguist]

Time for bed you sad lonely pathetic old narcisstic man ...
Just remember we all know you are a liar and a troll, and hence we dont listen to you.
You have no credibility on this forum and I have a pretty good idea that this problem has plagued you all your life hence your pathetic trolling here.
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42871-1st-Keats-Wordsworth-Blake-then-CrazyMonkey-ChairmanPlough-SirLaughsAlot-Poem&p=514496&viewfull=1#post514496
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again

[SirLaughsAlot]

Time for bed you sad lonely pathetic old narcisstic man ...
Just remember we all know you are a liar and a troll, and hence we dont listen to you.
You have no credibility on this forum and I have a pretty good idea that this problem has plagued you all your life hence your pathetic trolling here.
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42871-1st-Keats-Wordsworth-Blake-then-CrazyMonkey-ChairmanPlough-SirLaughsAlot-Poem&p=514496&viewfull=1#post514496
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?39297-Banned-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-and-again

As I said before, "game, set and match" to SirLaughsAlot. As per usual, no direct response to what I have openly stated.
You don't respond directly because you are not able to do so. It's easier to make it up. Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber strike again.

[KirkLancaster]

As I said before, "game, set and match" to SirLaughsAlot. As per usual, no direct response to what I have openly stated.
You don't respond directly because you are not able to do so. It's easier to make it up. Tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber strike again.

You are a cheeky monkey, but quite correct just the same. C'est la vie.

[KirkLancaster]

This thread seems to have come to a very satisfactory conclusion, with no direct
and detailed response to the matters of law i.e "innocent until proven guilty," and all associated
social climate & trial by media issues. This is a most gratifying situation I must say.

[Wayne]

The troll has a political agenda. There is a great deal of money involved in politics. Every parliamentarian has staff (paid by us, the taxpayer) whose sole responsibility is monitoring the media - not just the mainstream media (MSM), but social media and forums such as this. That might seem difficult to believe, but just consider how many people are accessing this forum. It runs into the 1000s on a weekly basis. Capturing the attention of these forum viewers can have very powerful political ramifications. Again, just consider how senate positions were decided at the last federal election. Ricky Muir and that gun-toting racist, misogynist from NSW each got in with a few thousand votes. Now they are deciding all the keys aspects of the government's legislative program.

The troll is not just a bored old man who likes causing mischief on this forum. His paid agenda is to disrupt. He has been repeatedly exposed.

[KirkLancaster]

The troll has a political agenda. There is a great deal of money involved in politics. Every parliamentarian has staff (paid by us, the taxpayer) whose sole responsibility is monitoring the media - not just the mainstream media (MSM), but social media and forums such as this. That might seem difficult to believe, but just consider how many people are accessing this forum. It runs into the 1000s on a weekly basis. Capturing the attention of these forum viewers can have very powerful political ramifications. Again, just consider how senate positions were decided at the last federal election. Ricky Muir and that gun-toting racist, misogynist from NSW each got in with a few thousand votes. Now they are deciding all the keys aspects of the government's legislative program.

The troll is not just a bored old man who likes causing mischief on this forum. His paid agenda is to disrupt. He has been repeatedly exposed.

This thread seems to have come to a very satisfactory conclusion, with no direct
and detailed response to the matters of law i.e "innocent until proven guilty," and "beyond reasonable doubt"
aswell as all associated "social climate & trial by media" issues. This is a most gratifying situation I must say.
Yet, I'm happy to wait for your direct and detailed response Tweedle Dumb to exactly what I've stated previously.
Good luck with it sugarplum.

[Wayne]

um, so someone who defends a child molester is asking me engage in discussion. This is a person who has been repeatedly banned from this forum for trolling and baiting; who has proffered racist and misogynist views, not to mention his support for a convicted child molester. I think not.

[KirkLancaster]

um, so someone who defends a child molester is asking me engage in discussion. This is a person who has been repeatedly banned from this forum for trolling and baiting; who has proffered racist and misogynist views, not to mention his support for a convicted child molester. I think not.

You are using fabrications as an excuses for not responding directly to what has been said, reverting to your default position.
I know your low intellect prevents you from factual debate, so I'm obviously expecting too much of you Tweedle Dumb.
Just in case your find some courage, here's my position as posted previously. I'm waiting sugarplum.


Rolf Harris was “innocent until proven guilty.” The presumption of innocence is a fundamental pillar of a the judicial system. Others here believed Rolf was “guilty until proven innocent” – this is contrary to the rule of law, i.e it is trial by media or even worse by social media – this is highly unsavoury and is akin to mob rule. Indeed, these days the media behaves like the ancient mob of Rome.

However, now that he has been found guilty, he will rightly have to face the music. Although there may be an appeal of some kind, during which time he will be placed in cutstody at her majesty’s pleasure. But there are some very important issues worth mentioning on this matter:

1) If Rolf happened to be poor, no proceedings would have been brought against him. All “victims” were, and are, looking for compensation, thirty years after the so-called “life-changing” events. And more “victims” have already emerged since the end of the trial, again seeking compensation. It has become a very dubious and unsavoury compensation industry.

2). The British Police did “sweet f@ck all” with Jimmy Saville over several decades when he was alive and active in the UK. Their pathetic performance with Saville, or rather their no performance, generated a massive amount of criticism of the Police. As a result, any subsequent allegations made against celebrities are seen by the police as an opportunity to redeem themselves in both the public’s and media’s eyes. This has added to the toxic social climate. There was a police spokesman on the news yesterday, visibly salivating as he discussed all the good work done by authorities. It looked odd for the police to be so overtly celebratory, after all they were just doing their job, right.

