• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,258 Awesome

About Lorelei

Profile Information

  • Nationality ---
  • Gender Female
  1. There was quite an interesting discussion about this case on CNN the other night.   Video: With Isis fall, Europe faces returnees dilemma   "Christiane Amanpour speaks with Professor Peter Neumann and al-Qaeda member-turned spy Aimen Dean about how to approach the looming crisis."
  2. She would surely have to be thoroughly deprogrammed if she's not going to post a risk on returning to the UK. If successful, that might make her valuable, if she could prevent others from following the same path. On the other hand, she didn't seem too articulate in her BBC interview so maybe isn't all that bright.   Here's a discussion from This Morning on the subject, involving a white woman who'd been groomed by extremists (and seems possibly even more inarticulate than Shamima Begum): Should the ISIS schoolgirl have her baby in Britain?
  3. I thought I'd update this thread, as I still believe Rolf Harris was convicted of crimes he didn't commit. I was a bit abrupt back in 2015 when I posted and will flesh things out a bit. The reason why I posted the two links in the first post was not to spam the board. It was because the petition provides a very eloquent potted summary of why many people think he experienced a miscarriage of justice, while the Facebook page gives further details.   Rolf Harris (now 88, soon to turn 89) was released on licence in 2017, having been jailed in 2014 after being found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault based on allegations by four accusers, and has since faced further allegations and two further trials. These subsequent trials did not result in a conviction. He has also been cleared on appeal of one conviction resulting from one of the four accusers' allegations in his first trial, i.e. molesting an 8-year-old in an autograph queue. The other convictions related to allegations by three women claiming they were 15/19 (seven counts), 15 (three counts) and 16 (one count) at the time of the alleged offences.   All four women did not come forward until after news broke about the Jimmy Savile allegations/compensation claims and all claimed compensation, including the woman whose allegation was overturned on appeal. She reportedly netted many thousands of pounds and there has been no word as to whether she has had to pay it back. Another of the four, from Australia, waived her anonymity, and sold [sic] her story to the Australian media before the trial. She also gave another interview to one of the same media outlets after the trial. Another, whose story changed considerably mid-trial regarding her age and the location/event at which she alleged the offence took place, gave a media interview after the trial with her face hidden and wearing a wig, claiming she had never been the same since Rolf Harris assaulted her (she claimed he squeezed her left buttock, according to the judge's sentencing remarks). The main accuser, with whom Rolf Harris admitted to sexual involvement when she was between 18 and 29, had previously asked him for thousands and been turned down.   I think the context in which his accusers came forward is important. Rolf Harris's name was released on Twitter with the hashtagged words #Savile and #sexual offences in November 2012 months before he was arrested or charged by the ex police constable who presented the October 2012 ITV programme airing allegations about Jimmy Savile that triggered the media frenzy over Savile and sparked further claims of abuse and claims for compensation against the Savile estate, the BBC, etc.: "Breaking : Rolf Harris currently being interviewed under caution at police station as part of #Savile other #sexual offences"   https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/274181776283406337?lang=en   The tweet attracted several hundred retweets (the tweet now says 767 but it was nearer 900 when I first saw it). I don't use Twitter, but saw chatter about the tweet elsewhere online, so many more than the actual re-tweeters and their followers could have seen it too. I believe that, in the context of the Savile allegations/compensation claims, the tweet with that wording and/or related online chatter could potentially have sparked ideas in anyone anywhere in the world with an internet connection. (For the ex police constable's views on other people being "fair game", see second post in this thread.)   Coincidentally (or perhaps it wasn't a coincidence), the tweet went out and Rolf Harris was questioned by police on the day the Leveson report was published, which said: "I think that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public." I believe the release of Rolf Harris's name in this way may well have undermined his ability to get a fair trial.   So why was he unable to appeal successfully against the other three accusers' claims?   It is apparently difficult to provide new evidence of not having committed an historic crime of this kind, especially if the crime did not in fact occur, as explained in this article: We are surviving victims of a false accuser and wrongful conviction. Our family is in trauma.   Moreover, according to the barrister Rolf Harris employed for his (successful) second and third trials and (partially successful) appeal (incidentally the same barrister employed by Dave Lee Travis, who also faced historic sex allegations), appealing a criminal conviction is notoriously difficult: Video: Appealing a conviction Hope this helps to clarify the reasons behind this thread and perhaps make people consider whether Rolf Harris really is a paedophile/pervert/sex offender, etc., as he is repeatedly referred to in the media (e.g. in recent news about him foolishly waving to children behind glass inside a school while talking to a wood sculptor working on school grounds near his home).      
  4. The eulogies were good, with those by the presidential historian and the former Canadian premier especially also seeming to subtly draw a contrast with Trump. They all inserted a fair bit of humour too, especially Alan Simpson.   Presidential historian Jon Meacham Former Canadian premier Brian Mulroney Former Senator Alan Simpson George W. Bush  
  5. A big dose of frostiness between Trump and the Clintons at the Bush funeral. Check out the faces in the vice-presidential row behind them (esp. close-up video in second link). Priceless!   Washington mourns George HW Bush as Trump gives cold shoulder to Clintons   Watch: Trump snubs Clintons at George H.W. Bush funeral    
  6.   Recent petition addressed to the UK justice minister Review the conviction of Rolf Harris, it is a miscarriage of justice   Facebook page arguing that there was no evidence for the claims Support Rolf Harris