Rolf Harris – Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

Rolf Harris has been convicted and for many that is conclusive proof of his guilt. However, we should not forget that the British justice system is not perfect, it can make errors, as these high profile miscarriages of justice show.

I do not know if Rolf Harris committed the crimes he was accused of. However, I find the fact that he was convicted, based on the evidence reported by the media, alarming.

Let me explain why:


“The woman said she was aged seven or eight when she queued to get an autograph from Harris at a community centre in Hampshire in 1968 or 1969. When she reached the front of the queue, Harris had touched her inappropriately with his “big hairy hands”, she told the jury.

The court heard that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre. He also showed his hands to the jury and denied they were hairy.”

When they say that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been at the community centre, they don’t mean a cursory glance turned nothing up. They searched local newspaper archives between January 1967 and May 1974, council records and even conducted letter drops appealing for witnesses. Nothing, not a single piece of independent evidence that he was ever there!

It is hard to see how the uncorroborated recollection of an event alleged to have happened 45 years ago, when the witness was eight, can constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Consider for a moment, what you can accurately remember from when you were eight? I am not as old as the witness but I can’t remember the name of my best friend, my teacher, my birthday party, frankly anything. I have a childhood scar, it must have been caused by a significant trauma. I remember it hurt and bled a lot, but I can’t remember how it happened, let alone where, when or who was with me at the time.

Even if the victim is sincere in believing her own recollection of events, she may simply be mistaken. Memory is not a flawless recording device. It is very common for people to believe they remember things that can be proven to have never happened. If you find that hard to believe there is a very good TED Talk dealing with it here and another here.

As a principle of justice it seems absurd that anyone can be convicted simply on the unsupported “evidence” of someone else accusing them of a crime.

Only a few days ago a trainee barrister was convicted of falsely accusing a former boyfriend of rape. Here is another recent case and another. People make false allegations, for many different reasons; to take revenge on a former partner or in some cases for financial gain. In this case the “victim” made $1.5 Million before admitting years later that she made the whole thing up.

Making a claim against a celebrity is a heads I win, tails I don’t lose proposition for any opportunist!

If the accuser is believed they make a huge financial windfall.  If not, they still ruin their target’s reputation (no smoke without fire) and they almost certainly won’t be charged with making a false claim.

Nobody charged the false accusers of celebrities such as Bill Roache, or Dave Lee Travis or Jimmy Tarbuck or Jim Davidson or Michael Le Vell or the footballers Nile Ranger, Christian Montano, Ellis Harrison, Loic Remy or another 11 innocent footballers here.

No one who wasn’t there can be sure what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.
(Since the conviction even loyal supporters of Rolf Harris such as Chris Brosnan have sold stories to the press that contradict their statements made at the time)


Another woman said she had been working as a waitress, at the age of 13 or 14, at a charity event in Cambridge in 1975 when Harris had put his arm around her shoulder.

“To start, it was a very nervous but a good feeling,” she said. “However his hand then moved and his hand went up and down my back and his hand went over my bottom and it was very firm.”

Again all we have is uncorroborated allegations.

I know that Rolf Harris said that he had never been to Cambridge and that this was shown to be a false statement, for many this was the silver bullet that proved his guilt. But, failures of  memory are not proof of indecent assault!

Remember, Rolf Harris is 84 years old and has been in show business for 60+years. He has been all over the country for various events and it is not at all unreasonable for an 84 year old man to forget having been somewhere 40 years previously.

Indeed Crime Watch presenter Sue Cook admitted she had forgotten being in the same show

If you think it through it would make no sense for Rolf Harris to deliberately lie about this.
He was not on trial for being in Cambridge and being there is not the same as committing the offence. If he knew he had been in Cambridge he would presumably know it was for a television show. In the internet age  there had to be a chance it would come to light and undermine his credibility as a witness. Why take the chance? If he didn’t believe totally that he had never been to Cambridge why not simply say, “I don’t remember being in Cambridge at that time, I travelled around a lot”

Then there is the seldom mentioned fact that the show actually took place in 1978, three years after the alleged indecent assault incident.

This would make the alleged victim 16 or 17 not the child of 13 claimed. If the accuser cannot remember whether she was a child of 13 or a teenager of 17, can we really ruin a man solely on the strength of her memory?

She also got the location wrong:

The alleged victim had suggested the event had taken place on Parker’s Piece, a large green in the centre of Cambridge.”

The show was actually filmed on Jesus Green a much larger, wooded park about a 6 minute drive north.


So the accuser couldn’t remember when it happened (or how old she was), she couldn’t remember where it happened and yet the jury found her 36 year old memory of the indecent assault to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt!

When we talk about the indecent assault we are not talking about something so traumatic, like rape, that it would understandably be burned into her memory. We are talking about a 17 year old having her bottom touched in the 1970’s, a time where bottom pinching was considered mainstream enough for popular TV shows such as Are You Being Served and on billboards for respectable brands such as Fiat .

Again, nobody who wasn’t there can be sure what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

I will come back to counts 3-9, but first lets deal with:


Tonya Lee was a 15-year-old on a theatre trip from Australia to the UK when, she said, the entertainer fondled her.

Ms Lee has waived the right to anonymity granted to alleged victims of sexual offences. The three charges relate to one day in May 1986.

She said he asked her to sit on his lap before moving his hand up her leg and assaulting her.

“He was moving back and forth rubbing against me,” she said. “It was very subtle, it wasn’t big movements.”

The jury heard that Harris had then patted her on the thigh and moved his hand upwards. She said she had “started to panic” and rushed to the toilet.

When she came out, she said, Harris was waiting for her and gave her “a big bear hug” before putting his hand down her top and then down her skirt.

Harris denied ever meeting Ms Lee.

It was also revealed that she had sold her story for £33,000 to an Australian TV station and a magazine. She said accepting the money had been a “huge mistake”.

Here we have the uncorroborated accusation of a woman who has already cashed in, to the tune of £33,000!

She also claimed in her evidence that the sexual assault caused her to lose six kilos in weight during the six week theatre tour. It was then proven in court that the alleged incident could only have taken place in the final week of the tour!

As the defence QC pointed out:

“Are you really saying between this alleged incident on May 30 and six days later that you lost all that weight….in six days? You have blamed the loss of weight and inability to eat upon Rolf Harris.”

At best it appears that the witness has a confused recollection of events, not surprising after 28 years, at worst she was simply lying for financial gain.

Again, we don’t know what Rolf Harris did or didn’t do in this case, but I know that there is an £11m incentive for people to make up accusations and without any corroborating evidence there has to be a reasonable doubt in favour of the accused.

The remaining allegations concern the childhood friend of Rolf Harris’ daughter Bindi.


Seven of the 12 charges related to a childhood friend of Harris’s daughter Bindi. Six charges related to alleged abuse when she was aged between 13 and 15, and the seventh to when she was 19.

The court heard that the abuse began when she had been on holiday with the Harris family at the age of 13. Later, the woman said Harris had performed a sex act on her at the Harris family home, with Bindi asleep in the same room.

Further assaults took place at the Harris home and in her bedroom at her own home while her parents were downstairs, she said.

The convicted celebrity admitted having a sexual relationship with the woman – but stressed that it had been consensual and had begun after she had turned 18.

However, the relationship had “ended in a very acrimonious way,” he said.

The court was shown a letter Harris sent to the woman’s father in 1997, after the end of the relationship.

The letter said: “I fondly imagined that everything that had taken place had progressed from a feeling of love and friendship – there was no rape, no physical forcing, brutality or beating that took place.”

Here we do have actual evidence, of sexual activity between an older man and a much younger woman.

Rolf Harris admits to having a sexual relationship with her when she was 18 years old. She is now 49, so at the time Rolf Harris would have been 53, an age gap of 35 years.

To many of us such a large age gap seems unnatural, but it is certainly not unusual for famous older men to have relationships with younger women: 73 year old Patrick Stewart Recently married Sunny Ozell, 38 years his junior Michael Douglas is 25 years older than Katherine Zeta Jones. James Woods has a girlfriend 46 years his junior, Alec Baldwin’s wife is 26 years younger, Doug Hutchinson is breaking up with his wife who is 34 years younger, Woody Allen’s wife is 35 years younger than him, Dick Van Dyke’s wife is 46 years younger and the biggest age gap I could find was Hugh Heffner whose wife is 60 years his junior.

The fact that large age gap relationships make most of us uncomfortable, does not make them a crime, or evidence of sexual abuse. Some women find famous, rich or powerful men sexually attractive regardless of their age and almost all men find at least some 18 year old women sexually attractive!

The letter evidence proves a sexual relationship that we may disapprove of, however, it is not evidence of criminal activity.

If the alleged abuse started when she was 13 it was in 1978. They had, by all accounts, a consensual relationship from when she was 18 in 1983 until it was ended in the 1990’s when she was in her late twenties.

They had an adult sexual relationship for around 10 years, whatever trauma she alleges she had suffered, she had clearly forgiven him. Or could it be that there never was any abuse? At the age of 25 or 26 she was clearly an adult, so why stay in a sexual relationship with a former abuser?

The relationship ended acrimoniously, so she certainly had a motive to turn vindictive.

There are a number of issues with the statements of this witness:

Firstly, during the period of the alleged sexual assault on the family holiday, the victim kept a diary. Here we have a written record, made by the alleged victim at the time. Far from being distraught at these alleged sexual assaults the diary recalls a very happy holiday. The entry for the actual day of the alleged assault was that “The day was great”

Now it is of course possible that a diary might not contain the full details of a sexual assault, but is it really credible that the whole diary of the holiday period would portray a happy holiday and that the day of a sexual assault would be described as “great”?

Secondly the story told by the witness changed. The victim claimed in court that she had been molested twice at the side of the Harris family home. Her statement to the Police stated it had only happened once.

Thirdly, there are some other minor parts of her statement that are at best questionable. She claims one assault happened in the afternoon after sunbathing on a Jetty at the Harris home. Evidence was submitted that the Jetty is in shade from 10:00am onwards.

She claimed that she was assaulted one morning on holiday as she came out of the shower in her hotel bedroom. How would Harris have gained access to her (presumably locked) hotel bedroom while she was in the shower! Bindi testified that she shared the hotel room with her and that the only way somebody could gain access to the room was if they were let in.

There was also the testimony from Bindi about the holiday, she told the court that her father paid the two girls little attention, that the girls were stuck together like glue during the holiday and that she saw no change in her friends behaviour.

It is not disputed that the alleged victim had asked Harris for $45,000 although she disputes it was an attempt at blackmail as Harris claimed.

“The court has previously heard that she was an alcoholic by the time she was in her late 20s

There is, considerable scientific evidence that alcohol abuse is linked to confabulation (also called honest lying) where people make things up and honestly believe them

The standard of guilt in a criminal trial is supposed to be, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only evidence is the statement of his accuser, which contradicts her own diary of the time, her previous statement to the police and the evidence of two other witnesses. (Rolf and Bindi Harris). Some of the claims also contradict common sense (appearing in a locked hotel bedroom as she was getting out of the shower, or sunbathing in the shade)

Without any corroborating evidence of under-age, on non-consensual, sexual activity can it really be beyond reasonable doubt that this could be a vindictive attack by an ex-partner, or a confabulated tale from a confessed alcoholic, or an attempt to gain financial advantage from somebody who admits previously asking the accused for money?

Some will doubtless say that even if individually these are not compelling, when taken as a whole they paint a picture of an abuser.

This is a very dangerous conclusion, lots of nonsense is still nonsense:

Many people have claimed to be abducted by aliens. Individually their accounts are not compelling, but (even though there are lots of them) taking them together they still don’t paint a picture of extra-terrestrial attack!

The media, in its orgy of “Savilization”, has been encouraging people to come forward. The press is also awash with stories of compensation for “victims”, if any social climate was perfect for false accusers to try their luck, this would be it.

I really don’t know (and nor do you!) whether Rolf Harris is an evil paedophile monster or an 84 year old national treasure who has been ruined by greedy/malicious opportunists.

I do know that if  all it takes to send a man to prison and ruin his life is an uncorroborated accusation from 45 years ago,  then no man is safe under British justice.

If you agree


line break
This entry was posted in Current Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Kevin Partner

    Superbly put. I’ve been following the trial and could hardly believe the public prosecutor thought there was enough evidence to even take it to court. The jury asked shortly after they went out whether a unanimous verdict was needed, which strongly suggests at least one member was unconvinced. They also asked other questions of the judge that worried me as to whether they were fit for purpose. I confess to being biased as I’ve always been a big fan of Harris but surely, without any material evidence, uncorroborated accusations (and accusations with big holes in them) shouldn’t be enough to ruin a man?

    • Angie

      At last someone taking this evidence to task! I too followed this case and thought the evidence was so bad it was ridiculous that it had been brought to court! Now we may have another 28 at least smelling the compensation. The press and some people on twitter are saying the most horrendous things about him and wishing death torture and other evil things it’s hard to read at times!

      • Emma

        “At last someone taking this evidence to task”

        Those pesky defence lawyers, sat there drinking coffee playing angry birds…

        • Guest

          Troll Emma !

  • eric hardcastle

    Indeed there has been a Savilisation of Britain and no man is safe. That includes all those young people who this weekend will get drunk in pubs & clubs and do things they may regret the next day, but often just moving on and forgetting about it.
    But heaven help the chap if the lady in 5 years has a complete change of thought and decides it was rape. Overindulgence in alcohol will be blamed on the male and is no longer an excuse.

    # on Savile few, especially in the media seem to have read the Yewtree report which found nearly every claim in a hospital was either unfounded or impossible to prove one way or the other. Indeed one fact ignored is that over 1000 people made claims about Savile which were merely collated by the NSPCC and not investigated, and around 900 were rejected presumably as being too incredible or unbelievable which would indicate a lot of people make false claims.
    Compensation of course is entirely coincidental.

    • Clapham58

      Good, I’d be supremely happy to hear that no man is safe . I do so hope that any man who decides to have a sexual dalliance, a ‘relationship’ ( or whatever he chooses to call it in order to deny to himself or anyone else what it is he’s actually doing ) with an underage girl or boy will never afterwards be ‘safe’ from being prosecuted. Perhaps it will make any, or indeed all men think twice before chancing their arm. Think on lads, don’t do it – because one day there’ll be a knock at the door and it’ll be Mr Plod coming to accompany you to the station.

      • Tim

        Yes, and if that’s what was happening you’d have a point. But it’s not. The way it stands at the moment, anyone can just leap out and accuse a famous person of historic abuse crimes even if they are not legitimate. At the very worst, nothing gets done, and at best, they systematically destroy an innocent persons life and roll around in bucket load of compensation. Rolf Harris has been convicted on testimony alone, and inconsistent testimony at that. There’s no evidence of a crime ever taking place and in some places no evidence the complainant ever even met Harris.

        What eric was saying is that all the time there’s the automatic assumption that these women wouldn’t lie for a payout and juries effectively pushed by the media to say “guilty” that no man is safe, innocent or not. Or are you happy for innocent people to go to jail too, if some broke skank wants some new shoes? The whole situation is absolutely disgraceful.

        • Misty

          There are outraged outpourings on newspaper comments pages and social media sites about how this ‘filthy paedo who must die in jail’ attacked a seven-year-old girl. Yet there is no evidence that he did this. He was convicted on the say-so of a woman whose memory, after forty-odd years, might well be unreliable – and that is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. She could even have been telling lies! Even the prosecution, who in this case were more than adept at going for the jugular, could not place him in Portsmouth at the time the alleged incident occurred. How can a jury convict on so little? How can a jury convict on … well, no evidence?

          • Maxadolf

            Interestingly, not one of the alleged victims ever claimed to have suffered penetration. That doesn’t exactly support the jury’s image of Harris and their influence on the judge’s views of him!

      • eric hardcastle

        any man (or woman) would be wise to get an agreement on camera or in writing before embarking on a one night stand or long affair given a Harris claimant kept returning to his bed until she was 29.

        Also any lad out this weekend in a pub or club should remember, that careless grope or snog- as is the wont of the young- could see you in court if either party has regrets.
        If drunk, you will be accused of grooming. So stay sober and have fun but don’t touch. In fact, stay home & watch TV to be safe.

        • Lindum

          Not even convinced the video is enough – there’s always I was coerced or I changed my mind and the brute still did it.

      • Fanny

        And women too, of course.


      This is why Google Glass was invented. MEN! Wear Google Glass every day 24/7 and upload your life in video to a private internet cloud account and you will never be a victim of false accusers. I don’t believe Savile or Michael Jackson ever molested anybody. I am proud to raise the ire of witch hunt morons. The world is full of morons that believe in garbage.

      • eric hardcastle

        not too far-fetched although Google Glass a bit obvious. I know of one man who was falsely accused but where the case never got to court- has discreet cameras in every room of the house and does exactly what you suggest. Casually mentions to guests they are being filmed .

        Discreet body cameras may also be needed just as police will soon be wearing them. Won’t save old celebrities though when they are accused of 40 year old crimes.

  • BlackhamVillage

    That is trial by jury. Generally they err on the side of aquittal. I think when they convict, they generally get it right. They acquitted quite a few of these ‘Yewtree’ prosecutions but I suspect with Clifford and Harris their instincts and judgements were correct. But if you don’t like juries what other system would you propose?

    • falsely accused

      I wish I could agree that juries generally get it right but there are far too many miscarriages of justice with these historic allegations. Jurys are swayed by emotive language and the demonisation of the accused rather than cold, hard facts and evidence. Could you account for your movements in 1975, oh wait now it’s 1978 !!! There is nothing fair or reasonable about these trials, as the article states at it’s conclusion no man is safe from such an allegation or even allegations.

      • BlackhamVillage

        I once had a boss who had a notice pinned to his door: “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions”. Of course trial by jury is not perfect but I repeat my question, what would you put in its place? In the case of Harris 12 men and women, listened to all the evidence and how the witnesses performed and formed a view. It was a unanimous view.

        I am happy with that, especially as I think many of the jury would have liked to acquit (for all the reasons given in these posts) if they could have brought themselves to believe Harris was innocent.

        • falsely accused

          The problem does not lie with the jury system but the fact many of the legal safe guards have been removed such as allowing hearsay evidence and not requiring corroboration.

          A number of the allegations against RH as detailed in the above article are frankly speculative and there can be no degree of certainty that they took place.

          Seeing as though the defendant is a world renowned celebrity and his arrest was widely publicised it is unsurprising that many more women came forward. Therefore the volume of the complainants should not be a factor.

          • Emma

            It could be that the new allegations are from people who have pound signs rolling up in their eyes, however it could also be true that they are indeed victims of abuse from Harris who didnt believe they could get justice until now. That’s not such a difficult concept to get your head around and yet the pro-Harris people reject it out of hand.

            I like to think that there are also people between the money and the people asking for it, who are a little more shrewd than to just dish it out regardless of whether they deserve it.

          • falsely accused

            I am not a pro Harris person I actually have always thought him a bit irritating, but I am strongly against convicting anyone of an offence that happened decades ago on the basis of hearsay evidence, it cannot be a safe conviction,
            Why do so many countries have a statute of limitations. which would mean this case would never have reached court due to evidence being stale and unreliable.

            Regarding your last point about there being an intermediary to prevent spurious claims for compensation I wish that was the case, but you only have to look at the claims against the Savile estate to see how that’s panning out. There should be counselling offered to those that have experienced trauma not cash.

          • Guest

            As a man who was persecuted by a drug-addled, mentally-disturbed relative for almost a decade, I’ve learned to play Devil’s advocate. This man started throwing allegations at all male family members, but eventually settled on me because he believed that I, as a single, gay man, must be loaded with cash. I was accused of raping him; forcing he, his sister and his (now deceased) little brother into witchcraft (yes, seriously!); spending days at a time sexually torturing him in the crawlspace of my home and god-knows-what-else when I was between 15 and 18 years of age. The latter age is crucial, because it meant that I could be prosecuted as an adult and he could get a larger payout. We discovered later that the state I live in has a $500,000 slush fund just waiting for anyone who can “prove” that they were sexually abused.

            After being harassed by the police, dragged through 4 courts and enduring several years of horror, my case was finally heard by a judge of the Supreme Court. This wonderful man saw through the blatant cash grab and did something that stopped the vile little parasite in his tracks. At the time of my case, there were two other men in almost identical situations to mine, where greedy scum were using the system to simply increase their wealth. I also discovered that the onus of proving innocence rests ENTIRELY on the accused. As far as the police are concerned, anyone accused of a sexual offence against a minor is automatically guilty. AUTOMATICALLY. I also discovered that unless you have a large amount of money to throw at solicitors, the case can be pursued for many, many years.

            I can’t give details, but in the end the judge did this: he applied a non-custodial sentence, a minimal conviction and a comparatively small fine. In doing this, he prevented any further criminal action ever being pursued by my accuser, and completely prevented him from ever gaining access to the government slush fund. The sad part is that it left me with a criminal record and emotional wounds that will never heal…..however, it saved me and, if nothing else, gave me some satisfaction in seeing the repulsive creature that had instigated this nightmare being escorted from the courtroom after he launched a tirade of obscenities at the judge as soon as his meagre intellect realised that he’d lost.