3). The BBC, ABC and most other mainstream media have created a toxic public & social climate. By constantly and relentlessly promoting allegations & accusations of sexual abuse, they have created a climate where the “weight” of allegation makes any defendant look guilty, and therefore the media will get their sensational story regardless of reality. Hence, the public/social climate in which the judicial system operates has been rendered toxic by the pervasive global media. Juries are obviously derived from the general community living in the current climate. Accordingly, the expectation of impartiality and objectivity is entirely lost.

Consequently, there are questions to be asked of the jury’s judgement, particularly with respect to one specific case, i.e the aussie female who admitted under oath to lying to the police. This alone should have been grounds for demonstrating clear and “reasonable doubt” in that specific case. Nevertheless, Rolf was still found guilty in that case.

For the above reasons, I say Rolf Harris did not get a truly “fair trial” because it was a judicial & media "show trial,” in response to the current social climate and recent sexual abuse controversies. The current toxic public/social environment requires that people who are accused of something through the media be instantaneously regarded as “guilty” and demonised, and then the accused are expected to prove their innocence, whereas the onus should always be on legitimately proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It is a sobering thought that the Rolf Harris story has become a media & compensation industry, with monumental coverage, even though no one got killed, beaten up, kidnapped, tortured, etc. Whereas the young Chinese lady viciously murdered recently in Melbourne by the vagrant, whose naked body was found by a jogger in the park, her tragic story and media coverage for some reason pales in significance on both the mainstream media and social media. This lady did not work for the ABC, so I don’t think there’ll be any marches on the streets for her. Yet, the Rolf Harris story will grow and grow, with an increasing number of “victims” emerging from the dark to partake of the industry.

Regards,
SirLaughsAlot

Good luck with finding some courage to respond to the factual debate Tweedle Dumb/Wayne.

[Wayne]

You are using fabrications as an excuses for not responding directly to what has been said, reverting to your default position.
I know your low intellect prevents you from factual debate, so I'm obviously expecting too much of you Tweedle Dumb.
Just in case your find some courage, here's my position as posted previously. I'm waiting sugarplum.



Good luck with finding some courage to respond to the factual debate Tweedle Dumb/Wayne.

oh please, your whole argument is based on the disingenuous premise that public broadcasters were responsible for exposing the rockspider's crimes. This reveals everything we need to know about your agenda. That you are trying to argue that there should be no public broadcasters and that the individual's rights to abuse take precedence over the rights of a child.

[Gucci2012]

Save your breath mon ami, Batman and Robin (Wayne & CunningLinguist).

Although it makes more sense that Bro Wayne be labeled Batman due to his username(Wayne) i would have thought Bro Cunning being the more senior of the 2(on this forum only) take the mantle as the Bat? Ahahahaha guys don't let up on him(troll). I really thought sir Laughs a lot was gona make it to atleast 500 posts....better luck next time.

[Wayne]

Although it makes more sense that Bro Wayne be labeled Batman due to his username(Wayne) i would have thought Bro Cunning being the more senior of the 2(on this forum only) take the mantle as the Bat? Ahahahaha guys don't let up on him(troll). I really thought sir Laughs a lot was gona make it to atleast 500 posts....better luck next time.

I think I am senior to bro CunningLinguist in terms of age. But he is certainly senior to me on keeping the troll in check. He has done a great job in exposing him for what he is.

Unfortunately, it is guaranteed that the troll will be back. Its taken years to get to the bottom of his agenda, but we are finally get close to the truth that it is all part of his cynical use of this, and other, forums. People will do anything when paid.

[AHLUNGOR]

Although it makes more sense that Bro Wayne be labeled Batman due to his username(Wayne) i would have thought Bro Cunning being the more senior of the 2(on this forum only) take the mantle as the Bat? Ahahahaha guys don't let up on him(troll). I really thought sir Laughs a lot was gona make it to atleast 500 posts....better luck next time.

Next up KirkLancaster ??

[CunningLinguist]

I think I am senior to bro CunningLinguist in terms of age. But he is certainly senior to me on keeping the troll in check. He has done a great job in exposing him for what he is.

Unfortunately, it is guaranteed that the troll will be back. Its taken years to get to the bottom of his agenda, but we are finally get close to the truth that it is all part of his cynical use of this, and other, forums. People will do anything when paid.

I think I will open a thread to discuss a cooling off period for members being banned before they can rejoin:
http://forum.aus99.com/showthread.php?42998-Should-there-be-a-cooling-off-period-for-members-who-are-repeatedly-banned&p=516050#post516050

[EatmyhairyassholeBitch]

Well it looks like brother Rolf gets 5 years 9 months for 12 indecent assaults. Extremely lenient in my eyes. Abusing his power, influence and status to abuse girls. He could get out in less than 3 years. According to the judge he has shown no remorse what-so-ever.

[CunningLinguist]

Well it looks like brother Rolf gets 5 years 9 months for 12 indecent assaults. Extremely lenient in my eyes. Abusing his power, influence and status to abuse girls. He could get out in less than 3 years. According to the judge he has shown no remorse what-so-ever.

Sounds like someone else we know ...

[OblOng]

Rolf is a creepy old perv there's no doubt about it. I have no doubt he was guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted and a jail sentence was the only real option (home detention in his london mansion? n'aaaah)

Am i the only one who thinks the sentence was over the top though? Almost six years - for groping and kissing underage girls. As far as I can tell there was no rape and no use or threat of violence. He was no hardened child rapist, just a sleazy perv.

I dunno, I agree he deserved jail but I am suprised at the length of the sentence.

[verbatim2]

Deserves every day and more in my opinion.