|Even if he was guilty, I want him to get off because it sickens and disgusts me that such stale accusations that cannot be independently corroborated can even make it to court.|
In the days before PC Libtardism and Feminism had complete matriarchal hegemony, if the Prosecution didn't think the evidence would stand up in trial, they wouldn't pursue it. They would never allow uncorroborated testimony to go to trial. Now of course they are obliged to take any stale accusation by any slag seriously, so it is only one person's word against another.
Who will the jury favour?
They will favour whoever they like most, of course.
How many unschooled plebs will allow themselves to think Harris probably did it after reading http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime/rolf-harris-groped-eight-year-old-at-portsmouth-community-centre-1-6050507#.U24wTQ1_I8M.twitter? People like that don't care about principle, do they? People like that love sticking the knife into anyone who has had more success in life than they have, just cos they can.
An arrogant shit like Max Clifford never stood a chance.
Obviously, quite a few people are happy with a legal system in which only the popular get justice, but then people do get the government they deserve, don't they?
Most people are dumb plebs and don't get how being OK about this sort of accusation makes them vulnerable to accusations like this too.
A lot of it is just envy and the schandenfreude that lowly men get out of seeing the rich and famous brought low.
I would even go so far as to say that even if Rolf Harris and Max Clifford were in fact guilty I want them both to get off, because if they were found guilty on with this kind of evidence, innocent people will also in future be easily convicted on this kind of "evidence" too. One of these days these innocent people will be people known to us who are family, neighbours and friends or even - SHOCK HORROR - ourselves.
"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",
...as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.
It is worthwhile to note that the actual numbers are not generally seen as important, so much as the idea that the State should not cause undue or mistaken harm "just in case". Historically, the details of the ratio change, but the message that government and the courts must err on the side of innocence is constant.
I certainly don't want some alcoholic slag who fucked up her life to ruin my childhood memory of Rolf Harris because she couldn't bring herself to say no, or her mother never thought to tell her to say no, or if her liberal parents were just too dumb and negligent to issue all the proper warnings an adolescent female would need to be issued with to see that she is not sexually exploited and abused by any passing sex predator.
I know even saying this sort of thing leaves you vulnerable to accusations of being a "paedo supporter", but at least I am not the kind of paedo supporter that Harriet Harman is.
It is time British parents were taught how to properly parent and for sex and relationship education to be properly taught since most of them these days are dumb degenerate liberal parents who no longer know how to parent their adolescent daughters.
I know of an Asian parent who refuses to let her daughter go on any sleep-overs unless she has spoken to her parents. Interestingly, she has not expressed the slightest interest in learning any English. She probably knows about the English to be aware that the average British mother has a 50/50 chance of being an SSM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html who probably has some paedo shacked up with her or a queue of unsuitable men waiting outside her bedroom door hoping to bang her or her daughter, or her daughter's friends, preferably all at the same time.
"If paedophiles are mosquitoes, then SSMs are stagnant pools of water."
The worst example of a British parent not taking responsibility can be found in the infamous and embarrassing story of Fiona McKeown. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/minister-says-dead-girls-mother-was-irresponsible-794456.html At least, I was embarrassed enough to suggest that the police charge her with aiding and abetting the commission of a sexual offence against her own daughter by allowing the holiday guide to have sex with her under-aged daughter, but I already know that the average liberal parent feels no shame and takes no responsibility, and will be very angry with me indeed for pointing this out.
I welcome their hatred.
Remember, gentlemen, that the modus operandi of the matriarchy is to tempt men into having sex with sluts and then use this against them later. The solution for men is to admit that they need protection from sluts and admit that they are the weaker sex as far as saying no to no-strings sex is concerned. To give men sex is as easy as giving someone who is permanently hungry a free meal. To get a woman to give you sex is like getting a woman to cook you a meal, and nothing feminists can think of will gainsay this fact of life and human nature.
Who will be next if Rolf Harris falls? Walt Disney?
The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.
-Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women
I suppose in view of the above there is a reason why 2:282 seems to suggest that that one man's testimony is to be treated as equivalent to two women's. http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/002-qmt.php The Koran also warns men about their wives at http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=64&verse=14