Rolf Harris

[logbox]

Today in court Rolf sang part of Jake the peg and demonstated how to play the digeridoo, tomorrow he might do two little boys.

[saasher2012]

I rest my case ( pardon the pun) just because this man was well known doesn't make him any less repellent, he is out of harms way for the time being long may it continue!.

[merehazle]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
Although I agree with a lot of what you say, especially on the point that they should have complained at the time of the alleged offence, correct me if I'm wrong VS has for some years alluded to the fact an assault from a so called celebrity had taken place but never named him. This however doesn't excuse her behaviour on jumping on the bandwagon.

---

Sorry, don't know. 

A so-called celbrity could of course be anyone? And an allegation is just that.  Once again perhaps it is only fair to wait.

It was ''alleged'' that he put his hand up her skirt and under the elastic of her knickers on a live TV show The Big Breakfast. And this woman who cant keep her mouth shut about anything! kept her mouth shut about that. They usually keep recordings of these tapes Vanessa. I hope you thought of that? Surly you would have thought she must have done or this will siverely back fire? But wait and we might see?

Yes, but it ''seems'' she is jumping on the bandwagon for a reason?  Maybe even to draw attention to her self?  And publicity pays. 

BTW Linda Nolan has ''alleged'' he abused her too.   But like Vanessa kept her mouth shut all these years. So sweet,  considerate, and gentle of them.  

[rose2008-2008]

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
Not good though is it Rose? Perhaps if we had the courage to speak out these disgusting lowlife would be behind bars quicker & the world would be a safer place for the little ones!

---

Yes Sasher,,, i hope Mr Harris is busy sketching now behind bars where he should be.

[saasher2012]

Yes indeed Rose ! Will it ever end I'm afraid I think not more will be up next !.

[lhasa.two]

---

@merehazle wrote:

---

@saasher2012 wrote:
Although I agree with a lot of what you say, especially on the point that they should have complained at the time of the alleged offence, correct me if I'm wrong VS has for some years alluded to the fact an assault from a so called celebrity had taken place but never named him. This however doesn't excuse her behaviour on jumping on the bandwagon.

---

Sorry, don't know. 

A so-called celbrity could of course be anyone? And an allegation is just that.  Once again perhaps it is only fair to wait.

It was ''alleged'' that he put his hand up her skirt and under the elastic of her knickers on a live TV show The Big Breakfast. And this woman who cant keep her mouth shut about anything! kept her mouth shut about that. They usually keep recordings of these tapes Vanessa. I hope you thought of that? Surly you would have thought she must have done or this will siverely back fire? But wait and we might see?

Yes, but it ''seems'' she is jumping on the bandwagon for a reason?  Maybe even to draw attention to her self?  And publicity pays. 

BTW Linda Nolan has ''alleged'' he abused her too.   But like Vanessa kept her mouth shut all these years. So sweet,  considerate, and gentle of them.  

---

I think you forget the times and attitudes prevalent in the Police Force at that time, let alone the 'wonderful' image Rolf Harris had. Who would have believed either of them and certainly as the years went on his "treasure" reputation grew.

For YEARS women haven't come forward because they haven't been believed. It's only now because of the case and the outcome that they have spoken out.

So being sarcastic about them you might want to reconsider your own attitude. 

[al**bear]

Many a true word is spoken in jest

From,  'Not the Nine O'Clock News'

[j_uk643]

---

@astrologica wrote:
I do wonder how many of these 'victims' would have come forward at all, at any time, if Mr Harris was just an 84 year old unknown senior citizen, living in a council care home without a penny to his name.

---

If Mr Harris had been an unknown 84 year old in a care home, would you even be discussing him here?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@astrologica wrote:
I do wonder how many of these 'victims' would have come forward at all, at any time, if Mr Harris was just an 84 year old unknown senior citizen, living in a council care home without a penny to his name.

---

Not sure I understand your point.

Whilst you may be correct that had an 84 year old unknown committed the same acts as Rolf Harris did then the victims may never have come forward, does that mean that we shouldn't be pleased they did come forward in the Harris case and also be encouraging others who have been assaulted/abused to do the same? - whether or not the perpetrator is a 'celebrity' or an 'unknown'.

[evoman3957]

Abusing anybody at any time is not acceptable, but it has to be against the will of one of the people involved; to be deemed abuse IMO. Times most definitely have changed and attitudes with them, what was acceptable inuendos, perhaps 30 years ago, is now unacceptable. I guess the old stereo typing of italian Men being B** pinchers and the expectation, by women, of it happening to them, should they go on holiday to Italy; is no longer tollerated. Keep in mind though that, at one time, Many of the things now regarded as unacceptable WERE accepted and tollerated. If time and attitudes move moral goalposts, then penalising people retrospectively can open up "Pandoras" box and you could end up throwing out the baby with the bath water. Policing has changed considerably as well, you must all remember the days of the Sweeney ( glorified by the TV series of the same name ). The "Flying Squad" ( Sweeney Todd ) was disbanded altogether, due to it being totally corrupt, racist and disfunctional. Yes, they caught a lot of criminals; but the way they did it, was to become not much better than the criminals they were dealing with. They also "Stitched up" a lot of people who weren't criminals, but who were maybe just awkward to have around. Through this convoluted backdrop, you'll get people who just think it's an opportunity to make an easy buck and others who court publicity ( their public prophile is waning, so they want to get back into the news ). This makes sorting out the genuine cases ( which must be sorted out ) even more difficult and just reinforces the old, true analogy; that it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the barrel. Nothing will ever screw you up in life faster, or more completely than your fellow Man.