            Needless to say, I will never judge anyone in a similar situation unless I know ALL the facts, not just hearsay and anecdotes, because I do not wish what I had to suffer on any innocent person.

          • Emma

            Testimony from a victim is not hearsay, it is evidence. Hearsay would be someone testifying that they heard someone talk about it. Even then, there is a place for that kind of evidence in terms of corroboration, but it would be ineffective on it’s own. That is not what took place in the Harris case.

            There is no evidence that people make up allegations of sexual abuse any more than people make up allegations of any other crime, yet victims of abuse are automatically questioned as to their honesty.

          • bobbyt

            Testimony is not evidence. If I claimed that you came to my house and beat me a minute ago, that is not evidence. With the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the complainants, it’s pretty clear it’s all a load of horse shit.

          • Emma

            Testimony IS evidence. It is not all the evidence, but it is evidence. If you claimed that I came into your house and beat you, that testimony would be evidence. I would offer different testimony that would also be evidence.That’s why it is called “giving evidence”.

          • Time Traveller

            “There is no evidence that people make up allegations of sexual abuse…”

            What’s this, then?


          • Jonathan Mason

            People make things up on a massive scale for financial gain, for example claiming disability benefits, or claiming to have whiplash injury from an automobile accident. Is there any evidence that indigent men are facing claims for historic sex offenses in the same numbers as rich men? One would also have to look at whether the people making the claims are themselves independently wealthy or indigent.

            I have worked in prisons and in an institution for sex offenders and I can assure you that there are many fairly intelligent or cunning and streetwise people in them who have a great deal of time on their hands to do nothing except think of ways to obtain large amounts of money without actually working and to network with like minded others.

          • Gerry Conlon’s Ghost

            It’s striking that you consistently concede that there are various possible interpretations of the witnesses’ evidence and motives.
            It follows logically from this that the charges consequently may not necessarily have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But instead of recognising this, you steadfastly refuse to countenance the possibility that the verdict in this case might be a miscarriage of justice.
            You take it as an absolute certainty that the twelve people on the jury, having heard all of the evidence, cannot possibly have got it wrong nor is it possible that the judge’s instructions to the jury left anything to be desired.

            The thrust of the original article is that the Rolf Harris case has thrown up a number of disturbing questions about how little proof is required to send someone to jail. Your response to these questions is to ignore them. You prefer to insist that somebody has to be convicted on somebody else’s say-so simply because somewhere in the country there are genuine victims of the kind of offences at the heart of this case.

            That is the kind of logic which saw the late Gerry Conlon spend a quarter of his life in prison for a crime which he did not commit. “Someone bombed a pub in Guildford; the public must be protected; the jury have heard all the evidence; send some people to jail.”
            For fifteen years practically nobody gave a damn that the wrong people had been sent to jail. People like yourself, Emma, were perfectly satisfied that there were no more questions to be answered, no question of a miscarriage of justice and no question that the CJS had got it completely wrong. Gerry Conlon died only two weeks ago and yet those lessons have already been forgotten. Or perhaps they were never learned in the first place.

            Rolf Harris may or may not be guilty of some or all of the charges of which he has been convicted but I certainly haven’t seen any proof which has convinced me that his guilt has been firmly established beyond any reasonable doubt. That is an entirely different thing from thinking that he might be guilty. You don’t seem to be able to make that distinction.

          • Misty

            There was also the case of Timothy Evans, convicted beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of the murder of his wife and daughter and hanged. Unfortunately he couldn’t be revived when it was realised that the jury had got it wrong.

    • Misty

      The jury system should be revamped so that there is a minimum educational requirement, such as three A levels, for serving on a jury. That, at least, would increase the likelihood of people understanding the evidence and taking a balanced view rather than deciding that someone is a ‘vial peedo’ (deliberate misspellings there) before they even set foot in the dock. It is scary indeed that the type of people who are writing the most shocking things about Mr Harris (‘hope the pervert dies in prison if they don’t hang him’ and so on) in the most illiterate hand are (potentially) eligible to serve on a jury.

      • falsely accused

        The fact is most people believe that if someone is charged with an offence there must be real evidence to back it up. I know I did until my husband was charged with a historic sexual offence, the police were not interested in anything we offered as evidence to counter the allegation, to say they were biased is an understatement, and I know our case is not unusual, police are interested in meeting targets not the truth.
        Does anyone know what happened to the indecent images charges which disappeared ?

        • Emma

          I believe that is yet to be heard.

        • Misty

          The indecent images charge was not proceeded with as it turned out that most of the images were of adult women who just happened to look younger than they were. There were, as I understand it, a couple of images that were borderline but it could not be proved that they were under age. Contrary to what the press might have implied, Mr Harris was not in possession of indecent photos of five-year-olds.

          • Emma

            “The indecent images charge was not proceeded with as it turned out that
            most of the images were of adult women who just happened to look younger
            than they were.”

            No, that is the defence that Harris’ lawyers were looking to pursue, should the charges have come to trial, however it was sidelined due to the delays that would have been inevitable, not to mention the likely costs. So I know it is the fashion on this blog to parrot Harris’ defence as gospel, but it really isn’t. Regardless of whether females in the images were actually 18 (though I doubt it, we shall leave that element of doubt in there), what would you say was his motivation for his internet searches of “little girls” or “My little nieces”? There is also the opinion that one of the children in the images was prepubescent, albeit untried in Court.

            “Contrary to what the press might have implied, Mr Harris was not in possession of indecent photos of five-year-olds.”

            Contrary to what you are implying, there is a distinct possibility that he in actual fact, was in possession of indecent images of children under the age of 13.

          • EmmaIsABiased***

            LOL, it’s so clear that you consider Harris to be an abuser before you even consider the case. That’s why everything you respond to you respond as if it was just always a fact that he was an abuser and this is all just showing why. Why is it hard to believe that the indecent images were of women of legal age? It takes like 3 seconds to check google and realise that it’s not uncommon for porn sites to push that material.

          • Emma

            “Why is it hard to believe that the indecent images were of women of legal age?”

            It is redundant at this point. a) I wouldnt have the job of deciding whether they were children or adults. b) he isn’t being charged.

            You are correct that there are a number of sites that publish photographs of adults posing as children. They tend to be the “barely legal” kind of sites. It is much harder for an adult woman to pass off as a pre-pubescent child as you are likely to find on the kinds of websites with those names. Whilst not impossible, I would refer you back to point a) for further clarification.

            And yes, I guess I am biased – firmly biased against child abuse and abusers.

        • Andy

          falsly accused – very sorry to hear of what your husband went through. A very dear friend of mine was convicted based on nothing more than uncorroborated witness testimony. Most of his core defence evidence was disallowed by a deeply biased trial judge, leaving him swinging in the wind.

          I used to think that our CJS was OK.A few flaws here and there perhaps, but basically sound. I hoped that mistakes, where they happened, got corrected by the appeals system, and that miscarriages were rare enough to make headline news.

          I don’t think that anymore. What I observed in court had bugger all to do with a search for justice. The appeals system is concerned with one thing, and one thing only: protecting the reputation of the CJS. One’s guilt or innocence is wholly irrelevant there.

          Rape and sexual assault is horrific. In a perfect world, all perpetrators would suffer swift justice. Unfortunately, the world is imperfect. Often it’s the word of the accuser against that of the accused. Conviction rates have historically been low. Regrettably, our policymakers have tried to ‘balance’ the system by allowing weaker prosecution evidence and requiring stronger defence evidence. The net result is that innocent people are going to prison.

          There’s no such thing as being ‘proven’ guilty. Proof exists only in mathematics, everything is relies on a balance of probability. In the case of our CJS, it’s the opinion of 12 arbitrarily selected people, hearing evidence filtered by politically influenced rules, steered by a judge of unknown bias. The most any of us can hope from the CJS is that we are lucky enough to avoid it.

      • MissyLouu

        3 A Levels?! I know many people who have never sat there A levels and are some of the smartest people I know and are definitely not illiterate. I never took 3 A Levels myself and haven’t been to uni yet but that was a mistake made by me at 16 and I’m now back in college doing a BTEC level 3 (at 20 years old) does that mean I am unable to understand the evidence? On the flip side I know people that come out of uni with degrees and know a lot about there chosen subject field yet still have no common sense and are unable to form rational thoughts.
        Requiring 3 A levels for jury service can be seen as another way of discriminating against people. No matter who sits in that jury there is going to be a pre-judgment of guilt (or innocence) whether they are sat there with A Levels and degrees or just their GCSEs !

        • Misty

          Having read your post (and noted the errors contained within it) I stand by my comment. No system is perfect, but three A levels would be a starting point.

          • Emma

            Oh snap, the speeling perleese are in teh house.

            Your proposal is not only utterly ridiculous, it would run counter to the aim you are hoping to reach. Put simply, if you cant introduce an element of reasonable doubt into a jury with no academic qualifications (I like that we are attributing academia with intellect – we really shouldn’t, but I’ll play along for now) then you are quite probably guilty, so the qualifications of the jury are irrelevant.

            Let’s however, take it further. Why dont we also say that in order to serve on a jury, you must have a household income of £200k pa. That would ensure that those fearful oiks are prevented from serving. While we are at it, we may as well ban those brown people, benders and commies from sitting on juries too!

            I worry some times…

          • Terry M

            Well, there has been a lot of talk on upgrading the jury system to professionals only so Misty is not talking rubbish here. When you have half a jury that cannot speak English then there does need to be some sort of minimum standard.

          • Emma

            Please show me some evidence that there has ever been a jury that cannot speak English, in an English trial?

          • Jonathan Mason

            I don’t see why the defendant should not be allowed to opt for a bench trial if he or she wishes.

  • innocent bystander

    Deeply concerned that, in this case at least, the British justice system has got it wrong. I am hoping for an appeal, but even if actually found innocent, the damage has already been done. Shame.

    • Debbie

      It is highly unlikely he can appeal, the only way to appeal is to have new evidence, how do you find new evidence when there is no evidence in the first place…

      • Rebecca

        You can appeal if court procedures aren’t followed properly

        • Maxadolf

          Or that the judge has shown incompetent bias!

      • Ben Dover

        LOL, good point.

  • Emma

    Your logic is massively flawed. I know you are probably sat there patting yourself on the head for such a great piece of detective work, but it isnt. Honestly it isnt.

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to pull it apart wholesale, but I will take issue with a couple of points;

    “I find the fact that he was convicted, based on the evidence reported by the BBC, alarming.”

    I am not sure I really need to point this out, however using the BBC’s reporting as the baseline for whether the burden of proof has been reached is beyond suspect. That’s just downright lazy. If you want to undermine the value of the evidence, go see the actual evidence rather than the interpretation of that evidence by someone who (a) doesnt understand the criminal law they are reporting and (b) is working to journalistic boundaries, which are very different to criminal ones. As such, you are paraphrasing information that has been paraphrased at least once, probably several times before you were able to access it. Hardly full and reliable.

    Before I touch on the second point I wish to address, I would like to say I have not had access to the full evidence as heard in Court, so make no statements as to the veracity of the conviction other than to say that those who DID hear it all, determined that Harris was guilty. That said, your post is borked.

    You appear to believe that the way to counter what you claim is an extreme, biased and false view, is to swing to the other extreme. Your arguments take the view that the victims are lying, because what Harris said is true. The discussion you have about the last (main) witness is testimony to that. You make pretty dismissive comments about the possibility that Harris was engaging in sexual behaviour with her from the age of 13 and again, use borked logic to attempt to undermine it.

    As an attempt at balance, your post falls a long way short.

    • Murray Rothbard

      I am not aware that the actual evidence has been published, if it has please post a link and I will be happy to review my opinion. Reports are all I can find and generally sensationalist media reports over state evidence, not hide it.

      Yes, the trial transcripts would be a better source, which is why I openly declared my source at the start of the article.

      I make no comment on whether Harris had a sexual relationship with her when she was 13, there is no evidence on which to comment. The only evidence relates to an admission of a relationship when over 18, which is what I do comment on.

      My point is that the reported evidence is certainly too weak to ruin a mans life and creates an environment that rewards false accusers.

      • Emma

        “I am not aware that the actual evidence has been published, if it has
        please post a link and I will be happy to review my opinion. Reports are
        all I can find and generally sensationalist media reports over state
        evidence, not hide it.”

        Ha. That’s as good as saying I cant see accurate information upon which to base my rejection of these accounts, so I am happy to consider whichever reporting to which I have access as accurate. Media reporting is not just sensationalist, they cherry pick, they dumb it down and they interpret. Working along an assumption that their reporting is OK to use because they will spin it against the against the accused is disingenuous, at best. Did you see the La Vell or the other one from Coronation St trials?

        “My point is that the reported evidence is certainly too weak to ruin a
        mans life and creates an environment that rewards false accusers.”

        Undoubtedly. Always the case. That’s why the jury have to sit and listen/see all the evidence, not just the stuff that is reported on the media. That was clearly enough to be able to hold an abuser responsible for his actions (as opposed to ruin a man’s life).

        When people accused of offences you are happy, but dissatisfied with the CJS because these people are being brought to trial. WHen they are found guilty, you dont believe the CJS is getting it right. Do you believe that they should just stop prosecuting sexual abuse?

        • Murray Rothbard

          I believe that no criminal charge of any sort should go to court on the basis of uncorroborated accusations. Even more so when the alleged offence took place decades ago. Even more so when the accuser has a financial incentive to lie.

          Juries make mistakes, they are called miscarriages of justice. Without corroborating evidence beyond reasonable doubt simply isn’t possible

          • Misty

            Memories of 40-something years ago are notoriously unreliable as evidence. As I mentioned in a previous post, studies by eminent psychologist Elizabeth Loftus have shown that memories can change over time. So, even though a witness has convinced herself that this is what happened and genuinely believes it, it is not necessarily a truthful reflection of what actually happened.

            This would appear to be the case with the evidence given by Tonya Lee, as was pointed out in the article: “She also claimed in her evidence that the sexual assault caused her to
            lose six kilos in weight during the six week theatre tour. It was then proven in court that the alleged incident could only have taken place in the final week of the tour!”

            How this can be irrefutable evidence of a sexual assault is beyond me. And how Mr Harris could have been convicted of this charge given the paucity of evidence is certainly beyond me.

          • Emma

            “I believe that no criminal charge of any sort should go to court on the basis of uncorroborated accusations.”

            Ignoring your use of the term “corroborated” for a second, this is effectively a free pass for sexual abusers.Sexual abuse is a notoriously secret crime and there is rarely corroborative evidence. I know of two boys who were raped for a period of two years, at least twice a week by their mother’s partner. There was no medical evidence to support their allegations. Should that have not gone to Court?

            The testimony of the victims is evidence. That is tested by the prosecution and the defence before and during a trial. That’s how it works and how it has to work in such cases.

          • Allen Starr

            We can smell your utter desire for putting another man away from here.

          • Emma

            I am quite happy putting abusers away, to be honest.

            I would not use the term “man” although, in my experience, the majority of abusers I have encountered professionally have been male. There are a significant number of abusers who are female in respect of whom I am equally interesting in holding to account.

            Ultimately, I am the most interesting in protecting potential victims of abuse, male and female, children and adults and in supporting those who have been abused, therapeutically and in seeking justice for the crimes committed against them.

            I am sorry that you are aiming for other things and this has a “smell” for you.

          • Murray Rothbard

            There is a whiff of Misandry!

          • Commenting

            No, there really isn’t.

          • Tim

            Do you think locking up innocent people based on nearly no evidence and clearly inconsistent testimony is a good way of protecting legitimate victims? Each and every time they chuck in a guilty verdict with reckless abandon, it makes me less likely to believe a victim in the future.

            It’s like it was with accident claims. It used to be that accidents would happen and companies would pay out, and that’s that. Then everyone and his nan stated complaining about whiplash every time they walked over an uneven paving slab, and now to complain about an accident effectively marks you as a liar automatically. Is that really how you want abuse victims to be treated in the future?

          • Emma

            You are probably as unlikely to believe victims as you ever will, simply because you already dont. You believe that allegations of sexual abuse are false from the start, that people are just looking for a payout and the majority of those making allegations of abuse are lying.
            You suck up those rape myths like your life depends on it.

          • Tim

            No, I believe that the allegations require a shred of evidence, or at the very least to be consistently testified. In this case there are huge gaps in the stories as well as part which have been proven to be completely incorrect. And yet still you cite them as “evidence”. So next time someone comes out with a story about being attacked, of course I’m going to take it with more of a pinch of salt than usual. I’m a believer that you are innocent until proven guilty, not just guilty is someone points an accusation at you and you happen to be famous enough for the media to frenzy.

            Every time there’s a miscarriage of justice like this, which lets face it, is pretty clear it’s a money grab, It’s only going to make me think less of the pathetic scum that make false claims. Look at all the new ones crawling out of the woodwork now they know that they will get a payout. They know that now he’s convicted, all they have to do is chuck in a claim and nobody will think “hey, where’s your evidence?”

          • kirsty

            I think Vanessa Felts and Linda Nolan is making it up as well !!
            Oh by the way, if you please, what is “nearly no evidence?” – I’ve never come across that concept before

          • JaneP

            I’ve read the threads and whilst I agree with most of what is being said here, from both Emma and the other posters, what surprises me is that nobody has mentioned the 100’s of sexual images of underage girls on both his laptops along with his notes on how to delete the images from his internet history. I believe only 1 laptop was presented in court and the jury was satisfied that it showed an overwhelming sexual bias towards young females.

            There was no real evidence and it was a messy trial, for that, I feel sorry for Harris. Especially at his age where he poses no threat to anyone. But I also can’t help but feel disdain towards a time where men groped girls/women as if it were their male-given right. It doesn’t make them sexual abusers, I agree with that. I grew up in the 70’s and in the 80’s I could count more than 10 slaps on the bum per year, to the point where if a man were to slap me on my bum now I would slap him so hard back. I saw it as an invasion of my body space. When it happened to my friend, she giggled, smiled back and stuck her bum out for more. We were 17 years old. I know first hand how part of society all this ‘fondling’ was. It’s not tolerated now, rightly so, but you can’t accuse people for stuff back then. Different times to now…

            The child porn, now that’s something that doesn’t sit well with me at all. Harris should have been on trial for that, not these flimsy witness statements.

          • Increasingly disenfranchised

            The “details” released when they announced they weren’t going to proceed with the child porn charges were that there were 33 images. To me, that sounds like accidental access of a site trawling to attract customers. Real child porn offenders will have thousands or tens of thousands. It’s a problem that people don’t generally understand what the terms, such as “making an image” or “downloading” actually mean. If, when accessing a dodgy (but quite likely legal) website, it spawns a new window or pop-up, that has a lot of images on it, trying to entice subscriptions from people, that will constiitute “making an image” and “downloading.

            The authorities have effectively now convicted him of the child porn offence without the bother of going to trial. The way they described the evidence was cleverly worded to imply a much worse behaviour on RH’s part.

            Look at how the Daily Mail are reporting this, and the readers’ comments – it’s frightening just how easily manipulated people are, and how quick to jump to extreme conclusions.

            There’s also nothing inherently sinister about clearing browsing history and cached content. It’s actually good practice for the health of the computer.

            While he may well have behaved on the wrong side of the line of acceptable behaviour, he’s been demonised to make him look a complete fiend.

          • Emma

            “The “details” released when they announced they weren’t going to proceed
            with the [indecent images] charges were that there were 33 images. To me,
            that sounds like accidental access of a site trawling to attract

            That may well be the case. It also might not. The police will have looked at where the images were found – both on the internet and on his computer. If they were downloaded into neat little folders and password protected, for instance, unlikely. If they are just amongst his browser cache and feature on an adult website, then yes…but I would expect that to have been the focus of the forensic interrogation of his hard drive and would not expect them to have charged on the basis of such flimsy forensic history.

          • Paul Robson

            Well, you know absolutely nothing about it, obviously. People are prosecuted on a few cached thumbnails. They have been prosecuted because someone else used their credit card to sign up to a website that had a dodgy name but wasn’t child porn.

            There is absolutely no filtering going on at all.

            I note that there was a claim that the pictures were ‘regularly accessed’ ; which is odd, because virtually no file systems, and certainly none of the home ones, tracks how often a file is read. There is usually a create time, a modify time, and sometimes a last access time. The information only exists on complex systems where audit trails are necessary ; hence, basically, it is a lie.

          • Emma

            “Well, you know absolutely nothing about it, obviously.”

            I know a lot about it. I am not saying people are not prosecuted for cached images, what I am saying is if that is the sole location of the images, then there is more chance that someone could argue that it was accidental viewing. If the images have been moved into alphabetical categorised folders, it is a little harder.

            There is lots of filtering going on.

            I heard no claim of the pictures being regularly accessed, however that too would surely depend on where and in what format the information was found. I am not forensically trained in computers. but I would assume that things like cookies, bookmarks or browser history would all be elements that could show just that level of information.