[lhasa.two]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

Keep in mind though that, at one time, Many of the things now regarded as unacceptable WERE accepted and tollerated. 

They were only accepted because there was no area for recourse built into the system - the police, the judiciary, doctors, teachers etc - to support women who had been abused, which really is a disgrace. 

[evoman3957]

Agreed...........but let me give you a hypothetical scenario, if we all lived for 200 years and a woman was r*ped by Her husband..........say 150 years ago ( before emancipation and when it was believed that a Man had a right to expect sex, from his wife, whenever he wanted it ); could he NOW be charged with r*pe, because we NOW have a more enlightened society. You see where I'm coming from, with this historic thing I'm sure, although not personally agreeing, or condoning the events.

[j_uk643]

Harris and the rest were charged under the law applicable at the time, so SOA 1956, not SOA 2003

Sentencing likewise

[saasher2012]

Yes I understand what you mean ! & I think if we can learn anything from these cases it's to make it easier for people young & adult of both sexes to report immediately , & yes I agree with these Historic cases it's difficult to prove unless there is proof ,it's very much a case of which side is believed, I'm afraid though I feel more will be forthcoming in the future, further to that those that are found to be cashing in on the genuine cases & harming the future real complainant s , should be held accountable for it.

[j_uk643]

If people were motivated primarily by compensation, then the allegations would likely be all/most of the more grave. by that I mean those likely to result in the most severe sentence, & consequently most damages. Fact is they aren't.Either the claimants are all stupid as well as criminal, or they are  likely telling the truth

[evoman3957]

Fair point, which I forgot about, so the charges were as much of an offence then as they are now or visa versa. I just don't like this safety in numbers thing, you could hide a few Jackals in a herd of wildebeest. If somebody has been offended enough to come forward, good on them...........if not; then why are they so offended now ??

[astrologica]

I found it astonishing that not much reference was made during Mr Harris 's case to the 'victim' who said she was 'abused' by him for years, but who, after all this 'abuse' asked him for £25.000. Now.....in my view...this is black mail, or extortion. Refusal by Mr Harris = accusations , court case, imprisonment.
And Evoman is quite right. Attitudes are vastly different today. They didn't call it the swinging 60's for nothing.
I also find it astonishing that of all the women who say they were abused by him all those years ago, not one of them complained to the police. When they have all finished crawling out of the woodwork there will probably be hundreds of them. And not one of them complained? To the police? It is no good making noises if you do not name the perpetrator and file an official complaint to the police, There are and always will be men like Rolf Harris who like women and like to touch them..sometimes inappropriately.
Watching him coming and going from court..he seemed to be permanently bewildered by events. He is probably still wondering what he did . At the end of the day, it was his word against those who say he abused them aged under 16. None of us will ever know who is telling the truth. The woman who asked him for £25.000 will probably get a lot more than that now. I am not wearing Rose tinted spectacles...... Mr Harris is definitely not the man I thought he was, but I still remain profoundly uneasy about his conviction and sentencing.

[j_uk643]

They didn't come forward argument. In quite a number of cases, not true, eg Savile

Would records remain of a complaint that far back? Let me put it this way Huntley had a long history of under age sex offences including the most serious.Despite that he got a job with children,& murdered two.Thats not that long ago.Why, because the records were not there.

If you were a sole claimant against Harris, it would, in the absence of any overwhelming third pary evidence, be a waste of time making the complaint.That would in most circumstances be communicated to the claimant, resulting in no formal complaint even being registered, let alone taken forward

Attitudes are different, im not aware anyone so far is contesting that.The law at the time is what they are prosecuted  under

Some are inherently unhappy about celebrities being in the dock

If joe common had been charged & convicted instead of Harris, we wouldn't even be having this discussion would we

Are we more worried about out TV history or the law?

[evoman3957]

Well that's the difference between a "Topic" and a "Statistic"...............publicity !!..................that's just the way of the World.

[j_uk643]

Then we will be more concerned over celebrity than the issue.

[evoman3957]

No, rather more concerned with what we get to hear about; than what we don't get to hear about. that's why the old addage "what the eyes don't see, the heart doesn't grieve over" applies I'm afraid..............and why a free press is important, because they bring issues to the public's attention. You can bet your life that Police & Politicians wouldn't keep us informed of events they were dealing with, that's where the press come in.