            Just worth pointing out as well that you are reading this shit in the media, who abridge and interpret the information presented by professionals. so until you go to source, probably best hold back on the accusations of lying.

          • Emma

            ” along with his notes on how to delete the images from his internet history”

            That shouldn’t be deemed anywhere near significant enough to play a part on his guilt, IMHO. There are many reasons why people may want to delete their browser history and most of them legit. It also wouldnt remove the images wholesale from his computer so it is pretty irrelevant, generally.

            The term “child porn” or “kiddie porn” however is an awful term which minimises the impact of abuse on the children who are in, what are effectively records of children being abused. It is a term popular amongst offenders and insulting to victims, as it portrays the children therein as willing participants of their own abuse. Porn stars, so to speak. They arent. They are abused children. Call them what they are. Indecent images or child abuse images.

          • Tim

            There’s no evidence that the “indecent images” were even of kids. According to the reports, they were of younger looking people but may have been of age. There’s plenty of porn out there which aim to make pornstars look young which have got people in trouble. There was even a porn star who had to testify in someone’s defense once because the case went to court.

            People automatically get the idea that he’s got some pictures of a young child when the media starts screaming “indecent images WAAAH!”, but since the police haven’t gone for a prosecution, it’s very clear that it’s not that clear cut. Chances are they are young looking pornstars which is why the police haven’t charged him for them.

            I get it though, you have some enormous hate for the guy and would rather not give him the benefit of the doubt.

          • Paul Robson

            Rent seeking, basically, then.

          • Kirsty

            you have used ‘man’ instead of pedophile, no???
            Because not every man is a pedophile, surely not?

          • Michael

            It is interesting to note that some members of the Jury could not speak English and the three Muslim members probably follow Sharia law rather than English.

          • Emma

            Nice trolling dude.

          • Tim

            This is reductio ad absurdum, plain and simple. You are trying to claim that by disagreeing with this case, people must agree with letting all abuses go, which is absurd. The complainants testimonies in this case are riddled with fundamental errors, and backed up by nobody. There’s also a clear financial motivation for false accusations. Of course there should always be trials, but they need to be fair, and need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

            In this case, there’s no way the jury could make a fair decision due to the amount of media pressure. The jury are practically expected to say “guilty” regardless of the evidence, of which there appears to be none. I’m all for putting abusers away, but I’m certainly not for banging up any celebrity that some alcoholic wackjob makes up absurd accusations against.

          • Emma

            “This is reductio ad absurdum, plain and simple. You are trying to claim
            that by disagreeing with this case, people must agree with letting all
            abuses go, which is absurd.”

            Try and follow the discussion lovey. I was commenting on the statement that cases that rely on testimony should never go to Court. That would effectively mean that sexual abuse cases would never go to court.

          • wakeupnow

            But did you actually know those boys?..It is one thing to draw on cases where a person actually has personal knowledge of someone but to do so on the basis on that a person knows of,is a different matter.Although I do not know the facts of what you are saying it has to be said that absence of medical evidence is a factor I would be very suspicious of and it raises the question while a significant number of people will be genuine victims,how can you be sure that the remainder are??.Some people are not above telling lies even about something so vile as rape The motives for doing so is ,without question plentiful enough.Those involved in Mr Harris,s case seem to be no exception but then like all of these cases,nothing is ever presented to its fullest.A jury can only come to a verdict based on what has been said and sometimes there are things that a jury never get to hear that could lead to a diferent outcome.Very much says it all really and that is what needs to be changed

          • Lee Cook

            *Begin facetiousness*

            I met Emma once in 1989 at Bondi beach – she touched me on my nipple during a group photo where she draped her hairy arm over my shoulder. It has taken me a long time, but I am finally coming to terms with this abuse and plan to seek justice and compensation in a court of law for the pain in my life.

            Does anyone else have a similar experience regarding Emma? You should speak up now so justice can be served.

            *End facetiousness*

          • Misty

            *Facetiousness continues* … I think you have a watertight case there, Lee. And don’t forget that if it wasn’t 1989 but 1982 or 1994, and if it didn’t happen at Bondi beach but just west of Southend Pier, your case is just as watertight. Enjoy spending your compensation money on a new car or sofa as that will completely erase the memories of that traumatic occasion. *Facetiousness ends.*

  • Misty4

    I do have grave concerns over Mr Harris’s conviction, which seems to me to be shaky and unsound. Some points that leapt out at me: (1) Bindi’s friend, who alleged that he exposed himself to her when she was 13, said in evidence that his penis was ‘very, very small’. (Not just very small, note – but very, very small. How to put a man down in one easy lesson.) How many penises has the average 13-year-old seen? How did she know it was small and not large? Was she in fact of an age where she might have been more familiar with penis size? (2) According to Bindi’s evidence, the friend was extremely upset when Bindi revealed to her that she thought her father was having an affair with the housekeeper. The extreme comments that the friend made about the housekeeper (reported as “The bitch, the old cow, she is so ugly, what on earth does he see in her? How dare he? What a s*** he is. Your dad is a right b****** “) suggested to me that she was jealous. (3) The friend was allegedly scared of Mr Harris. If you are scared of someone, what do you do? You avoid them and hope that you don’t run into them accidentally. Do you approach them and ask them for £25,000 to open a bird or animal sanctuary? (4) The prosecution asked Mr Harris if he had looked at the 13-year-old friend in her bikini ‘in a sexual way’, to which he answered along the lines of “Well, yes, I suppose so.” Men are hard-wired psychologically to look at women in this way. It doesn’t mean that they are perverts! It seems to me that he answered honestly, whereas he could easily have said “No, of course not!” I wonder if any members of the jury had ever studied psychology? If not, I doubt that they would have been aware of the work of Elizabeth Loftus regarding memory, and how over time memories can change to the extent that a person truly believes a version of what happened that does not reflect the truth. Thank you for your article – I have been trying to post on a national newspaper’s comments page but it appears that they are accepting only the ‘hope the filthy pervert dies in prison’ comments.

    • Emma

      ” The prosecution asked Mr Harris if he had looked at the 13-year-old
      friend in her bikini ‘in a sexual way’, to which he answered along the
      lines of “Well, yes, I suppose so.” Men are hard-wired psychologically
      to look at women in this way.”

      What a damning view of men, you have. Unable to control themselves if in the vicinity of a pair of tits, even significantly underage and immature tits.
      She wasnt a woman at age 13, she was a child. He was very much an adult.

      He was undoubtedly being honest about his sexual attraction to her at that age and I would agree that this is creditable, however what it also shows is that he has a sexual attraction to pubescent females. I disagree that this is something that men are ‘hard wired’ to do as I believe that most men are capable of controlling their sexual urges and have a sense of the difference between adults and children and the subsequent morality of sexual attraction towards children.

      • KuraIthys

        Try not to confuse morality and self-control with instinct.

        Feeling hungry is an instinct. Choosing not to eat the cake I see in front of me just because of that feeling is a choice.

        Whether or not men would be hardwired to find 13-year olds attractive is a pretty messed up question. But it has very little to do with morality.

        Attractiveness, surely, relates to (physical) sexual maturity, not age alone. And while it is completely obvious that no normal person should be attracted to a 6 year old, a 13 year old is considerably more ambiguous. (If it weren’t there wouldn’t be so many examples in non-western cultures, and historically of girls being married off at that age.)

        Having such an attraction or not does not have any bearing on a person’s morality. It is what they choose to do with it that matters.
        (And honestly, how can you even speak of the ‘morality of sexual attraction’? That’s like talking about the ‘morality of needing to go to the toilet’. Completely nonsensical. Even a peadophile can’t help who they are attracted to. What they can do however, is control whether or not they let their urges get the better of them, and thus whether they cross the line from merely having the attraction, to being actual child molesters as a result.)

        Honestly, declaring attraction alone immoral is why we are in such a mess with teenagers in the first place… As if the urges a person has, and what they do as a result are completely interchangeable, and uncontrollable…

        • Tim

          Agree with this. Instincts will often tell you to do something that legally and morally would be considered wrong. It’s certainly not unusual for a man to find a young girl attractive, but our social morality prevents us from acting on it. I doubt there is a single person in the world that could honestly say they have never felt the instinctive drive for something, be it food, water, attraction or the seeking of shelter, then made a conscious decision against it. Any dieter will have fought an instinct to eat at some point or another.

      • Misty

        At 13 she might well have been post-pubescent. As far as your comment goes about men being unable to control themselves in the vicinity of ‘a pair of tits’, most men do control themselves. But that doesn’t mean they’re not looking. And yes, they will have sexual thoughts. It’s normal. And I don’t have a ‘damning view of men’, but I have studied psychology.

        • Debs

          And one 13 year old may look different to another …me at 13 looked like a boy, My mate was sleeping with a guy of 24 and Im talking about the 1970s but believe me she did not look like a 13 year old

      • erus

        you seem to be assuming Emma, that because he looked at her in a sexual way, pubescent or otherwise, as confirmation that he acted up it. Just because a man thinks about something sexually doesn’t mean a forgone conclusion that he will act upon it….

        • Emma

          Not sure where you got that from. I was simply challenging the opinion that “all men do it” and indicating that if Harris viewed the girl in a sexual manner, it can be reasonably be assumed that he has a sexual interest in children. This wasn’t some random kid who he just happened upon, this was the friend of his daughter, whose age he was fully aware.

          • eric hardcastle

            No it is not reasonable to assume anything.

          • Misty

            What also puzzles me is that her reported alcoholism was indelibly linked with Mr Harris. Some people are predisposed to alcoholism or drink too much for all manner of reasons. Yet the abuse industry’s mantra of ‘it’s to blot out the pain’ never seems to be questioned. It couldn’t have been that painful as, as you say, she carried on seeing him occasionally until the age of 29 until their reportedly acrimonious break-up..

            What also puzzles me is that, despite apparently being scared of him, she asked him for £25,000 for an animal sanctuary. From the Daily Mail: “In a police interview in August 2013 Harris claimed in a prepared statement that the woman had asked him for £25,000 to set up an animal sanctuary, or her brother would go to the press.

            In the statement he said: ‘I refused to make any payment to her. Although nothing appeared in the press at the time, I feared that it was only a matter of time until she would make our affair public.’

            There is no evidence (or none that I can find) that she refuted these claims, which, to me, suggested that Mr Harris was being blackmailed. Indeed,,.au reported that: “The now 49-year-old admitted she had asked the TV star, then the host of the popular Animal Hospital TV program, for 25,000 pounds ($45,000) for her then-boyfriend, who was in danger of financially losing the business.”

            If ever I find that I am scared of someone, I must remember to ask them for a vast sum of money.

          • Paul Robson

            That’s down to the money, basically. Suppose (say) you claim Mr X groped you when you were 15. If you can say it destroyed my life, it is responsible for everything that happened to me bad since, you can claim money for the damage caused to your life.

            If you say, well, it’s just some sad old sack, then you get nothing.

            I have no idea whether Harris is guilty or not, but on the face of it it looks like the same sorts of random nonsense flung at Roache, Lancel, DLT ; anything goes, convict on quantity. The ‘child porn’ is an obvious smear, probably designed to distract from the lack of actual evidence. I would bet my house that this is not sexual pictures of children but sexual pictures of adults dressed up as children.

          • Nancy Grace

            And let them stick their cock in you from age 18 to 29 on the sly behind his wife’s back, and betray the friendship of your ‘friend’ by fcking her Dad for 11 years or whatever she did. Gutless coward hasn’t got the decency to publicly identify herself even though she ruined a man’s life. I hope she commits suicide out of the guilt and shame of lying on the world stage. Being a worthless wino, I’m sure she’ll be dead soon, and good riddance. I hope she gets cancer of the liver. She certainly deserves it.

          • Jimmy Miller

            Number one, you’re obviously a guy. Number two, I wish the same for you.

          • Buck Rogers

            I love you

          • eric hardcastle

            all grounds for an appeal which is a far far different matter than the actual case and without a jury who could have a headache that morning and just want to go home.
            Points of law being the main factor and I see many that are troublesome.
            However that intrepid investigator and former chewing gum removalist Mark Williams-Thomas (the one who recently claimed in print in the Mirror he had “30 years experience in child protection” despite being just 44 yrs old) was pontificating on TV that Harris had no grounds for appeal.
            I think Harris’ QC may think differently and as Williams-Thomas can’t get his sums right, he should be dismissed as a reliable source.
            An appeal- which will take some time could also hold up any claims on Harris’ money.

          • FCKHYA

            Bindi’s friend voluntarily got reamed in her holes by Harris hundreds of times over 11 years of her adulthood. Does that sound like a ‘my life is ruined sex abuse victim’? The fact that this evil C word gets to remain anonymous and give her lies/testimony in court behind a screen and doesn’t even have to look the man whose life she’s destroying in the eye is disgusting.

          • jesse

            He had a hold over her from the age of 13 -someone like him is very clever, she was carefully groomed,he would have caused her a lot of confusion and her self esteem would have been low to the point where she didn’t know who she was from 13 onwards,hence turning to drink.You need to take into account the age she was when all this started and the power he had over her psyche from that age onwards

          • Buck Rogers

            You are such a moron. I would like to stick you in a pot and use you as a pot plant. Groomed!!! go and groom a frigging horse you A hole.

          • Misty

            I do have a lot of concerns over the word ‘grooming’, which no-one ever seems to question. If an older man says to a 13-year-old that she looks nice in a particular dress, that could be construed as grooming, I guess. Especially if he says it when she’s wearing a different dress as well, and if he tells her she’s clever enough to go to university. In other words, some everyday comments could be construed as grooming. This country is going down a very dodgy path as far as grooming is concerned. As you say, grooming is what you do to a horse, frigging or otherwise!

          • Lizzie Cornish

            It was EIGHT meetings over 11 YEARS. Less than once a year. Do not deliberately spread wrong information for your own motives.

          • Timblu

            You are assuming Emma that sexual attraction is like animal desire where as in fact looking at a beautiful pubescent child and appreciating their beauty and wondering how they will mature is sexual and common amongst men but not in the same way as looking at a mature woman and wanting her. Have you ever read ‘Death in Venice’ by Thomas Mann, if not give it a go it’s considered a modern classic and deals with exactly these feelings.

          • Adam

            Emma, with the greatest of respect you are a woman and you do not actually know how men feel because you are not one. I would leave there if I were you.

          • bastonboogie

            No you weren’t you claimed he had an “interest in pubescent girls”. Then you waffled on about how you believe most men being able to tell the difference between adults and children. Are you a man, how do you know what is in mens minds? Also how do you know how developed this girls “tits” were? You assume a hell of a lot !

          • Buck Rogers

            You sound dumber by the minute. Can you read?

      • Zed

        . . . he said he may have looked at her in a sexual way – it does not follow that he acted upon those thoughts . . .

        • eric hardcastle

          1000s of newspaper & TV adverts contain young teens in sexualized poses and outfits. I abhor them but 1000s of men and boys must look upon them and like them.

          I would never allow a 13 year old girl to wear a bikini.

          • Fanny

            If you believe the Daily Mail there’s nothing adult men prefer more than lusting after underage children. Who’s looking ‘all grown up’ today I wonder?

          • Booyahhhh

            Glad to hear you like your 13 year old girls sans bikini.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAH LOL Just kidding sorry you walked right into that!

      • Jimmy the Pill

        Hey Emma you absolute moron, for hundreds of thousands of years and the first few thousand years of civilisation, if you were a female, getting your period meant you were old enough to be having a penis put in you. Hate to break it to you honey but the current civilisation’s beliefs around 13 year old girls are nothing but a social construction and don’t have any objective truth to them. Nature says ‘old enough to bleed old enough to butcher’.

        • Grossed out

          You’re disgusting. Pedo apologist.

          • Buck Rogers

            No, he’s an intelligent realist unlike you. A bible bashing prudish ignorant retard.

        • anita

          Thing someone needs to keep an eye on you.

      • Paul Bovis

        What the hell are you saying, you don’t seen to have a real clue? When the human body starts to take on a mature form, it becomes attractive to the opposite sex, This applies both to male and female. There is more male pin ups on face book from immature women than you ever see of women.

        There are more men framed and convicted of sexual acts than there ever is of women stalkers. You really need to have another look and re-evaluate what you are saying.

      • kat

        Absolutely spot on.

        • Buck Rogers

          Figures coming from the number one idiot on this Blog. kat and Emma. What a combo. A combined IQ of about 20. Possibly Lesbo’s too.

      • bastonboogie

        Where did he say he was unable to control himself , or control his sexual urge?

      • Joe Bloggs

        Don’t be stupid. In some countries of Europe it’s legal to marry a 12 & 13 year old.
        They aren’t fucked up like in this tight-arsed country, and they don’t have half the psychological problems either.

      • Lawyer

        You say that he must be guilty because he said he looked at a 13 year old in a bikini and had a sexual thought but in Spain the legal age limit for sexual intercourse is 13 – so had he have been in Spain it would be totally legal and less frowned upon. 1000 years ago a 13 year old would be married and probably have a child. I am not condoning any behavior that breaks the laws of the land however, when discussing the morals of these laws we must consider the human brain and how the world debates it.

      • Buck Rogers

        Give me a break. 13… where do you live. La La Land. Men look at all females sexually if they look sexy. It’s that simple. Age has nothing to do with it you giant prude. Do you think we have an off button? We were getting married and having sex with 12 and 13 year olds 500 years ago. Most of us wouldn’t be here if we didn’t. By the way the legal age is 12 or 13 in some European countries. So you vilified as a sicko criminal in the UK but not in Holland or wherever. Geezez you sanctimonius fruit cakes make me sick. Sexual activity is based on puberty not a law book. All Rolf is guilty of is telling the truth. Big mistake in this wonderful world of ours. The truth won’t set you free.

    • Musemuch

      So WHAT if she was ‘jealous’ as you suggest, so WHAT if she used the term ‘small ‘ to describe his penis to hurt him in a public arena?

      The fact is he actively GROOMED and engendered a SEXUAL relationship with a CHILD. Maybe. Sexually mature child, a flawed, precocious child, but a CHILD non the less.
      On every level, moral, ethical – but most of all as a FATHER he should have known better.

      Your comments are so bloody depressing – Go figure WHY Mr Psychologist!

      • Misty

        I have gone and figured why, as you suggested. He was convicted on her say-so and with no concrete evidence apart from a letter to her father offering a heartfelt apology for his part in their consensual sexual relationship and an unremarkable card with a dog on it, neither of which was proof of any under-age sex. She entered into a consensual relationship with him (there is no suggestion of force) that reportedly ended acrimoniously, following which she was apparently so scared of him that she demanded £25,000 for an animal or bird sanctuary project, with the caveat that if he didn’t pay up the press would be informed of their affair.

        She doesn’t quite sound like a poor little victim to me – more a calculating adult with an axe to grind, possibly because he transferred his affections to the housekeeper and didn’t cough up the money. The whole point here is that Mr Harris could not possibly have been convicted beyond reasonable doubt on this patchy and unsatisfactory evidence, yet he was. I can’t help wondering if he would be in jail now had he whipped out his cheque book and written the required cheque.

        My point about her remembering his penis being ‘very, very small’ is a valid one as most 13-year-olds would have had nothing to compare it with (and there was no internet porn around back then). That comment suggested to me that she was quite a bit older than 13.

        Actually, I find your shrieking post, which would be better placed with those of the lynch mob on Mail Online, depressing. And as for my being MR Psychologist – how many men do you know who would use the pseudonym ‘Misty’?

        • pat

          I had a consenting sexual relationship at fourteen and had a very developed figure, and I think that sometimes we see young teenagers and even twelve year olds as totally innocent regarding sexual practises, and although teenagers may be vunerable to approaches from older men, not realising the consequences of their actions, I do not believe we can treat all teenagers as innocent children as we would pre-pubescent teenagers/children.

      • anita

        Well saids musemuch

      • bastonboogie

        18 years old is not a child

    • John

      Excellent comment. Thank you. I can only hope he appeals this ridiculous conviction and that it’s over turned. Trial by media should be illegal. It’s that simple.

  • Angry Harry
  • PeterAndrewNolan

    He is a man so he must be guilty.

    Mind you? My wife committed the crime of perjury on 2007-11-08. I immediately protested this crime and demanded she be charged with the crime of perjury and that her perjurous affidavits be struck down.

    The perjurous affidavits were taken seriously by the courts even after they were PROVEN to be perjurous.

    My ex was given 95% of assets despite denying paternity testing of the children.

    Now it is 2014 what are people saying about the kindapping of my children, the theft of my house and the destruction of my business?

    “Oh, it is so long ago you should just forgive and forget”

    Western women are deeply evil people. It is now necessary to be killing them to bring attention to the fact that women openly condone women committing crimes against men. No amount of peaceful effort will ever convince women that men are people too and deserving of the protection of the law. Random women must necessarily killed until their men realise that to safeguard their women they must hold the criminal ones accountable for their crimes.

    If you are a man and you are not prepared to hold criminal women accountable for their crimes? Then do not come crying to me if some man kills some woman you love.

    • Commenting

      “Western women are deeply evil people.”

      How the hell has this been upvoted?

      • PeterAndrewNolan

        It is up voted because western women are deeply evil people. And they do not like this being points out. As you can see. The comment seems to have been deleted.

        Even on a libertarian site women will use censorship to hide the fact that they openly condone perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse in the 99.9%+ majority.

        So much for libertarians supporting “freedom of speech” eh?

        A man said something true about women?

        SHUT HIM UP!

    • snotgoblin

      Hahahha what the hell? I’m a “Western woman”. Are you saying I’m evil and deserved to be killed? You don’t even know me! I might even be one of the crazy ones who reckon men sometimes DO get a raw deal.

      Maybe you should consider a move to Saudi Arabia?

      • PeterAndrewNolan

        I am saying that it has become NECESSARY to kill western women so that western men can gain a path to justice.

        That western women deny men the protection of the law and deny them a path to justice means that the only way that path to justice for men can be achieved is killing more women.

        And if you have not noticed? Men are killing women in divorce in rapidly increasing numbers. This trend will continue until criminal women are held accountable for their crimes.

        And since 99.9%+ of western women openly condone perjury nothing they say can be taken seriously. If a western woman wants to be taken seriously? She has to bring evidence. Not just words.

        My the way? I have lived in Saudi Arabia. And I had a very good time there.

    • tanyabluedog

      Threatening men with the murder of their daughters, lovers, friends, wives, mothers and sisters unless they join you in misogyny land. That’s a new one!

      • PeterAndrewNolan

        I made no threat. I said that killing women is NECESSARY for men to gain a path to justice.

        Men are already killing women in divorce in rapidly increasing numbers. We are keeping a forum with example articles. We passed 450 a while ago and we are not even trying.

        Since men will not give men a path to justice merely because the man is a victim of a crime of a woman it has become NECESSARY to kill women so that the men decide that in order to reduce the number of DEAD WOMEN they have to give men a path to justice.

        It is quiet simple really. While men do not offer other men the protection of the law those men can not expect other men to consider their women have the protection of the law.

        The next dead woman might be your mother, your wife, your sister, your daughter. The next dead woman WILL be some womans daughter…..some mans daughter….that’s for sure.

        I can tell you one thing. Talking publicly about how it has become NECESSARY for men to kill women to gain a path to justice certainly does catch the attention of the men. Which is the point by the way.

  • Alexander Baron

    Masterful analysis; am working on something similar and have already included both the Loftus and flying saucer references.

    One thing I will say about his supposedly looking at this girl in a sexual way. What about a man who looks at his 5 year old daughter and says “That one’s gonna break some hearts someday” ? For the record I don’t believe any of this stuff and am astounded at how quickly this man has been trashed for lesser crimes than Mike Tyson.

  • suzy25

    This link is quite interesting. I felt uncomfortable about this trial and came across this:

  • Bear

    I know this as fact; Rolf Harris has been my close friend for over 17 years, in that time I have presented with, and supported him in literally hundreds of “gigs”, I have seen him sign autographs for literally thousands of people, of all ages and sexes. Never once, NOT ONCE, have I ever seen him abuse, or be inappropriate with ANYBODY and this is with me working closely with him, on stage, back stage, driving him, body guarding him, and sharing part of the same house with him for over 12 years.

    Something in his recent “conviction” is very, very wrong. His trial was supposed to present evidence to convict, “Beyond reasonable doubt.” Well, sorry, there was so much “reasonable doubt” that the case should have been thrown out before it even started. The Judge in his summing up was no where near, “Impartial” and the media have done their best to bring on that “conviction” prior to the trial and needed a “soft target,” they got it in Rolf. A household name celebrity, loved by the people for being exactly who he is, a warm, open hearted, loving man. British justice has just left the building with this disgraceful verdict.

    “The powers that be” have needed a “patsy” a “Scape goat” because of the debacle around Savile, (a total psychopath, sexual predator) to put the spot light on some other poor soul to keep the “Sheeple” of the world appeased and in fear, while the real pedophiles of the UK go untouched and remain cloaked and protected by the insidious perversions of the very establishments that have just “convicted” my dear friend.

    So that you know, Rolf has totally supported me, a sexually abused, runaway kid, who had no real parents, no home and no sense of self worth until Rolf came in to my life. I will always love him very dearly and stand by him 100%.

    To the justice system of the UK, shame on you, shame on you.

    To Mr. Rolf Harris, you are my dear friend, I love you very much, I hold the vision of you safe return home ASAP to the arms of your beloved Alwen.

    I say this in all truth.

    Chris “Shining Bear” Brosnan

    • David Brennan


      What other performers have you witnessed abusing people? Have you witnessed a lot of child rape? It seems as if you are saying that this didn’t happen because you didn’t witness it. In other words, you sound like a fucking idiot.

    • rabbitaway

      Your loyalty to your friend is admirable and I salute you for it. However, you are quite wrong about Jimmy Savile who must be the mother of all, patsy’s and Yewtree scapegoats ! Justice For Jimmy Savile ! Here’s part of my take on the fiasco ! By the way, I hope Rolf appeals and is released as soon as possible for him and his family’s sake !

  • Chris Brosnan

    I know this as fact; Rolf Harris has been my close friend for over 17 years, in that time I have presented with, and supported him in literally hundreds of “gigs”, I have seen him sign autographs for literally thousands of people, of all ages and sexes. Never once, NOT ONCE, have I ever seen him abuse, or be inappropriate with ANYBODY and this is with me working closely with him, on stage, back stage, driving him, body guarding him, and sharing part of the same house with him for over 12 years.

    Something in his recent “conviction” is very, very wrong. His trial was supposed to present evidence to convict, “Beyond reasonable doubt.” Well, sorry, there was so much “reasonable doubt” that the case should have been thrown out before it even started. The Judge in his summing up was no where near, “Impartial” and the media have done their best to bring on that “conviction” prior to the trial and needed a “soft target,” they got it in Rolf. A household name celebrity, loved by the people for being exactly who he is, a warm, open hearted, loving man. British justice has just left the building with this disgraceful verdict.

    “The powers that be” have needed a “patsy” a “Scape goat” because of the debacle around Savile, (a total psychopath, sexual predator) to put the spot light on some other poor soul to keep the “Sheeple” of the world appeased and in fear, while the real pedophiles of the UK go untouched and remain cloaked and protected by the insidious perversions of the very establishments that have just “convicted” my dear friend.

    So that you know, Rolf has totally supported me, a sexually abused, runaway kid, who had no real parents, no home and no sense of self worth until Rolf came in to my life. I will always love him very dearly and stand by him 100%.

    To the justice system of the UK, shame on you, shame on you.

    To Mr. Rolf Harris, you are my dear friend, I love you very much, I hold the vision of you safe return home ASAP to the arms of your beloved Alwen.

    I say this in all truth.

    Chris “Shining Bear” Brosnan

    • Daria Magor-Edwards

      Thank you for this. As someone who investigates the false allegations made against men and adduces successful defence cases for defence counsel to present to juries I have grave concerns about yet another judge’s biased summing up and the safety of this conviction. I have shared this article on my Facebook page in an attempt to inject some common sense into what has been a media, feminist lobby, child protection charity and political ideology Salem witch hunt. Please pass my support on to Mr Harris. I too am an adult survivor of horrific childhood abuse in all its forms. I have cogent evidence that substantiates my allegations 47 years after the last incident but, in spite of reporting my abuse to the police, counsellors, medics and psychiatrists from the age of 14, no one has helped me or given me the opportunity to confront my abusers face to face in a court room. I don’t want ‘special measures’ or to give my evidence from another room via live video link, or lifetime anonimity, I want to look my abuser in the eye and ask why?

      • Mothership

        Precisely what does ‘feminist’ have to do with any of this? Or are you just a misogynistic freak who will pounce on any Hal-baked sniff of an opportunity to promote your On my way! misguided and thoroughly evil anti-women campaign?

        I ask as a teenager of the ’70s who is unconvinced that Rolf Harris has a bad bone in his body.


          The prosecuting QC was a feminazi in Mr. Harris’ case. QC stand’s for
          Queen’s C unt. And hey guess what you typical internet overuser of the
          word ‘misogyny’, hating feminazis in no way correlates to hating women.
          Women are lovely, feminazis are not women, they are feminazis. I hope
          you’re not a feminazi, I think you might be. If so, f-ck you!

          • kat

            Maybe you should return to Internet debates when you’re able to demonstrate a basic level of articulation..

          • Smash it

            Make me a fucking sandwich Kat.

          • daysofdissent

            Piss off you worm.

          • Joe Bloggs

            I think you need to get your brain in gear.
            That writer seems perfectly articulate to me.
            I dislike Feminazis, too.
            I don’t care for Islam much, but in your case, they are right with it .

          • kat

            Yes yes exactly, Islam. Mmhmm. You’re making perfect sense.

          • Joe Bloggs

            Islam would keep you where you belong, in your place along with other Feminazis.

          • Chris P

            Thanks for proving that you are indeed misogynistic. Apparently women don’t all conform to your ideals.

          • F U CK YOU

            No you dopey prick, I’m mis-feminazi-gystic. I love acutal women who aren’t corrupted by feminazi ideology. And you’re a mangina if you really are a man. You’re probably a feminazi with a man’s photo.

          • Chris P

            Thank you for letting us know you are a misogynist jerk. The sort that is keeping women out of productive jobs because you are an Ahole.

          • Lesssss

            Yeah I’m keeping women out of jobs. That’s right. I’m the magical wizard that hires and fires women you daft prick. You’re a mangina with zero masculinity. You’re probably a fag.

          • Chris P

            Yup – projection is all you can do.

          • PollyFrocker

            Hey don’t knock the manginas, when every man knows how to make one there won’t be any more crimes against women

          • Paul Donald

            ‘You’re probably a fag’. ‘You daft prick’. ‘Mangina’. I take it you’re the weak one in your relationship. Stand up to him, don’t let him bully you…. Or get yourself back on the farm where you belong…

          • Joe Bloggs

            Hmm. Too many “fags & Pedophiles” here.
            I suspect a yank invasion of this comment box.

          • kat

            Homophobic too? Damn son, you’re working hard to tick all those boxes. If racism crops up, I’m calling bingo.

          • kirsty

            Rolf Harris is a pedophile and just like all the other long running mice at last he was caught. In other words the wheels of justice grind slowly but surely and for Harris & Jake the peg those mighty wheels have a turned my friend. Goodnighty olde rolfy – ya evil old pervert. May those vulnerable innocent kids you exploited have some peace of mind while you ROT in HELL.

          • Misty

            While your post is barely worthy of comment, I do feel obliged to point out that ‘rot in hell’ is the stock phrase of the illiterati on Mail Online.

          • mike g

            Convicted on dodgy evidence that proves NOTHING

          • Joe Bloggs

            We’ll keep those, while you allow your kids to be gunned down by psychotic madmen, YANK.

        • jesse

          if you had ever met a paedophile you would know that most of them come across as ‘very nice men’ and no I do not mean that all ‘very nice men’ are paedophiles

        • Paul Donald

          Mothershit: I think you need to learn to read or certainly to understand what is being written, or get someone to explain it to you. I don’t see where , anywhere, it states woman are hated. You appear to be very much on the evil side yourself there, not sparing the insults are you. I hope you don’t have children, what a role model. Daria is entitled to his opinion, same as you are entitled to your warped outpourings.

      • Briatol Zoe

        This is a serious discussion about a mans reputation/life. So many arguements on here. Grow up children.

    • Pam

      Very pleased he has a friend like you. I also believe this was a very shaky conviction.

      • kirsty

        Are you equally as pleased that he had as much vulnerable innocent young victims???

        • Christopher Taverner

          Isn’t the doubt around that kinda the point?

        • Paul Donald

          Kirsty: Are you saying those vulnerable innocent young victims got their times and dates wrong because they were vulnerable young victims? Vanessa Feltz has come scurrying out the woodwork, for something that may or may not have happened, I have no idea. She actually states she was old enough to handle it, but if it did happen then she certainly didn’t put a stop to him.

        • Alice

          Are you lawyer? Do understand the legal system? Do you understand anything you frigging moron. I pray that one day you convicted of something on the basis of 30 year old word of mouth testimony from one of your old school chums. The crime may be abhorrent to you but it doesn’t mean the accused is guilty! You are actually allowed to think for yourself although in your case that could be scary. For f*cks sakes what is it with you sheeple!! Are you all brain dead?

        • Anon

          YES, HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS; I found this link posted from a YouTube video and I gave a fair, balance opinion JUST NOW and it within seconds it was DELETED -may be because I mentioned that my Late Mother and I were touched up as children (we were resilient.) I also said that I loved Rolf Harris and Jimmy Saville. This is a person only interested in their own opinions. Talk about biased. I just copied and pasted it on YouTube though! I am sharing this.

      • Lizzie Cornish

        Your reply was to THIS comment:From Chris Brosnan, from last year. Deleted very, very recently, due to his ‘Thirty Pieces of Silver’ story he’s now sold to The Daily Mail about Rolf: Please READ, for THIS is the truth which he wrote:

        “I know this as
        fact; Rolf Harris has been my close friend for over 17 years, in that
        time I have presented with, and supported him in literally hundreds of
        “gigs”, I have seen him sign autographs for literally thousands of
        people, of all ages and sexes. Never once, NOT ONCE, have I ever seen
        him abuse, or be inappropriate with ANYBODY and this is with me working
        closely with him, on stage, back stage, driving him, body guarding him,
        and sharing part of the same house with him for over 12 years.

        in his recent “conviction” is very, very wrong. His trial was supposed
        to present evidence to convict, “Beyond reasonable doubt.” Well, sorry,
        there was so much “reasonable doubt” that the case should have been
        thrown out before it even started. The Judge in his summing up was no
        where near, “Impartial” and the media have done their best to bring on
        that “conviction” prior to the trial and needed a “soft target,” they
        got it in Rolf. A household name celebrity, loved by the people for
        being exactly who he is, a warm, open hearted, loving man. British
        justice has just left the building with this disgraceful verdict.

        powers that be” have needed a “patsy” a “Scape goat” because of the
        debacle around Savile, (a total psychopath, sexual predator) to put the
        spot light on some other poor soul to keep the “Sheeple” of the world
        appeased and in fear, while the real pedophiles of the UK go untouched
        and remain cloaked and protected by the insidious perversions of the
        very establishments that have just “convicted” my dear friend.

        that you know, Rolf has totally supported me, a sexually abused, runaway
        kid, who had no real parents, no home and no sense of self worth until
        Rolf came in to my life. I will always love him very dearly and stand by
        him 100%.

        To the justice system of the UK, shame on you, shame on you.

        Mr. Rolf Harris, you are my dear friend, I love you very much, I hold
        the vision of you safe return home ASAP to the arms of your beloved

        I say this in all truth.

        Chris “Shining Bear” Brosnan”

    • False Accusers Kill Yourselves

      Brosnan I’m glad you’re standing by your mate Harris he’s obviously a good man but you are sadly a victim of the mass hysteria around Savile. Savile is innocent too. Read all of this and make up your own mind

      • dont make me laugh

        Saville is definately not innocent, having worked with his former body guard, i was told many years ago there would be some very bad stories about him in the future! This coming from someone who worked very very closely with him.

        • SuffolkBoy

          Did you work in the same wardrobe as this former “bodyguard” then? Were you both watching what was going on? 😉

        • katnat61

          Saville was not innocent i know this as i was there and my sister was abused

          • John

            Yeah right. By the way we discussing Rolf Harris. Saville guilty or not has nothing to do with it.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Only one “L” in Savile. See above.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          “Only one “L” in Savile
          One in Miliband, too
          But DS Brits can’t spell for toffee
          When their brains unravel”

          First draft: Works best as a rap number.

      • Prof. Peabody

        This comment makes me sad that I even commented on this article now. And the fact that it has a plus rating of 42 as I write this is just beyond the pale. Saville was clearly the exact kind of disgusting creature that sexual assault laws were meant to protect us against. If you believe he was innocent, then you probably believe in Alien abductions, ghosts, and all manner of nonsense.

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          Only one %ucking “L” in Savile, &etard.

    • kat

      That’s because paedophiles are incredibly good at acting like “normal blokes” – they abuse in secret and/or with subtlety; they have to or else they will be found out. If you honestly think something didn’t happen in a decade of a mans life because you were occasionally with him and never saw it, you’re completely naive.

      • Misty

        Except that Mr Harris isn’t a paedophile. Three of his four supposed victims were post-pubescent and there was no evidence whatsoever to link him to the seven/eight-year-old girl in Portsmouth in 1968 except what the adult woman SAID she remembered. It could have been a pack of lies for all anyone knew and yet he was still found guilty, supposedly beyond reasonable doubt! I think you’ve become a victim of the abuse industry yourself if you think that because a man appears normal he must be abusing little children.

        • kat

          How about his possession of sexually explicit images of children in 2012? Or is that fine by you?

          If you read my comment and understood “thinks all men who appear normal are paedophiles”, I think you should head back to school. I suggested paedophiles have to appear “normal” because if they are observed or found out they will not be able to continue abusing. That is basic common sense, not some kind of “agenda”.

          • Tim

            There’s no evidence that he possesses “sexually explicit images of children”. If he did, he would have been charged immediately for that, as they would be concrete evidence themselves. What they found was images that may or may not be of underage girls (see <18, not "children" as the media likes to chuck out there to sensationalise it), which were borderline enough for the police to not raise charges.

            It's very reasonable to consider that it may just be young looking girls of legal age. It would take you seconds to find previous cases of legitimate porn stars being brought to court to testify in the defense of owners of their material.

          • Tim

            In case you can’t be bothered to look:

          • jesse

            he was charged with that but as he was convicted of the other offences it was decided to drop that charge

          • Me

            But why was it dropped? Because there wasn’t enough evidence that’s why!!!

          • Richmanyoureashitjourno

            Er no. Dropped because a conviction would get him no more time inside and the taxpayers money would be better spent pursuing other convictions.

            Good grief, the naivety runs strong in this one…

          • Pete

            Rubbish. It is you who is being naive. Having child porn on your computer is illegal. So the police would definitely have prosecuted if they knew they had a case. This child porn issue is more likely a red-herring to try and disguise the reality that they had a particularly weak case against Rolf Harris.

          • Tim

            If it would get him no more time in prison, then there can’t have been indecent images of children as they carry a mandatory minimum. And considering they would be solid material evidence in the case, the case wouldn’t exactly drag on.

            The thing is, if they take him to court over them, there’s a good chance they would turn out to be legal as his lawyers claim. If they don’t take him to court, then the general public can be led to assume it’s true.

            “Innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t really exist all the time the media can steer idiots like Kat by stating things as fact but prefixing them with “Prosecutors were due to claim”, “allegedly” and “The court previously heard”.

          • Paul Donald

            Ah, you related to Kat..

          • Lindum

            Read the evidence about the “child porn”. The case was dropped because the images of one woman, someone decided that the woman “looked underage”. When they checked it out they could not prove it.
            Harris was definitely interested in mature women. I have difficulty imagining that he was also into children.

          • Lizzie Cornish

            It wasn’t even Rolf who viewed these sites, adult ones though they were. It wasn’t Rolf, see Chris Brosnan’s comments further up. Of course Rolf is interested in women, he’s a MAN! That’s NOT a crime, although The Feminists will one day make it so, I’m sure..He’s also an artist, and a very tactile and loving man. I’d have NO worries at all about Rolf giving me a hug and the way he’s been portrayed as the most foul of human beings in absolutely OUTRAGEOUS! It’s hugely SINISTER…and if it can happen to Rolf, it can happen to ANY man.

          • Lizzie Cornish

            Er, no, it’s because there was NO child porn. ALL it takes is for a lawyer to say “Hmmm…those models look underage to me!” and that’s it, the CPS can then run with the story..and a story it was, one that ensured Rolf went to prison, which biased and predjudiced his trial in the most horrifying way…and then, they had the gall to leave the ‘child porn’ lies as the final chapter, post-trial, yet again making the public think SO badly of Rolf after all they’d forced upon him. The Witch Hunt from HELL.

          • elvis

            dont be morons Harris & his like eg Saville, Hall are paedophiles end of anyone who says different should be locked up with them.

          • Lindum

            No, the other charges were dropped before the court case, not after.

          • kat
          • Tim

            Lol, so we are to believe they dropped a charge that would guarantee a sentence as it has physical evidence, which would carry a pretty severe maximum penalty, and it’s because it’s not in the best public interest to do so? Not to mention that the independent claims they stated that in light of these charges, even though the indecent images charge was 2 years ago and a conviction would have aided this trial. Get your head out of your ass. If there were clear cut evidence that he had child pornography they wouldn’t drop the case. They dropped it because they know there’s a good chance that no offence was committed, which would be in his favour. Having the instructions to delete you history and searching terms which are the names of legal porn sites is not a crime, no matter how disgusted you may be by it. Honestly, people like you make me sick. All you do is scour the internet sucking up all the shit the media feed you then spewing it out. People like you are the reason innocent people will continue to be tried every time some alcoholic psycho wants a payout.

          • Christopher Taverner

            Alkyhol again!

          • John

            You stole everything I wanted to say! I will add that if you looking for news these days the last place you will find it is main stream media. I guess that’s why people like Kat are actually Sheeple, not people. The system loves Sheeple Kat, so be happy. Dumb people normally are.

          • Tim

            By the way, I also like how in your own link, this: “Harris’s defence team argued that the models in the photographs were all over 18 according to identity documents provided by the Ukrainian owners of the websites which featured them.” you overlook.

            They must be lying though right? You know for a fact that he had child pornography, not legal porn, right? Even though he isn’t being taken to court for it and legally speaking is innocent until proven guilty (supposedly), you know for a FACT that they are illegal, right?

            You must be one of them geniuses. Or you know, a biased moron with no interest in the truth, just in helping feed the sponging alcoholics with their share of his wallet.

          • Christopher Taverner

            Hey! Don’t slate the alcoholics!

          • kat

            Beautiful sentiment from one if the many on here who thinks they are somehow party to more information than an entire jury presented with a detailed case for prosecution and defence.

            It makes perfect sense! The entire jury are part of some evil plot to put an innocent man in jail! Maybe paedophilia doesn’t even exist and it’s all part of the feminizi agenda!!


          • Tim

            lol, idiot. You are still claiming that he’s guilty of possessing child porn when he’s not being tried because they can’t mount a case. And no, I don;t think I’m party to more information, but based on the information we do have, he was tried based on pure testimony alone.

            As for that alleged victim, in 97 was when he broke up with her after she demanded money to keep quiet about their affair. So yes, I think that was probably a very long attempt at destroying him because she couldn’t get what she wanted.

            And I’m not claiming there’s some wild conspiracy, just that the testimonies are all over the place, with proven invalid elements of every claim. Any idiot can see that it would be impossible to claim it’s beyond reasonable doubt. Morons like you though are happy for innocent people to go to prison.

          • Lizzie Cornish

            Kat, you DO know that Nigel Sweeney, judge at this travesty of justice, removed an ENTIRE jury during the case of Vicky Pryce, don’t you, because he could not believe how stupid they were?

            Please, do NOT think juries always make the correct decisions, they don’t. You have NO idea of the IQs of this jury nor what paths they were led down by the CPS who now want as many prosecutions to be ‘guilty’ as possible, regardless of facts/evidence’justice. Thus, they speak to the jury about how they are supposed to make their judgments…. HA!

            Also, from the moment the CPS released their totally incorrect charges against Rolf for non-existant child porn, this being in August 2013, any chance of Rolf getting a fair trial disappeared, as indeed it also did when Tonya Lee sold her story of lies in May 2013, this then being in the public domain, both in magazine/tv/youtube format from that date…..and available for all other claimants to embellish their stories around…

            Rolf would NEVER harm a child, EVER. He has NEVER appeared at Leigh Park, EVER and the older folks on Leigh Park who’ve lived there since the 50s and 60s will tell you exactly that. Even the police had to admit they’d found NOTHING to prove Rolf was EVER there….

            Rolf was set up, turned into An Evil Devil by a foul lawyer and let down hugely by his own legal team who should be ashamed of their pathetic performance….

          • kat

            P.s. Interesting how a counsellor reported having dealt with one of the alleged victims since 1998. That’s an awfully long winded plot to destroy someone’s life (apparently for his cash, although what evidence you have of compensation is very much unclear).


          • Lizzie Cornish

            Yes, that was Bindi’s EX friend..and it was shortly after she’d found out that there was another lady in Rolf’s life, who, like her, had just ‘fallen into his life by chance’…It made perfect sense for her to do this, if she was already plotting her revenge. She spent all her younger life happily visitng Rolf and Alwen and Bindi, VERY happily so…following the family to Bray, 30 miles away through her own choice…leaving her own family behind. Odd for someone who claims she was being sexually abused, isn’t it…

            She had EIGHT meetings with Rolf, over 11 YEARS and that was all it was..and when he DARED to end it, she went ballistic and threw the most heinous accusation ever at him…and so his hell began. He won’t be the last older man to be taken in by a far younger woman, I can assure you.

            Tom Jones has had so many affairs he can’t remember how many, but no-one judges him for that. He goes home to his wife of over 50 years. Both Rolf’s wife and daughter forgave him and that’s all that mattered. It was entirely his PRIVATE life and he made 2 mistakes.

            And what of YOUR life, Kat? Are YOU a saint? Have you never done a stupid thing in your life?

            The revenge this woman sought on Rolf has been hideous…She has to live with this….

            Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold…and my god, she waiting until it was frozen over, furious that she was no longer a part of this famous family, fuming that she no longer could control him…

            Rolf would never, EVER harm a child.

          • John

            And I will add again mainly for Kat’s benefit. What has porn actually got to do with the case at all other than to clearly taint the jury. Is he being convicted because he may or may not have had porn? That’s like convicting someone for having a pint. How many men don’t look at porn! (I mean men not married to porn stars)

          • Paul Donald

            Using the word naive continually just means you don’t have an argument to put forward. If the guy did it, he deserves to go down, but there is serious doubt there. I would like to be sure, and not convict him because I want him to be guilty.

          • Alice

            LOL Kat you just get better and better by the minute (sorry, I mean you are truly thick and proving it with every post). Quoting the Independent as a factual source of information. LMFAO. I’m afraid you are the one who is extremely naive.

          • Chris Brosnan

            Hi Kat, please read the above.

          • Chris Brosnan

            Hi Tim, please read the above.

          • Misty

            Oh, you mean like the images on My Little Nieces? Go and have a look at the site – it’s not illegal as the women on it (women, note) don’t look anything like little nieces. Plus there is no evidence that he deliberately searched for it – anyone who has ever looked at internet porn knows that linked sites pop up whether you want them to or not.

          • jesse

            why did he keep them on his computer then ? and with instructions on how to delete why didn’t he delete them ??

          • Me

            He had instructions on how to delete all history on his computer, not just pictures of little girls! He was obviously looking at porn, maybe he didn’t want his wife or family going on there and seeing what he was looking at. I delete my history, but I’m no paedophile, I just don’t always want people seeing the history, especially when I’m searching for gifts. He wasn’t convicted of the child porn thing, that was thrown out. They wouldn’t have done that if they had any hard evidence…. And yes, even though he deleted his browser history, an expert can still see it, it’s permanently on your computer to be found.

          • Jim Bob

            What the heck has porn got to do with this anyway? Raping someone and looking at porn are not exactly the same thing. The judge made a huge error of law even mentioning porn in the case. It should have been thrown out at that point as the jury were clearly tainted. It was a deliberate ploy on the part of the prosecution.

          • John

            If looking at porn makes you a paedophile then they need to lock up more than half the population. The point being simply adding porn into the equation is meaningless. It means nothing and proves nothing. It’s like accusing someone of murder and saying he must of done it because he likes hunting. Asinine.

          • Zoe

            Are you retarded? What has the frigging porn got to do with it anyway. Do you get convicted now because you look at porn! If so about 90% of the population has a problem. You should have been on the jury. OMG he looks at porn. Guilty. Wtf?

          • SuffolkBoy

            Alas I have been on a jury a few years ago where the jury were “accidentally” told by the prosecution that the defendant habitually “looked at porn on the computer”. The charges (dozens of counts on essentially “inappropriate touching”) did not include anything about pornography or child pornography at all: they were all about whether or not a neighbour had repeatedly “touched” the child throughout their childhood (which was years before the charges were made). The jury kept returning to this point even though it formed no part of the prosecution case (the police never charged or questioned the defendant on the porn matter) and was not referred to by the defence and no directions to ignore the “accidental disclosure” (!) were given by the judge. So the notion “OMG he looks at porn so he must be guilty even though the evidence is that he could not possibly have been in the place at the time alleged” was very a powerful factor in the deliberations. (In the event, he was found not-guilty for other reasons so the behaviour of the prosecution and the judge’s summing up and management were never questioned by way of appeal.)

            Until I was on that jury I rather had the impression that as a society we were taking a fairly relaxed approach to “inappropriate” behaviour, especially decades previously and especially watching porn, and that juries applied logic and common sense and some degree of humanity. However, after the jury service I was dismayed to find that logic went out of the window, lynch-mob mentality prevailed, that emotion and suggestibility were dominant factors in the minds of juries, that being “sure” (previously known as “beyond reasonable doubt”) no longer prevailed, and that in the final analysis the Blackstone principles have been abandoned in the last few decades (assuming they were ever adopted).

            It was clear, even before these celebrity show trials came about that the country is in the grip of a “witch-hunt” and panic over child abuse, a panic which compensation-seekers, chancers, the CPS and their lawyers are quick and effective in exploiting.

            So, Zoe, I support you but alas there a lot of Jesses on juries and you only need 10 of them to bring in “guilty”.

          • Carrie

            Thank you for telling us about the law and your experience as a juror, in this and your other message. It shines a light on the jury and judicial process. I can clearly see the difference between “similar fact” cases and “similar allegation” cases, and am horrified that the latter is now being allowed in court. I also find it appalling that the judge in the case that you mention did not throw the case out after that little “accident” by the prosecution.

            The allegations by Tonya Lee should have been thrown out as soon as the police found that she had lied, and that she had sold her story; the cambridge girl should not have been allowed to change her story by three years just for convenience (she was allowed that but Rolf was considered to have lied? what kind of justice is that?), and Wendy wild’s case should have been thrown out when it was shown that there was zero evidence of him ever being in Leigh Park, as verified by the staff there. As for the “similarities”? The only similarity was that it was Rolf Harris who was accused. Most of the accusers were fans yes, and that the “assaults” mostly are alleged to have happened in public, yes. Which is what you would expect the stories to be when concerning a public figure; that doesn’t make them really similar, especially when you look at Bindi’s Friend and Wendy Wild. Annnd… Wendy Wild seems to be the only one who was supposedly pre-pubescent at the time. Rolf has never shown an interest in such young girls, what makes little Wendy so special?

          • John

            Jesse. You are a cretan. Please improve the global IQ by killing yourself and for all our sakes. Don’t have a children!

          • Me

            That accusation was thrown out! Why was that, surely if they thought he was some sort of paedophile they would have pursued that and also have him convicted of that too! Why didn’t they? Because he’s more than likely innocent that’s why. A scapegoat for all those that get away with it. The justice system felt the need to imprison him based on mo actual evidence.

          • Chris Brosnan

            Absolutely correct. There was no evidence of Rolf searching for or looking at ANY porn. I can tell you this as fact; if the CPS had real evidence of indecent images of children being created, or downloaded by Rolf, they would have hit him with it, full stop. What you guys do not know is this; it has been proven that a trusted young man who regularly visited Rolf’s house with his parents in 2011 2012, sometimes staying over night, used to get up after all had gone to bed, go on Rolf’s computer and search all kinds of porn sites. The young man in question was only 15/16 years old at the time, and was banned form ALL computers in his home, at school and other places. Sadly his parents did not monitor this situation while at the Harris house, nor did they tell Rolf and his wife Alwen about the issue. Sad but fact, the media have gotten hold of this and turned it on Rolf with NO real evidence what-so-ever, the final, “Nail in the coffin.” But ask yourself this, how on earth did the press get hold of all the privileged/confidential information around “indecent images” in the first place? And note this also, the CPS made dame sure that they broke news of “Indecent images found on Rolf’s computer” long before the trial began, and in more than enough time to taint ANY jury potential member around Rolf’s integrity/character. Also note that the “indecent images” charge was dropped prior to the court hearing, it was dropped because the CPS knew that they had NO evidence about child porn on Rolf’s computer, only sites that, “may have” been visited, but as I have said, by a misguided young man who has damaged Rolf terribly in the eyes of the court and in that of the public. MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, fact.

          • Me

            My brother has been Rolf’s computer engineer for the last 4 years or so. He says he has never come across any porn or anything like it on Rolf’s computers and is convinced he is innocent – that’s why he passed this article on to me. I have to say, the British Justice System has always had miscarriages of justice – I just cannot believe it’s been so publicly shambolic. Yet again, the legal system and the media have practically got away with murder. If he is innocent, as it would appear he is, shame on all those involved in crucifying an innocent old man. You sleep well tonight.

          • Chris Brosnan

            Sadly they will sleep well tonight, and the person who did Rolf’s personal computer before your brother was Georgie, SHE too, never once saw ANY porn pics or indecent images of children on Rolf’s computer. She also had remote access to his computer and again, not one indecent image EVER!!??

          • Hzle

            “How about his possession of sexually explicit images of children in 2012?”

            Haven’t we been over this already in the comments? Over and over again…

            Personally, I think you’re in cloud cuckoo land. We need to find good evidence. That’s the thrust of the piece above. We’re trying to work out if the evidence is any good. Admittedly we don’t know all the facts but if justice is seen to be done as openly as possible, we must be able to see it for ourselves – justice behind closed doors isn’t any use to anyone.

            Frankly there are too many people who have even less knowledge than we do about the case who are saying he must be guilty – probably for no better reason than because he is a man. You’ll notice you assumed all paedophiles are men in your comment

          • Lindum

            The sexually explicit image case was dropped because he had some images on his computer of one girl who the police thought was underage but the website said was not. This was all about besmirching the reputation of the defendant.

          • Alice

            Kat you are clearly mentally challenged so I’ll take it slow. Looking at porn doesn’t mean you are a paedophile. Even illegal porn. Poeple fantasize. Some fantasize a lot. 90% of men fantasize about rape. Some woman fantasize about being raped. It’s a giant leap from fantasy to reality. That said he was never charged with that and I’ve just heard that the porn was actually all LEGAL i.e. 18yrs+. This bit you won’t understand but I’ll say it anyway. The judge referred to the so called and now debunked child porn in the case. He should NEVER have done that as he instantly prejudiced the jury. People are very stupid when it comes to sex crimes. Just mention kiddy porn and the verdict is guilty.
            I will be very surprised if this conviction is not over turned on appeal. So like a true TV educated member of the sheeple class you have him convicted because he had porn. You should be so proud. I’m sure you will be in a jury selection soon. They love lynch mob people like you.

          • Billy Bob

            I would love to know how you define paedophile. I’ll throw a spoke in the wheels here. Not all young girls are innocent. Thinking back to my school days most 12 and 13 year olds were definitely self aware sexually and some were downright precocious. Two I can think of were pregnant and neither one you would spot as a “typical” 13 year old. The law tries to wrap human nature up in a tight little box with nice little rules and regs and then we sit back and ponder how badly it all works. It will never work. Human nature is far too complicated for that.

          • John Matthews

            As far as I can see RH did NOT have child sex images on his computer. Oh, dear me we’re dealing with someone who believes everything they read in the Sun or National Enquirer. What’s next? You believe every person who claims they’ve been abducted by aliens and anally examined by them?

        • Alice

          Good point. The definition of paedophile seems to be getting very fast and loose these days especially in the media. In some countries the legal age is 12 or 13. (roughly when they got married in the middle ages). Is that paedophilia? You normal in Holland but a sex fiend in the UK?
          Nevertheless the whole case is total nonsense from beginning to end no matter what you call it.

      • Paul Donald

        Kat: Obviously naivety comes into it, or people would spot it and know, you idiot.

      • John

        They just released a man in the US today. Spent 19 years in jail as a paedophile. He was convicted on the basis of the testimony of an 11 year old girl. 19 years later she admitted she made it all up to get attention from her mother. So please. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere else.

      • John Matthews

        It would help if you actually read the facts of this case rather than jump to supposition. The only claims against RH involving under-age girls involved a bit of questionable groping over rather than under their clothing. The point you tend to miss is this then makes a mockery of real victims of abuse who have been raped and physically harmed.

    • profbarkingmad

      Rolf is the new Michael Jackson – accusations of peado are one way that the truly evil ones smoke-screen their own nefarity – it appeals to the pitch-fork wielding mob – this rabbit-hole goes upwards….

    • pandalove

      I have been a great fan of Rolf Harris…And shall remain so…Something to me is so wrong with not only this case but that of many others “What goes around comes around.”

      • kirsty

        hahaha your right – what goes around comes around – that’s why good olde rolfy is looking through bars this morning. LOL

        • Misty

          Your posts say quite a lot about you. There’s nothing remotely funny about a man of 84 being put in jail as a result of being convicted on the flakiest evidence imaginable. You are free to disagree, but your posts are vile. Just remember what you have said … what goes around, comes around.

          • kat

            As does yours. So much more horrifying to you that a man be put behind bars than countless children be abused. Pretty messed up.

          • meh

            you should go to prison to. Just in case you ever abused children. theres as much evidence against you as there is against rolf harris, and you clearly have the psycho personality that would allow it.

          • Alice

            Geezez you back and still getting better and better. I mean of course dumber and dumber. Are your blinkers surgically attached to your face?

      • kirsty

        I prefer “the wheels of justice grind slowly but surely” rather than “what goes around comes around” but either way Jake the peg is now Jake the Jailbird. LOL

    • kirsty

      doesn’t matter how you feel mate – nothing will change the fact that ROLF HARRIS is a pedophile. His victims stories are not sugar coated.

      • Jay Jenner

        I assume that you believe using all capital letters to spell Rolf Harris gives some more legitimacy to your comments, you poor sad deluded fool. You seem to be the type of cretin that would assume everyone is guilty of every crime even before there was any evidence, i hope one day very soon you suffer the indignity and humiliation of false accusations and are unable to prove your innocence, maybe then you will have slightly more compassion. Oh and may i also suggest that like the vast majority of people you learn what a Pedophile actually is.

    • John Doe

      I’m not saying he is guilty or not, it’s not my call. What I can say, is just because you have known/lived with the man for 17 years, and he hasn’t done anything to you, does not make him innocent. I’ve known my mother for 33 years and have always believed she was an absolute saint, ALL of her life. After my dad passed away last year, Mum and I spent a lot of time comforting each other and sharing little secrets about my parents childhood. In these conversations, it turns out my mum used to smoke cannabis amongst other quite shocking revelations, after she hypocritically went mental at me for smoking it once. Turns out you think you know everything about someone, but then you find out the truth later. If he is guilty, of course you wouldn’t know about his past, why on earth would he share that with anyone, especially somebody he loves like you.

      • Debs

        Get a grip everyones parents smoked Cannabis….I did before I had my children but i did not mean I wanted them to do it, It does not make me or your mum a hypocrite it Just makes us parents,

      • Jim Bob

        You need help dude. Seriously man. You need medical help.
        Possibly a frontal lobe lobotomy.

    • larry__s

      And there’s another element of natural justice that was ignored in this case.

      Juries are meant to consider separate cases on their individual merits. That’s why they are not given information about previous convictions. How is that compatible with bundling multiple unrelated charges into one larger trial? Isn’t that a blatant attempt to establish a “pattern of behaviour”, turning several weak cases into one that’s supposedly stronger.

      The only excuse for bundling unrelated charges together is if the courts have developed a mind-wipe technology, and are able to make juries forget their decision on Count One before they start to consider Count Two.

      • Lee Cook

        This is permissable in English courts. See as a good frame of reference on the difference between Australian and English law.

        • Ben Dover

          Good point but I’ll take it a step further. Is the English system saying that if you have illegal porn you must be committing the illegal acts? That sounds daft. I don’t see the link? Porn is fantasy. The crime of paedophiia or whatever it is, is reality. However as a point of law convicting someone for house breaking because he’s done it before is not justice. It’s a probability exercise. If this is our legal system then it truly sucks. I would have thought having porn made you less likely to commit an actual act. Isn’t that the point? Finally though in this case there was no actual charge therefore no evidence. On that basis it should never have been mentioned and the minute it appeared in the papers the judge should have thrown the case out.

          • SuffolkBoy

            It used to be the case under English law that a defendant could insist on being tried on each count separately, or at least in murder or other serious offences.
            That changed a century ago (the “Brides in the Bath” case) and became known as the “similar FACT case”. (The facts in that case were three drowned wives and three insurance claims. To lose one eight-week bride might be considered unfortunate…)
            The emphasis was on FACT: bodies, drowning insurance. It was never supposed to be about similar ALLEGATIONS: he touched me kind of spookily, he raped me.
            Also the police were not allowed to go trawling for witnesses: “anyone in this county ever been touched by this bloke in the last fifty years?”, or at least could not use such trawled catch as witnesses.
            Judges were REQUIRED to give stern directions to the jury not to confuse similar FACT (the body) with similar ALLEGATIONS (the murder charge), which the average juror might easily confuse.

            However, that all changed in the last twenty years, presumably as a result of pressure groups exerting political influence.

            The prosecution CAN argue on similar allegation (as in the Harris trial and countless others in the UK); the judge was not REQUIRED to give the caution, and later was BANNED from giving the caution.
            (I am not sure of the “tendency” argument from non-victim prosecution witnesses in the UK: I have not met that. These tend to crop up as defence character witnesses, claiming that the defendant is either touchy-feely generally, or had specific requirements for touching (such as music or sports coaching), but never developed a tendency to sexualise it or impose it against the will of the pupil.)

            The chaos in the UK in cases like this at the moment arises from three sources:
            First, juries have acquired a lynch-mob mentality and to treat the Daily Mail and the NSPCC as authorative reference manuals for How to Spot Paedophiles and Witches.
            Secondly, the police are encouraged to meet or exceed quotas on convictions for certain crimes (notably rape and offences involving children); cases like this are very easy to prosecute and very hard to defend.
            Thirdly, the compensation culture and opportunities to gain compensation have never been so active as at the moment.

            I was on a jury where the prosecution “accidentally” disclosed that porn videos (VHS) had been “found” in the defendant’s house (he was not charged on that but on an unrelated offence against a child). The judge didn’t comment or throw the case out and it figured in the deliberations.

    • Christopher Taverner

      You are a true friend. He will need those now… while the country he adopted turns against him.

      Fairplay… this smacks of a scapegoat scenario to me

    • Joanne

      For Gods sake stop making all this about feminism, this is about a man that I believe has been falsely imprisoned, and I am allowed my view !!! If you want to sound off about feminism go somewhere else where someone cares. This is about a great man who has been a very good and close friend with Mr Harris for many years simply pointing out and who has obviously researched this case extensively, and more so than the courts have obviously. Good luck Chris with your quest, I hope the truth will out before any more damage is done

    • Anthony Miller

      I believe he groomed the girl … at the very least his testimony shows that he behaved irresponsibly in loco parentis …so as far as that goes he has only himself to blame… but…

      At least two of the other charges are nonsense. Even if he did abuse someone in 1968 how is he supposed to find defence witnesses? Life expectancy in the UK is 81. We are talking about an offence 46 years ago? How can it be in the public interest to prosecute that? Most of the witnesses are dead. Innocent or Guilty the prosecution of Harris raises so many ethical questions. One of the people at the no-one-knows-where-or-when-it-was Harris gig is supposed to be Sid James…? He made 3 Carry On films and a TV series in those years. Look up the cast list to find if anyone can find a reason why he’d be at a Working Men’s Club with Doris Day and you’ll find the entire cast and crew of “Two In Clover” is now dead. Then there’s the gig in Cambridge which moves back and forward in time by 3 years and involves Doctor Who.

      I think you have to accept there may be a side to him that he has concealed from you. The problem with his defence is he’s starting from the point of telling the jury he’s a liar and untrustworthy. From there it is all downhill … But honestly with many of the Yewtree cases …and this is just one of them … we do have signs of PoPo fit-ups. Do the PoPo seriously not know how to use IMDB ? that’s the only explanation that expains the tape turning up mid trial of Star Games …apart from witholding of evidence. Some of it’s very Barry George.

      Using the porn charges at sentencing is a cheap trick. It allows the claims to be read out under absolute privilege so he cannot sue … but at the same time they “dont think it’s in the public interest to prosecute” but at the same time they think they’re still going to prosecute him with more indecent assaults? Make your mind up? The trouble with Yewtree is there are real and false allegations all mixed together. Stuart Hall pleaded guilty. He was then retried on 14 charges of rape and indecent assault that the jury cleared him of. Why? They were mostly speculative claims.

      It is complex because it can sometimes take survivers of abuse decades to come forward and be able to talk about it … but I think we should draw a line somewhere. About 30 years? 35 years? 40 years is ridiculous. Who can find an alibi after that passage of time? The defence is at such a huge disadvantage it cannot be fair.

      The trouble from Rolf’s point of view is to mount a successful appeal he would need fresh evidence. Who’s going to have it after such a passage of time? I mean it’s possible that cuttings of the Star Games program exist but…

      • Hzle

        Interesting post. I do worry about the new usage of the word “groom”. Like “stalking” it is a perversion of the original use – heavily laden with assumptions, modern prejudices and mores. – thus they’re not very precise words.

        Vague language is dangerous. How is it possible to ascertain (“beyond reasonable doubt” again) whether he was “grooming” a girl, or whether he genuinely got on well with her?

        • Anthony Miller

          I’m a grown man. I like children. But my idea of hell is taking someone else’s child on a 5 week holiday to Hawaii with me… or on any holiday with me? Why did he want to get the child out the country for so long and away from her parents? If he said “I want to take your daughter on holiday with me” the parents would say “get stuffed”. If he said “my daughter wants your daughter to come with us” they might be more pliable. He admits on this holiday making a sexual remark (although his excuse is that he didn’t realise it was sexual at the time) … regardless of whether anything physical took place the man is in loco parentis… and if you have a parent guardian relationship with a child there are boundaries that you shouldn’t cross… Then there are the sleepovers. Why did he want her to sleep over when they lived in the same street? I think her parents were too neglectful or she couldn’t communicate with them and this was compounded by some kind of antisocial personality disorder. She was easy prey and Rolf was like a kid in a sweet shop. Dont accept sweets off of strange men … but maybe the odd holiday? Then there’s the fact the relationship was concealed for so long and the way Bindi reacted when told about it. She didn’t know by then that her dad spread it about a bit? Smashing your dad’s paintings isn’t a way you react to having found out dad had the odd affair. Why would Bindi not have a photograph of her father in the house. Just because she didn’t want people talking about him? Then there’s Harris’s letter? A bit too defensive? And his statements in court … when asked questions he doesn’t just say “No” but things like “I always hated that phrase”. Remember too the jury can SEE things we cant like the bodylanguage of the witnesses. There are physical tells when people are lying … and most people even who aren’t experts can recognise them. Lying takes a lot of cognative effort. Then there’s the fact that Harris’s main accuser’s story fits with so many of the facts… it’s difficult to construct a false story without creating lots of small contradictions. As Sam Spade would have said… none of these things mean much on their own but look at the number of them. Given that his relationship when she was staying over and on holiday with them and visiting him was supposedly that of a parent or guardian then if he abused the trust of her parents he has no one else to blame much. He may well have been partially framed but if you put yourself so much in the frame I have limited sympathy. You’re not supposed to shag your daughter’s friends and conceal it from her. Weren’t there enough other women to play. He admits she wanked him off in the same room as his daughter when they were watching TV without her knowing and neither of them could fathum why this might be incriminating … can you?

          • Hzle

            “I’m a grown man. I like children. But my idea of hell is taking someone else’s child .. on any holiday with me? Why did he want to get the child out the country for so long and away from her parents?”

            Well, we’re all different. I enjoy helping to look after friends of my son – they’re great fun. I’ve never been on holiday with any of them coming along – I expect I would find it hard work, but it’s not my idea of hell.

            Re: your Sam Spade argument. I still worry that one could interpret many his relationship with Bindi’s friend in more than one way – which is the definition of reasonable doubt.

            You ask a lot of questions of the form “what other explanation could there be except X” and that is precarious, logically speaking.

            If he had sex with someone under 16 then that is a criminal offence – although I have issues with the 16 age limit. But I’m very aware of the complexities of relationships – which afterwards can be (and usually are) endlessly misrepresented. I don’t understand how people can be so sure about what happened.

            Maybe I’ve missed something – you certainly know the details better than I do. You think the evidence adds up. I’m worried about the 40 years and what I know happens in therapy (therapists encourage certain interpretations, and patients love to self-justify)

            Finally, my main concern is the reporting in many newspapers. Even the Times talked about a “40 year campaign of abuse against women”. In my opinion this is a serious misrepresentation.

          • Anthony Miller

            The offences involving his daughter’s friend are 30->36 years ago …not 40. There probably should be a cut off for sexual assault claims… the problem is that it can take people decades to come forward but this should be balanced against the unfair burdens on the defence of having to come up with alibis who may now be dead. One of the problems of the “made up in therapy” explanation which does happen is that Bindi’s daughter’s friend had told a friend contemporaneously when she was 16 that Harris was a “dirty old man” who felt her up and this person was willing to testify. It is more likely if a girl is being felt up by a man at 16 that it is happening because he has groomed her as a young girl than that a 16 year old would let a 40 year old man feel her up without doing something about it. He certainly had the opportunity and if you look at the number of people who have to be lying in order for her story to be credible it does seem rather a lot. It either is a massive conspiracy or …he did something wrong. The problem is even if he is innocent because the relationship was illicit he cannot provide any evidence to counter her claims and the prosecution clearly has physical evidence of him behaving in extremely dodgy ways. It is not his word against hers …it is his word and Bindi’s word against a mass of other people.

            “If he had sex with someone under 16 then that is a criminal offence”. The problem is not just whether he had sexual relations with someone under 16 it is that when the girl was over his house and on holiday with him he was taking on the role of primary career/ parental guardian. If you tell someone you’ll look after their kids for then and then have sex with one it’s not going to look good in front of a jury … it’s yet another breach of trust to go along with cheating on his wife. The telling words of the prosecutor are the purpose of this trial “is to discover how dark your dark side is”. That is not just could it have happened in terms of physical evidence but does it seem plausible that he is deceptive enough to be engaging in such a relationship.

          • Hzle

            “The offences involving his daughter’s friend are 30->36 years ago …not 40″

            I read an ex-policeman saying that reports written 1 day after events were too late, a whole week afterwards was useless. 36 years vs 40 years doesn’t change the length of time.

            If you look at the Saville case, it seems that several of the complaints were from several women who had been corresponding on a web forum beforehand. If this doesn’t raise serious doubts then maybe I’m living in the wrong reality.

            In any case, while your case seems strong-ish, we’re not talking about 100s of witnesses to his behaviour with Bindi’s friend. We have the friend’s word – and lots of other people who said Harris misbehaved in other ways – many of these claims uncorroborated too. It’s dodgy

            Your point about breach of trust might hold on a personal level (if you believe one side of the story) but what does it have to do with the legal case?

          • Anthony Miller

            Okay… here’s the prosecution case. Harris had a peadophile
            relationship with the girl that started when she was underage and continued into adulthood. They say that Harris has “tailored” his version of events to move the start of the relationship forward in time to protect himself.

            Harris’s defence case is that the relationship only started when she was 18 but she has moved the start of the relationship back in time in order to blackmail him.

            The problem is we have a friend of his accuser willing to testify that she was told that the relationship actually started when Harris’s accuser is 16 or younger. We also have Harris’s own home movies of her which suggest that the relationship started before she was 18. It is pretty clear that Harris’s story that he told the father in the letter is either not true or a series of half truths.

            The problem is that Harris has stuck to this story even though it’s palpably nonsense. So …basically he’s lied to the jury and should be in prison for perjury even if he’s innocent of child molestation. If Harris is in prison it is his own fault because he didn’t tell the jury the truth and he didn’t tell his
            defence council the truth.

            So by the end of the trial we have Harris having lied to his wife, his daughter (for 16 years), the jury, his own defence council, the parents of the girl …as the prosecution said Harris’s whole story has be tailored to fit in with the letter he
            wrote to the father in 1996 which is a lot of rubbish. So why did he write such rubbish? Perhaps he didn’t want the relationship to be revealed by them to his wife…? Why did he stick to it? Perhaps he doesn’t want to reveal that he has a prediliction for young girls because it makes the other charges sound more plausible. Perhaps… perhaps …perhaps … But when you look at it … given that the man
            seems like a pathological liar …the conclusion most jurys will reach is he’s lying to hide something. Now it may be that what he’s lying to hide isn’t that the relationship was peadophilic but something else but most jurys will conclude that it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that what he’s lying to cover up is that the relationship did infact start before she was 16. His story that the relationship only started one day when she was visiting them in the highlands after they’d moved away and he brought her a cup of tea in bed is laughable.

            Of course none of this proves for certain that it was a peado relationship but beyond reasonable doubt is not 100% certain. It is …is the level of doubt that he may be innocent so low that the jury should find him guilty… and what percentage that is … is subjective. This is why we have 12 people on the jury. If he’s innocent it’s his own fault for
            not being honest … and maybe it’s the fault of the adverserial system of justice, and maybe it’s the fault of the lapse of time causing evidence to be lost… but it’s not the jury’s fault. Given the evidence I dont see how they could find him other than guilty. There may well be evidence somewhere that shows him to be not guilty but they can only work with the evidence they have.

          • John

            I must admit I am struggling to see where the crime part comes in? Some 16 year old floozy may or may not have been felt up by Rolf and then struggles with the emotional stress of this feeling up her whole life. Huh? A 16 year old is not a child even back then. She may have been “groomed” (hate that frigging word. It’s cop out for no evidence) what? Most woman I know have far more inner emotional strength than a man could ever hope for. I think we like to play up there apparent weakness and fraility to appeal to our sense of manlihood and control. Woman are a lot stronger than that and more in control than you think. In a nutshell what a lot psycho babble BS.

          • Billy Ray

            Lucky bugger. 16 is legal the last time I checked.

          • Misty

            Maybe it hasn’t occurred to you that he AND HIS WIFE might have though it would be nice for their only child to have a friend with her for company? Or that Bindi might have asked if the friend could come with them? That it was a generous act on their part (if they paid for the friend’s holiday), given that it was for five weeks? And bringing ‘someone else’s child’ might be your idea of hell, but it isn’t everyone’s.

          • Anthony Miller

            This is a possible explanation but the problem is that Bindi’s friend was able to produce a witness who said she had told her of the abuse at the time. She was then able to produce medical reports that showed she had been telling exactly the same story over almost a decade and a half to various doctors, councillors and psychiatrists for over a decade and a half before she went to the police. It is interesting too that neither the prosecution nor the defence called Mrs Harris. Is it simply because she was too ill? I wonder. Bindi might have indeed asked if her friend could come but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t being manipulated. Given all that I would think it would be very hard for a jury not to
            convict. Beyond Reasonable doubt is not 100% certain. The problem is
            that what is reasonable is to some extent subjective from person to person …but then that’s
            why there are 12 people on the jury.

          • John Smith

            A ton of subjective conjecture doesn’t make a one gram of evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt. This basic principle of law doesn’t seem to apply in the new improved UK.

          • Lizzie Cornish

            Telling ANY child they look ‘lovely’ is NOT a sexual remark..and if it has now become one, since this ridiculous lawyer tried to make it appear so, then we are nearly ALL guilty, for nearly all of us have said such a thing to a child, to boost their confidence, it is nothing more than that. This woman herself said that Rolf telling her she looked lovely (she may have ASKED him how she looked!) was the same as if he had molested her. Oh, PURLEEEEZE!!! Has the nation been sprayed with STUPID spray????? I often went on holiday with my best friend’s family, who were friends with my parents…It’s perfectly natural…He never touched her….They had a fling when she was 18, which was 8 meetings over 11 YEARS..and I can see very clearly that it’s just as Rolf said, that she instigated it….she was about to lose contact with them, Bindi had a new friend, they’d moved 30 miles away…by doing this, she ensured she kept close this famous family for years to come….You are perfectly entitled to disagree with me, but trust me, you would NEVER go round to someone’s house for decades, were their father abusing you…..

          • Anthony Miller

            The problem is that under cross examination Rolf agreed it might be or something… He seems to have thought he was there to have a philosophical discussion rather than as a defendant. I have to say whether guilty or not I don’t think he was very well prepared for the stand. I don’t think he quite understood the idea of an adversarial justice system. The trouble for him now if he want so appeal is he’d have to find “new” evidence. Honestly he talked himself into prison…

          • Misty

            Rolf does appear to me to have shown a remarkable degree of naivety along the way and this, in my view, left him vulnerable. For example, in the letter that he wrote to Bindi’s friend’s father, he mentions that she told him that his telling her she looked lovely in her bathing suit was the SAME as physically molesting her. Well, of course it isn’t! – but Rolf rather pathetically states (and I use the word ‘pathetically’ in its proper context), “I didn’t know.”

            This raises another important point: if she considered his remark that telling her she looked lovely was the SAME as physically molesting her, then it seems to me that THIS IS WHAT CONSTITUTED THE ‘ABUSE’ WHEN SHE WAS 13. Nothing more than a remark that she looked lovely!

          • Misty

            With regard to whether he looked at Bindi’s friend in a sexual way, I feel that he walked right into this one. Men have evolved to look at women in a sexual way in order to find a mate and reproduce, but usually this manifests itself in a very subtle or even unconscious way when presented with certain stimuli, for example an unattainable young woman in a bikini. It signals normal male behaviour in the vast majority of cases – not paedophilia or any other ‘ilia’ condition. Something will go ‘twang’ somewhere in the brain but they’re not going to grab her, pull her bikini off and rape her outside the ice cream kiosk.

            So, a man can say that a girl looks nice in her bikini without there being any conscious sexual element in what is being said.

            When Rolf was pushed in court over whether he looked at Bindi’s friend in a sexual way, he could have said something like, “Of course not. That would be utterly disgusting.” But he was too honest. Even so, he didn’t say, “Yes, of course I did – I wouldn’t have minded a bit of that!”

            He said, “I suppose so.” And he would, in all likelihood, have been correct. There would most likely be some sexual response, no matter how minor, in ANY heterosexual man looking at an attractive post-pubescent young woman in a bikini.

            Unfortunately, this response, “I suppose so”, which to me seems to have a hint of puzzlement about it, as if he was not really sure how to respond to the questioning, has been twisted by certain sections of the media to ‘prove’ that he has an unhealthy interest in children.

      • Lizzie Cornish

        Tell me, How did he erm….’groom’ her? She went happily round to the house for YEARS, followed the family, by her own volition, when they moved 30 miles away. She was fuming that Bindi had a new best friend…and desperate to stay in touch with this famous family it seems…What better way for an 18 year old to do that than make a pass at the father…? 8 meetings over 11 YEARS, that’s ALL it was, nothing more…and when Rolf ended it, she went ballisitc..Ah, Revenge is a dish best served cold, eh…and she got both Rolf and Bindi in one fell swoop…

        • Anthony Miller

          “The alleged victim, a friend of Harris’s daughter, Bindi, told
          another friend the TV star and musician abused her repeatedly over many years, the jury at Southwark crown court heard. The school friend, who is now in her late 40s, said she was told
          about Harris’s alleged actions when the pair were still classmates at about the age of 16.”

          Well, the victim had a witness who said that they were told contemporaneously that she had been abused by the victim when she was 16. So that’s at least one other person who backs up her story suggesting that it is not a piece of retroactive continuity. There are other significant timeline problems. Harris suggested that the relationship only started when she was 18. It was clear the relationship started earlier. Whether it actually started before she was 16 is hard to tell and when it became sexual is hard to tell but it isn’t hard to work out that to say the least Harris was economical with the truth. Then there’s the problem that Bindi told the jury that she would notice if Harris had sexually assaulted her friend while she slept in the same room but seemed not to notice Harris masturbating her friend (according to Harris) while the three of them watched TV together. This made all Bindi’s testimony invalid since the whole point of it was the argument that she “would have noticed something sexually unusual” and clearly didn’t. This coupled with the very secretive nature of their relationship played very badly in front of the jury. It wasn’t just evidence that convicted Harris but his own testimony … the best you can say of which is it shows a man who’s lifestyle is pretty weird.

          • Lizzie Cornish

            She told a schoolfriend he asked her to sit on his lap. First, that’s NOT sexual abuse, and second, how ODD that she just continued to go round and round and round to Bindi’s home, eh?

            Just because she said something, even when she was younger, does NOT mean it happened. She also was part of a gang of girls talking about Bindi at school, who stopped talking immediately poor Bindi walked in the classroom, making Bindi feel they’d been talking about her. They already gave her a hard time for having a very famous father, jealousy rising, bigtime…

            Young girls/women can be absolute bitches at school and after, trust me, I’ve been on the receiving end of such people and they can be very, very nasty, in their efforts to be Queen Bee.

            I’d NEVER have sat on my friend’s Dad’s lap, NEVER, EVER…It would have been so strange and not right to do that….

            I don’t believe a WORD she said in Court…and that story of them on the settee….well, I’ve read a very different version, one where it was said she merely began touching him in that area of his body….and I see a young woman who was trying to control Rolf from the very start, doing something as awful as that whilst his own daughter was sat with them, rendering him unable to do much, let’s face it, because he’d have drawn attention to what she was doing, immediately…and I’m sure that was probably uppermost in her mind…

            Again, 8 meetings over 11 YEARS. And that came from the mouth of Sasha Wass, prosecution lawyer, herself….

            Hardly the doings of a Grooming, Rampant Paedophile, eh???? And, one who even MOVED AWAY from the young woman in question…Yet, she FOLLOWED the family to their new home, over and over……

            I’d say it was ROLF who was groomed, but then, I see this from a very different point of view, not only because I believe what Rolf said, but because I also know how scheming and bitchy young women can be.
            She was VERY happy to be at their house and never showed any signs of all that she stated in Court….

            ‘he trained her like a puppy’…HA!
            ‘he made her feel dead’….etc.etc.. HA! double time over!

            Yet, she just kept going round and round and round…happy as larry….driving 30 miles to be at their home, knowing her own family weren’t close by…utterly happy to be with this famous family once again….

            The worst thing, for me, is that she said her reasons for doing this was she wanted to see Alwen…when all the time, she was betraying Alwen behind her back, using Rolf to stay in ‘a circle of fame’….loving the fact she had him hooked…..

            Yes, he made a BIG mistake, but it’s one that MANY men, older men in particular, have made throughout history and it will continue on, for young women know exactly how to press thos buttons in older men, I can assure you.

            This is obviously my view though, you are entitled to yours….but I always question, rather than accept..and this woman was utterly vicious about Rolf, making him out to be the Devil Incarnate, whilst she constantly kept in touch with his family, even inviting Rolf round to her home in Norfolk, when se was alone (you know, as you do with those who sexually abuse you – said with heavy sarcasm!)…and conveniently blamed the physical evening that ensued on her being drunk….SO handy isn’t it to blame THE DRRRRRRRINK for everything…..

            Again, had my best friend’s father asked me to sit on his lap, I’d never have gone round there again…and the fact she told a schoolfriend this happened does NOT mean, for a moment, that it actually did. But, it got her the attention she so loved…

          • Anthony Miller

            “Just because she said something, even when she was younger, does NOT mean it happened”

            No, it’s hearsay evidence. But hearsay evidence is admissable in criminal trials. Ultimately it’s up to the jury to decide who’s lying and who’s telling the truth …who may or may not be able to work out what is the truth based on verbal testimony, visual testimony (body language) and evidence. They may get it right or wrong and one can pick holes in the system of corroboration by volume but ultimately the only fair judge of human behaviour is by other human beings. One big problem for the defence is they failed to show any major flaws in the main accuser’s story. It may be false but it fits with the known facts … if they could have demonstrated there were many facts which did not fit her story he may have got off. Frankly the defense case was a bit of a disaster all round. They fell in many elephant traps …

          • Lizzie Cornish

            Yes, the Defence was total CRAP, in my view and let him down HUGELY. There were folks waiting to give evidence about this woman in Court, but they were never called! WHY??? It was truly APPALLING and it’s made me question whether lawyers can sometimes deliberately throw a case. Also, his lawyer was taken to hospital on the very day she was due to give her summing up. Thus, for FIVE DAYS the vitriolic, twisted, spun out of control summing up of the prosecution was left totally without anything to balance it out in the jury’s minds. FIVE DAYS! Then, his legal team sent in a JUNIOR barrister to do the pathetic summing up after that! His main lawyer has the fact she defended Rolf in ‘BOLD’ on her website…Geez, she should be hiding that fact from the world, surely????

            Again, this woman was VERY happy to be at Rolf’s house throughout her young life, throughout her 20s too.

            She said she’d learned how to control her panic attacks, even how to stop herself sweating! Total shite! My daughter suffered panic attacks for a while, following a terrible bout of vertigo which lasted for a few months, following a bad ear infection. There is NO way you could EVER cover up such a thing happening….

            She also said she was drinking ‘shedloads of gin’ as a very young teenager, five glasses or more at a time….

            Yet, no-one even noticed?????????????????

            Also, WHY did her parents keep Rolf’s letter for 17 YEARS yet never went to the police? Their daughter had told them he’d abused her from the age of 13, yet, they did nothing????? Perhaps it was because they knew she was lying about that part? She even wrote in her diary, during the very holiday which she claimed to have been first abused on, that she was having a ‘great time’. ???? Saying she didn’t want to tell her diary she wasn’t, in case someone saw….Rubbish, the whole POINT of young girls having diaries is that they DO put down their innermost feelings.

            I think she never forgave him for ending those meetings and she never forgave Bindi either for moving on in her life and finding a new friend, then eventually settling down and having a baby. After the classroom incident, Bindi had never felt the same about this girl….I think she may well have been very controlling of Bindi, as Bindi said they were so close they even used to go to the bathroom together, one waiting outside for the other….I think she controlled Rolf too..

            And don’t even get me started on the way Bindi was bullied in that courtroom, as was Rolf, in my opinion…as it was outrageous! That VILE woman even pulled apart Rolf’s family too, saying the entire walk to Court each day was a sham, when Alwen could barely walk that long, arduous walk each day…Both she and Rolf needed Bindi and Jenny there for emotional and physical support…And he needed those minders too, as trust me, total hatred and many death threats were put on his FB page long before the trial. I was SO shocked, tried to chase those crazy people away…Evenutally, the page was removed, but when you see the lynch mobbers out there, it’s very, very scary, for some of these people are totally deranged.

            By the way, my own mother had a relationship, of sorts, with my brother’s best friend, when I was 14. The chap was 20. Also, my mother was 19 when she married Dad, who was 36 at that time. He loved her to his dying day, unconditionally…

            So, perhaps I understand this story a lot better than most and am not as shocked by it as some may be.

            People make mistakes…and that’s ALL that happened. His private life was utterly private and with respect to Rolf he kept these meetings with this woman, just the 8, remember, totally private from his family. My mother didn’t. Everyone knew and she still carried on..she even involved me in her excuses to go round to his home, which put me in a shocking position, as I loved my Dad a great deal, he being a very kind, gentle man…So, it could have been a LOT worse than it was…

            She deliberately made Rolf out to be the most disgusting of creatures, helped hugely by the lawyer, who was the most ruthless woman I’ve come across in a long time….Feminist, I wonder?

            Ove 60% of the CPS is now women…and I feel that many of them may well be feminists..and for that, read Misandry Running Amok…

            Rolf has a new lawyer now…so I hope he’s on the ball. His previous lawyers should refund him the no doubt VAST FEE they charged him…without even being asked, so appalling was their performance…

            Anyway, there’s loads more info on this page….in the photolinks too.


    • Richard

      I couldn’t agree more and have been saying so on any web site that will allow me. If this is the law then the law is an ass. 30 to 40 year old word of mouth testimony! I mean where do you begin with this nonsense. The fact is that charges shouldn’t have been laid let alone this rubbish even getting into court. It’s a joke. We are living in the Idiocracy. Essentially what this case says to the world is that if you have a good argument and spin a good yarn then you can get a conviction. If it’s a sex crime (keeping in mind our ancestors were getting married at age 13) it’s even easier. (We wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for sex “crimes”). Don’t worry about silly little things like hard evidence. More and more hard core legal porn and yet in tandem with stricter and weirder sex crime laws? Huh? The Idiocracy is the final stage of capitalism before our extinction. Thank Goodness and good riddance! I hope for Rolf’s sake he has all his assets in protected off shore trusts.

    • Huw Wilson

      Chris, I am with you 100% and I commend what you have written here. Rolf Harris has been the victim of savage miscarriage of Justice and I am so shocked that he was found unanimously guilty when the evidence proved nothing – in fact, I watched the trial and the evidence proved to me that Rolf Harris was innocent. I was really shocked when the jury returned the guilty verdict. I can’t wait for his appeal and I know it will be successful and can’t wait for this verdict to be overturned. You have my unqualified support in trying to disprove these silly, ludicrous allegations and I will be trying very hard to do my best to help Rolf Harris’s case by spreading around what you have posted here. I have been investigating and looking into this myself and all the allegations against him are just ridiculous and should have led to an innocent verdict and not a guilty verdict.

    • rogerthecat

      I would have posted a response myself, but I feel that your post says rather more than any well-intended stranger can say about this dreadful case.

  • Terry M

    It is a travesty of British justice that a conviction has happened on the lack of any real evidence. What has happened to the “Innocent until proven guilty” and needing to prove “guilt beyond all possible doubt” ? I should imagine an appeal in the High Court would be likely to overturn the convictions on all counts and return Rolf’s exemplary good name and character with compensation for all these disgusting accusations against him from money grabbers on a band-wagon being whipped up by the press. If these women had a cause for concern about Rolf’s behaviour then why didn’t they say something when it supposedly happened, as you would ? If Rolf is guilty of anything then it is being friendly and caring towards his fans and friends. That is all. And that is not a crime !

    The man is the most honest person you could ever come across and now he is in such a state of disbelief over the conviction that he is even doubting his own memories and recollections. In 84 years he has been to a lot of places and met a lot of people, how can he possibly remember everything he has done. What a disgrace the pack of so-called humans are that will go to any lengths to cause distress to a wonderful man like Rolf. I am hoping everyone will get behind him and wish him and his family well. Tell the press what you think of this miscarriage of justice.

    • AttemptedNeutrality

      It’s not ‘beyond all possible doubt’ – it’s ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ – and the advice they give Jurors is that this means that you have to be sure, based on the evidence you hear, that the person committed the crime.

      • Murray Rothbard

        And how can you be sure, if all you have is the accusers word?

        • AttemptedNeutrality

          Most evidence you have in court are things that people have said, written, witnessed, etc. If you’re going to start doubting what people say, or requiring at least two witnesses or documents before you believe any event took place, then it would be incredibly difficult for anyone to get justice.

          • Murray Rothbard

            I don’t think so, Scottish law requires corroboration and they seem to have manage pretty well.

            There is also the issue of timeliness. Almost every other country in Europe has a statute of limitations on bringing cases of alleged sex crimes.

            These two together would make for a much safer system of justice

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Interesting, thanks for sharing. However in this case I still think there was enough evidence overall – if you bear in mind the similarities between independent allegations made by people who did not know each other, and also the testimony of psychologists and other professionals who had worked with the victims.

          • Murray Rothbard

            I disagree, in the first place there is a climate of paedogeddon in the popular press with all the Yewtree activity surrounding Saville and others. Lots of lurid allegations of abuse to emulate.

            As far as the psychologists working with the victims, watch this and see if you still hold the same view.


          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Well look I’m not going to argue with you about the specifics of the case – mainly because as another commentator has already pointed out, the press doesn’t report everything that gets presented in court, they distort or misinterpret some of it, and reading the written text of a witness statement is not the same as hearing it delivered in person.

            But in principle, I think that you are insisting on too high a level of evidence – and I will illustrate this with an example of a different case on which I was a juror.

            In the case in question, we had to consider whether the defendant was involved in a conspiracy to buy and supply drugs. The corroborated facts were: 1) the police had intercepted an attempted drug deal at a petrol station, 2) the defendant was in the same car as the drug dealer at the time, 3) the drugs were found in his rucksack. There were also police records of previous meetings between the defendant and the drug dealer.

            The defendant claimed that although he was at the scene of the crime and the drugs were in his rucksack, he was not aware of the deal or the presence of the drugs. His legal representative spent ages trying to persuade the Jury that because nobody had seen the defendant actively look into the rucksack at the drugs, and there was no CCTV of this moment, that there was reasonable doubt he had not been involved.

            However, the Judge eventually advised us that although there was no individual piece of direct evidence that proved that the defendant knew what was going on, this was still a conclusion we could reach without reasonable doubt from all of the various circumstantial evidence taken together. As a jury we all decided on the basis of everything we had seen and heard in court that it was obvious that he had been involved.

            It seems to me that you are trying to argue that in cases like that, unless there are two witnesses or a piece of objective evidence such as a photograph of the key moment, that no amount of circumstantial evidence would be enough to convict someone.

          • Murray Rothbard

            No you misunderstand me.

            On the evidence above there is far more than just an accusation. There is the presence of physical evidence in his ruck sack, there is his confirmed location at a drugs deal and records of previous meetings with a drugs dealer.

            That is compelling evidence, reasonable to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

            However, if I went into a police station and told them that somebody I hate was a drugs dealer, without any further evidence, that would be uncorroborated and rightly thrown out.

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Ok maybe you’re right that there are relevant differences between the two cases. Again I’m not going to go into the Harris case for the reasons I previously gave. However it does seem that according to your position, many crimes of a sexual nature would go untried because they are typically committed in private, with the perpetrator and the victim as the only witnesses. Is your position then, that such two-person crimes just shouldn’t be taken to court at all?

          • Murray Rothbard

            If there is no physical evidence and no other witness, then I don’t think it should go to court. I don’t see how you can ever get to beyond a reasonable doubt.

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            So if a normally truthful 10-year-old said that an adult sexually abused them, you think it would be reasonable to doubt them?

          • Murray Rothbard

            I certainly wouldn’t let the adult near them again. However, I don’t think its strong enough to go to court with.

          • Emma

            Dont have kids.

            Or go near them.

          • Emma

            “It is no different to me walking into a police station and saying that
            my former neighbour, (who incidentally won the lottery and is now very
            rich) beat me up twenty years ago.”

            It’s actually very different. Power, shame, blame, societal understanding, the propensity to disbelieve, all make allegations of sexual abuse entirely different from those of ANY other crime.

          • Tim

            AttemptedNeutrality – I have to ask you two things:
            1. Why does word of the complainants have to be accepted, while the word of the defendant is ignored? In this particular instance, they claim that a single thing that Mr Harris couldn’t remember is evidence that he’s lying, yet when one of the complainants got the year and her age of the alleged abuse wrong by 3 years, that’s just because it was so long ago. Seems pretty biased. There are examples of this throughout this entire case.

            2. Are you surprised there are similarities between the complainants? There’s not really much in the way of variation between most abuse cases, especially when you consider that pretty much a game plan for how to claim historic abuse has been laid out by Operation Yewtree. It’s practically a step by step guide on how to squeeze money out of celebrities.

          • Jonathan Mason

            The fact that the “groping” witnesses all described something that took place in front of other people could be taken as an admission that they had never been alone with Harris, so althuogh it make their allegations hard to refute, it also makes them pretty lame. They are about on a par with claiming that they were groped on a crowded tube train.

            I don’t know what the jury was thinking. If they heard sufficient evidence to be sure that the “friend of Bindi” started drinking alcohol heavily at the age of 14 as a result of sexual molestation by Harris at that age, I can understand that, though don’t recall hearing any evidence reported on how she obtained the alcohol and from whom and why she continued to visit the Harris household or Harris was able to continue to visit her. Nothing seems to make sense, and all I can think is that the jury heard a lot of evidence that was not reported by the press.

          • Wakeupnow

            Given that we live in a country that has numerous helplines and support groups for victims of alleged abuse that have been in existence for a few decades,it is incredible that those who claim to have been abused never seem to approach these in the first instant.Helplines and support groups for victims of abuse,alleged or otherwise are well publicised and prominent.They were created to help those who need support and advice,which a genuine victim needs.Confidentiality comes part and parcel of the service provided.If ,however,the alleged victim is under 16 or 18 in the case where a teacher has been accused,then the police will be alerted.So,the question these issues involving Mr Harris raises with me is this?Why on earth did his accusers come forward many years later when it was not impossible to speak to those who are are trained to deal with allegations of abuse??..

          • Misty

            One word … and it begins with C.

          • Lindum

            Usually there is at least some physical evidence. One would expect at least some evidence he was in these places at the right time.

          • Emma

            Physical evidence of sexual assault – even rape – is actually very rare.

          • Lindum

            I assume you are young and naive to have made such a comment.
            You will not find a single case of rape where someone has been convicted where the victim says he or she was raped, where the two people do not know each other, where there is not a shred of evidence that they ever met, and where there is not any DNA or corroboration of any kind that the victim and perpetrator every came into contact.

            This is why the European system of having judges making decision on the facts of the case is superior to our system of getting twelve (often) unemployed idiots off the streets to make these jury decisions. Juries are almost bereft of the most intelligent sections of society who often have jobs that cannot be dropped for weeks at a time.

          • William the ectomorph

            Clearly, there are some people who sincerely believe that Mr Rolf Harris is quintessentially a decent and honourable man who has been wrongfully convicted of ‘noncing’ by an inefficient and rotten Criminal Justice System. These people – some of whom, I suspect, are intelligent and perfectly rational human beings – are surely entitled to their own views, without being subjected to ridicule and vitriolic personal abuse by those who share the opinion of the vast majority of the British population – .i.e. that Mr Harris is guilty as charged. My own personal view, for what it is worth, is that it is highly PROBABLE that Mr Harris IS a nonce …. but, having said that, I would like to make it patently clear that I am no fan of the British Criminal Justice system. Indeed, I believe it is high time that significant, if not radical, changes were made to this system.

            I find myself in total agreement with Lindum’s comment [and I quote]: ” ….. the European system of having judges making decisions on the facts of the case is superior to our system of getting twelve (often) unemployed idiots off the streets to make these jury decisions. Juries are almost bereft of the most intelligent sections of society who often have jobs that cannot be dropped for weeks at a time.”

            Well said, Lindum …. well said indeed! For many years now, I have had serious misgivings about the time-honoured and so called “liberal” British tradition of using juries – comprised of members of the general public who are not qualified lawyers – to decide on the guilt or innocence of people who have been accused of serious crimes by the Crown Prosecution Service. What is more, I long ago ceased to attach any credence to the arrogant (and, in my view, preposterous) claim that “The British Criminal Justice system is the best in the world.” From what I understand, miscarriages of justices are by no means as common in France (for example) as they are in our green ‘n’ pleasant land. I suspect that at least part of the reason for that is because our continential neighbours the ‘Frogs’ use an inquisitorial criminal justice system – as opposed to the adversarial one with which we are familiar here in Great Britain.

            In this country, we often hear it said that, in order to be convicted of a serious crime in a Crown Court, a defendant has to be proven guilty (by the Prosecution QC) “beyond reasonable doubt”. An admirable principle. The problem is, however, that during the course of the past 50 years, so many innocent people have been put away by the British Criminal Justice system that many of us find it impossible to believe that juries only convict a defendant in cases where the prosecution has proved his (or her) guilt BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

            As I see it, one of the problems with this legal phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” is that it is SUBJECTIVE AND OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. This fact becomes obvious when one considers the frequency with which juries – which comprise 12 members of the general public – are unable to return a unanimous verdict. One does not have to be an expert on law to know that it is by no means unusual, in this green n pleasant land, for defendants to be found guilty (of very serious criminal offences, such as murder or rape) by a majority verdict of 10 to 2. When this happens – as it did in the notorious and highly publicised case of Mr Jeremy Bamber (back in 1986) – it presumably means that 2 out of 12 jurors (in other words, 16.66%) do NOT believe that the guilt of the defendant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Just because these jurors are in the minority, does not necessarily mean that they are wrong; they might be more intelligent – and/or have a better understanding of the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt” – than their fellow jurors.

            In the previous paragraph, I referred to the controversial case of Jemery Bamber – a well-spoken former public schoolboy who was convicted, in the October of 1986, of the cold-blooded and premeditated murder (in August of the previous year) of his step-parents, step-sister and two of his step-nephews. I would like to make it clear that I, personally, feel that it is PROBABLE that Mr Bamber IS guilty of the horrific crimes with which he was charged. In referring to his case, I merely wished to point out that two of the twelve members of the public who were given the responsibility of deciding whether or not the Crown had proved Mr Bamber’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt decided that it had not.

          • Lindum

            I agree with almost everything that you said. Thanks for a well argued posting.

            Having lived several years in France, I would say their inquisitorial system is superior; putting an intelligent and well qualified person at the head of the police enquiry, who is not a part of the police.

            I have one comment about Jeremy Bamber. A friend of mine used to be in charge of the psychological assessment of those who had been convicted of a life sentence. In this job he had extensive and intensive contact with the convicted. He always says that most claim they are not guilty; and the only one that convinced him that he was wrongly convicted was Jeremy Bamber.

          • William the ectomorph

            Lindum: Thank you for your response to my recent ‘post’ regarding the inadequacies and shortcomings of the (so called) “excellent” British Criminal Justice system. It is good to know that you agree with almost everything I said!

            Btw, I read your comments on the Jeremy Bamber case with considerable interest. In my previous post, I wrote (and I quote my exact words): ” …. I, personally feel that is PROBABLE that Mr Bamber is guilty of the horrific crimes with which he was charged.”
            However, having read your comments, I must admit that I am now slightly less confident (than I was before) that Mr Bamber’s conviction, by a majority verdict of 10 – 2 , was safe and satisfactory – to use the official legal terminology. I intend to find out a great deal more about the Bamber case and about the man himself – by accessing information on the Internet and by reading books, newspaper articles, etc, on the subject.

            Thank you again for your positive response to my ‘post’.

          • Lindum

            This could be of interest:


            Ludavik Kennedy was campaigning for Bamber until his death. Bamber would be out by now if he was prepared to admit that he did it. Basically the case against him relies on a silencer which the police mysteriously found in the house several weeks after the event. With the silencer on the weapon it was impossible for the sister (who had serious psychiatric problems) to have killed herself.

            After the trial Kennedy proved that if the silencer was in place it leaves a particular mark on the victim when fired. However they need a retrial to get this evidence seen.

            The conviction also relies on a jaunted lover saying that he admitted he did it.

          • Pete

            I agree with the original article – each individual case against Rolf Harris was highly flaky and I feel suspicious as to whether the jury got it right. But the jury came to their conclusion purely based on the number of women who made similar complaints. That seems quite reasonable (i.e. if one woman accuses me of assault she’s just a nut – if two unrelated women who do not know there has been a complaint made make a complaint it’s fair to assume I must have done something – but if there’s 14 then surely that would be enough to lock me up). But my question is this: When the first accuser (presumably Bindi’s childhood friend) went to the police to make her accusations – did Rolf’s name become public before or after the other women made their accusations? It seems a bit coincidental if all these women made their complaints at around the same time after 30+ years of being traumatized – but not quite traumatized enough to go to the police until they find out somebody else has accused him) .

          • Lindum

            That would be true if it were you (no insult intended). But suing you is unlikely to bring a several hundred thousand £ jackpot suing you through a no-win no-fee lawyer afterwards. I have already heard one of them say that she never recovered from the experience, and Bindi is blaming her alcoholism on Harris.

          • Jimmy Miller

            I’m sure these halfwits on here pick and choose when to agree with you and when not to.

    • Easy Writer

      “If Rolf is guilty of anything then it is being friendly and caring towards his fans and friends. That is all….”
      Quote of the week for that one. Words fail me. Thankyou and goodnight…

    • Revolted

      You are aware they found pedometer porn on his home PC aren’t you?

  • AttemptedNeutrality

    Sometimes when you take each piece of evidence in a case separately and analyse it, you can pick holes and eventually the whole thing can seem to dissolve away. But if you take all the evidence together and view it as a whole, you can see that there are patterns of behaviour reported by different people who did not know each other. Then I think it can become clear that although there are minor inconsistencies of date and location, overall – taking everything into account – the perpetrator is guilty.

    Also, bear in mind that reading reports of evidence in the media is very different from hearing it in court. The Jury had the benefit not only of considering all the evidence, but of hearing testimony in person, directly spoken by the people involved. When considering a witness statement it is not only the words that are uttered, but also the manner of delivery which can attest to the authenticity of the person’s account.

    Finally, you should remember that aside from the victims involved in this case, there were also a number of other women who testified as character witnesses, who recalled occasions when Rolf Harris had touched them inappropriately in ways that bore strong similarities to the offences alleged by the main victims in the trial.

    • Misty

      These women should have come forward at the time. The reason that they didn’t (and I don’t go with the official ‘they didn’t think anyone would believe them’) was that there was really nothing to complain about. We are talking about wandering hands here – not rape or murder. It was commonplace male behaviour forty years ago, though now it would be termed ‘sexual abuse’. It became an issue, I suspect, when all the Jimmy Savile stuff erupted and women started thinking, “Well, X touched my bottom in 1967. Or 1969. Or it might have been 1972.” There should be a time limit placed on these accusations, if only to protect the defendant from unsubstantiated allegations and juries who have trouble with the definition of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Even the prosecution couldn’t link Mr Harris with the seven-year-old but he was convicted anyway!

      • AttemptedNeutrality

        Well I assume when you say there was ‘nothing to complain about’ you aren’t talking about victim C who alleged repeated instances of digital penetration and oral sex, or about Tonya Lee who also alleged digital penetration.

        Bottom-touching might be insignificant to an adult woman in the 1960s or 70s, but for a seven-year-old to have her genitals touched by a much older man who happened to be a celebrity she admired is surely a completely different matter?

        Moving on now to discuss the plausibility of the allegations – the fact that numerous women testified about a similar pattern of behaviour is what added credibility and strength to the more serious allegations.

        Even though the evidence might not seem airtight when considered in a piecemeal and second-hand manner, I trust in the judgement of a jury who sat through the whole trial and heard the witnesses stories for themselves.

        • Misty

          Again, it is just their word against his. It cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did it. As for your statement that you trust in the judgement of a jury that has sat through the evidence and heard the witnesses’ stories, it seems to me that you have a rather noble idea of the ‘twelve good men and true’ (and women these days, of course).

          The reality is that juries these days (and obviously I can’t comment on this particular one as I don’t know who was on it) are just as likely – if not more likely – to consist of bored, unintelligent people who want to get it over and done with, people who hate ‘filthy paedos’ and cannot possibly have a balanced viewpoint and people who speak English as a second language and can’t understand the evidence as they are to consist of educated, intelligent individuals who are able to weigh up the evidence (or lack of it) and reach a verdict after meaningful deliberations.

          • Emma

            I picture you with your fingers in your ears saying “lalalalalalalalalaa”

          • Terry M

            I heard it reported the majority of the jury were in fact citizens with little or no spoken English so Misty is right in her analogy. It is correct that many public juries are getting it wrong with their verdicts. Sadly for Rolf, there is not much justice in the British courts of today.

        • eric hardcastle

          yes AttemptedNeutrality we have heard all Tonya Lee’s claims because she is so traumatised she keeps giving paid interviews.- the latest rumour being $85K from an Australian tabloid magazine.

          So when the media and people keep complaining that the victims wish to forget and have “closure” ( with a cheque) they should recall that Ms Lee is keeping the matter alive.

      • tanyabluedog

        When was sexually groping eight yrs old and viewing sexual images of children EVER considered ok in the 70s and 80s?

        • Misty

          But there is no evidence that he groped an eight-year-old. Even the prosecution could not pin him down as being in Portsmouth at the time this supposed incident (reported as being with a seven-year-old) allegedly happened. And there was no internet in the 1970s and 1980s, so your point about viewing sexual images of children back then doesn’t count. There is no suggestion that he had magazines with pornographic images of children in them. Taking the Portsmouth incident in isolation, how could it possibly have been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he did it? It couldn’t – yet he was found guilty.

          • eric hardcastle

            Millions of Brits DID view child abuse images via The Sun newspaper and their infamous Page 3 photos. Many were deemed to be child abuse images when the law was changed in 2003.

            So many British men should be aware : historically they are paedophiles because they viewed what is now classed as child porn.

          • Emma

            They wold be indecent images of children as opposed to child abuse images. Sam Fox being a good example as she was 16 when she first appeared on page 3. No-one could say it was a child abuse image, but it could be described as an indecent image of a child.

    • Terry M

      What evidence ! There was no evidence other than hearsay which should have been rejected and the case closed !
      Snippets of information doesn’t make a pattern. Anyone could say anything now that we all know about the Jimmy Saville case. There is nothing to stop someone accusing you of a similar crime years ago. It is easy to make up things of a sexual nature and it look similar to other persons accusations.These people had 30/40 years to say something if there was something to tell but only came forward when the press was offering cash after Saville. That is very suspicious indeed. Money is a great inducer. If no money from the accused then money from selling your story to the press is common. The manner of delivery of words spoken in court by these witnesses is a ridiculous statement. Yes, maybe if the crime was a few weeks or months old, but not decades old! I would hate for anyone to come up against folk like you in the jury as there would be no hope, and this is just the attitude that saw Rolf sent down today. Where was the guilt beyond all possible doubt ? There wasn’t even a scrap of evidence !

    • eric hardcastle

      yes and all those women who were not part of the case but just witnesses, can claim compensation. They will not be identified,.
      You refer to the ‘bundling’ of charges & ‘same fact evidence’ that features in no other case and will see defendants wrongly condemned.

      example if used elsewhere : if a man is charged with 2 bank robberies and one is proved, it could be claimed he did the other- with no proof- because he had ‘a tendency to rob banks”

      And it may come to that eventually.

    • Ian B

      Patterns are dangerous. The human brain evolved to pick out patterns and jump to conclusions where no patterns exist in reality. It is useful for making rapid decisions in novel circumstances. If your tribe has moved to a new area and somebody has been attacked by that big stripy animal, you conclude that big stripy animals are dangerous even though you don’t have a good statistical sample yet. This keeps you alive. But it’s very bad when you need objective scientific analysis.

      The “patterns” seen in these cases can easily arise spontaneously. Everyone these days knows the standard trauma narrative. There are not many ways to describe being touched up. So the same descriptions can arise independently. I, or you, could easily fabricate a convincing sexual assault description though none has ever happened, since we know what such descriptions sound like. It isn’t a Shakespearian level of narrative invention to say, “he pushed me against a wall and fondled my t*ts and bottom”.

    • Paul Robson

      The basic problem with this argument is it only works if the patterns, the evidence are created authentically. People – police and solicitors – advertise both for complainants and for money, blatantly. They repeatedly ask questions until they get the answer they want, they ‘introduce’ them to compo solicitors and so on.

      You are correct, that often they ‘do not know each other’ but the investigation causes the effective collusion, or the compo solicitors do.

  • Angry Harry

    The Home Office apparently gave £400,000 to the Paedophile Inofrmation Exchange in the 70s.

    Harriet Harman and the National Council for Civil Liberties accepted the PIE as one of its members.

    The staff at the BBC certainly knew about Saville and others, but did nothing and said nothing.

    The celebrity-addicted, celebrity-chasing tabloid press must have known about many paedophiles, but said nothing.

    The government knew about them and said nothing.

    The police knew about them.

    EVERYONE knew that pop stars regularly had young girls pawing at their feet in order to have sex with them.

    Numerous hospital staff and charity workers apparently knew about Saville, but said nothing.

    And, in the courtroom, it was stated over and over again that these celebs who were involved with youngsters did not seem to fear being discovered.

    Conclusion: It was CLEARLY seen as acceptable in those days for this type of behaviour to go on.

    But, gradually, over the following 40 years, attitudes have changed, and what was once seen as harmless intimicies between consenting beings, is now seen as highly damaging.

    All memories of those inappropriate events will have been reconstructed to conform with these new ideas.

    As such, these trials are corrupt.

    And Rolf Harris is no more of a pervert than was the entire country.

    This current charade is like prosecuting a driver for driving at 90 mph 40 years ago, when the speed limit was 100 mph, but claiming now that, in fact, he was driving over the speed limit and should be prosecuted.

    Sex with youngsters is wrong, for sure; but millions of people – DECENT people – did not believe this at the time.

    As such, these trials are truly sickening.

    They are also poisoning the social fabric of the entire country, casting suspicion everywhere, and encouraging the hateful tabloids and the hateful feminists and various children’s ‘charities’, yet again, to inject waves of male-hatred right across the nation; month after month after month.

    Which they all do for one reason only.


    And yet, all the while, if you look carefully, you can see that ALL THESE GROUPS are actually fuelling child sexual abuse on a huge scale and damaging hundreds of thousands of people in the process.


    • Terry M

      Angry Harry; beautifully said and very comprehendable, thank you. It is what I thought all along too. But why are the press and lawyers so eager to nail innocent people today ? oh yes, the money pay day at the end no doubt. No inkling of remorse as to the permanent damage they are doing to our most loved celebrities or anyone else for that matter. I expect the Saturday morning papers will be full of detrimental rubbish.
      My thoughts go to Rolf, Alwen and Bindi at this awful time. I would like to reiterate that this sham conviction changes nothing in my eyes.

      • eric hardcastle

        The press are completely amoral and go with the wind. They build you up and tear you down and then falsely claim they “knew all along” whatever it is they claim.

    • eric hardcastle

      Go to Youtube with this. There are numerous conspiracy sites there that will indulge you.
      More importantly go to the police if you have evidence of any crime being committed. You do know don’t you, you have a statutory obligation to do so?.

    • Anne Mulligan

      Your analogy is rubbish because just because it was condoned by some sectors of society, sexual abuse of children is not legal now and wasn’t legal then. The age of consent hasn’t changed in the UK since the 70’s has it?

      • Ian B

        Attitudes to it have though, which is the key point. Much the same as the Gross Indecency law exist then as it does now, but in the 1970s gross indecency included anything homosexual, whereas now it does not. Public and legal attitudes to such things change, and have changed profoundly in the past few decades, which is why there should be a short statute of limitations.

        • Emma

          A statute of limitations on sexual offences is fundamentally flawed. For a number of reasons, but the most important reason of all is that the people who would be most dramatically and the most disproportionately hit are children.

          Children do not have the knowledge or control over their lives that enables them to seek prosecution in their own right at the time of the offence. They just cannot do so. They are wholeheartedly reliant on their parents or carers to do so. Guess who the biggest number of abusers of children are? Yep, those same people that would be expected to seek justice on the part of the child.

          The media have a lot to answer for in relation to their coverage of abuse. As much as I disagree with the rape apologists on here about most, if not all of what they say about Harris and his ilk, I do agree that the media are whipping up a frenzy of hysteria that has skewed understanding about sexual abuse and left children being abused by family members isolated and vulnerable.

          Whilst it is important that historical abuse is tackled, there needs to be a reminder that children are being abused now, usually by people within their family or close social networks and need protection. Putting a time limit on their ability to get justice, though? That would be criminal.

          • Paul Robson

            These aren’t children. They are adults, mostly at least a little disturbed. They’ve had years to report it.

            The thing you want to do with abused children is to stop it, not get convictions for it. All this asinine claptrap does is divert resources from helping damaged families to prosecuting ageing celebrities.

            Use of language like ‘rape apologists’ tells me (i) you aren’t very smart (ii) you can’t argue your case.

            Do you think the case of the 7-8 year old is ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’ ? What about the blackmailer ? Or the person who is flogging the story to the press ?

          • Emma

            “These aren’t children. They are adults, mostly at least a little disturbed. They’ve had years to report it.”

            At the time it happened, they were children. They would have faced the same accusations of “why now, you must me lying” whatever time in their adulthood they reported it. The only difference being that there is at least an acknowledgement that these people are no longer beyond reproach.

            “Use of language like ‘rape apologists’ tells me (i) you aren’t very smart (ii) you can’t argue your case.”

            You are a cock. Go read something. Go read the comments on this blog post where I have been doing the arguing.

            “Do you think the case of the 7-8 year old is ‘proved beyond reasonable doubt’ ? What about the blackmailer ? Or the person who is flogging the story to the press ?”

            I dont need to know whether it was proven beyond reasonable doubt. I just need to point towards the 12 people who did and say they heard all the evidence and felt it was.

            I didnt see anything about blackmail. I saw reference to a request for money but have yet to see that it was accompanied by a threat. Again though, I havent followed things that closely. As to the person flogging the story to the press…it was ill advised. I would be less forgiving of the press, though, who should have facilitated her speaking to the Police rather than paying her money for an account of a crime.

          • Paul Robson

            You haven’t got a clue. These claims would have been taken seriously 40 years ago.

            Now your argument level is resorting to ‘you are a cock’. It would be fascinating to see the response if I called you something related to the female genitalia, but that’s typical of hypocrites.

            You argue, but you clearly are either incredibly naive about prosecution (it’s target driven) or have a vested interest (personally I think the latter).

            If you talk about taking the story to the tabloids and ask for £25,000 to start a business, it’s blackmail.

          • Emma

            “You haven’t got a clue. These claims would have been taken seriously 40 years ago.”

            They wouldn’t have been taken seriously 4 years ago.

            You are right, I shouldnt have called you a cock. It was an error and I apologise. I should not have stooped to your level of debating.

          • Ian B

            They would have been taken seriously. Stop promoting the myth of the rape-tastic 1970s. The question of whether they would have gone to criminal trial is another matter. Few people, male or female, would have considered the hassle of a trial worth it over a touched bottom. But the idea that it would not have been believed due to the awesome power of that bloke who sang Jake The Peg is laughable.

          • Emma

            I have dealt with women who have believed their partner over their children. I have dealt with adults who disclosed as children to Police officers, care workers, social workers, family members and werent believed. Taking something seriously is believing it. Many people were absolutely incredulous that someone they saw as a good person could do such a thing. So incredulous, they would say the child was a liar or confused. Not just in the 70’s, up to around now, pretty much.

          • disqus_rZ62hCrAAN

            Sadly, Emma, this is true for the most part! However it does not reflect the state of the British Justice system at this time. Allow me to relate a recent event..
            I have a friend who has been convicted! You will say ‘good’, should be! Right? This friend is a tiny woman, and her accuser a huge bear of a man, who incidentally, went to prison for many such crimes!
            She had suffered years of physical abuse at this guys hands, and was in fear for her life.
            The only evidence was against him.. But he killed himself before the trial could get to court, so she was left without a defence.
            The ONLY evidence was his accusation, and her only defence was the evidence against him, which she couldn’t use because he’d died!
            EVEN after the CPS stating, in court, that she was as much his victim as any other, she has a criminal record, and cannot continue her life as she would like!
            This is a travesty, in that she was found guilty on his word, not on ANY evidence!
            Many on here feel that this may have also happened to RH. The BJS has become “Guilty until proven innocent” in these cases. With an accusation being sufficient to gain a conviction, and destroy a persons life!
            Before you reply, ask yourself… What if it was you being accused? No proof, just my word! Would you walk free?
            Even after you’d been able to prove that I’d lied about where and when? In today’s climate?
            I’m not so sure!
            And this is what we have to guard against ni our search for the evildoers…!

      • Time Traveller

        No, it wasn’t legal then but in the early 80s, Bill Wyman was all over the front pages because he had an underage girlfriend in what was subsequently revealed to be a sexual relationship… and yet, despite the media outrage he was not prosecuted:

        Angry Harry’s point is far from ‘rubbish'; we should not be applying current mores to past events.

        • BrunaZanelli

          I believe when this witch hunt took off, Bill Wyman presented himself at police station asking if they would be wanting to speak to him. They sent him home. ( In the 80s, Wyman allegedly had an affair with a 13yr old he later married.)

      • Wakeupnow

        It is an offence for anyone in the teaching profession to engage in any relationship with a pupil 18 or under.Abuse of trust comes into that.

  • Commenting

    I do know that, if all it takes to throw out a sexual assault case is some speculative waffle about motive and memory, then no woman/man/child is safe under British Justice.

    • Murray Rothbard

      You missed the point. If there was any actual evidence then motive and memory would certainly be irrelevant. It’s only when the case is nothing more than his word against her word that motives and memory become important.

    • eric hardcastle

      It is incredible to think that most people who rarely meet a famous person, do not remember the time and details of that meeting and even more so if they were groped or assaulted.
      Yet the jury accepted the Cambridge debacle where Harris was seen to be ‘lying’ while the claimant said it happened in ’75 when it was ’78.

  • Luke

    “I believe that no *criminal* [emphasis added] charge of any sort should go to court on the basis of uncorroborated accusations…. Even more so when the accuser has a financial incentive to lie.”

    Out of interest, what about civil cases, where the claimant nearly always has a financial incentive? Of course, there is limitation and you don’t go to prison, but is that enough to allow uncorroborated evidence?

    • eric hardcastle

      I worked for nearly 20 years investigating insurance claims.
      The most shocking and obvious injuries required extraordinary proof and take years to settle.
      In fact, I found that over 50% of all insurance claims were fraudulent either deliberately or by mistake.

      I did discover that people will say and do anything no matter what the consequences, to get money.

      • Emma

        “In fact, I found that over 50% of all insurance claims were fraudulent either deliberately or by mistake.”

        You can’t commit fraud by mistake.

        • eric hardcastle

          yes easy to do. insurance claim documents are legal statements like a stat.dec. People make all sorts of incorrect or wacky claims they are not entitled. Technically they are committing a fraud as small print says but obvious mistakes never pursued just rejected,
          obvious frauds always pursued.

  • Guest

    They found child porn on his computer for fucks sake. No smoke without fire indeed.

    • eric hardcastle

      they did not. Really, you must resist the urge to believe every newspaper article otherwise you will end up thinking there is a cesspit in Ireland with 800 kiddies bodies in it.

      • Emma

        Actually, you are both wrong. You are both stating something as fact when it was ALLEGED that there were INDECENT IMAGES on his computer, though that will now not be tried in Court. Neither of you can state with absolute surety that your claim is correct.

        • Paul Robson

          Based around Police’s previous behaviour. There undoubtedly were indecent images on his computer, he had a porn stash. If you have a big enough stash the chances of there being something there that looks dodgy age-wise is high, even though it probably isn’t. It is now standard practice to confiscate computers in many cases, just as an extra lever.

          I am mystified how they know where the images come from. “Professional” sites, for want of a better word, tend to stamp their images (clip art companies do it as well, it’s not unusual) to stop people lifting their work. But in real Child Pornography (as opposed to 25 year olds dressed in school uniforms) you wouldn’t want to be identified as the source, and certainly not in English.

          • Emma

            Actually there are a number of “professionally” produced series of indecent images of children which do have watermarks of the producers on. Partly this is I think because UK level 1 images are not illegal in Russia, so your latter paragraph is incorrect.

            It is standard practice to seize electronic equipment now in abuse cases due to the proliferation of indecent images and the access to technology.

          • Claire M

            Plenty of women love older men. I do — they share more of my interests, we have more in common.

            I’ve always liked Harris. When I was small, nearly crying in pain from tight muscles due to disability, I saw him on TV – it had something wrong w/ its contrast. He was green, & he was going, “pa-a-a-vlova” in his quavery voice.

            I laughed so much I nearly wet myself, & even now (31 y/o) just thinking of it still makes me laugh. I wasn’t in pain anymore. I make up songs/draw silly things all the time even now.

            Surely Harris would’ve been jailed already if he’d done these things, famous or not. Well, he’s not exactly fashionable now, is he?? I hadn’t even thought of him for yrs till I saw him on the front page of the Sun, & my heart just sank.

            Due to said pain, depression from said disability, it’s important to seek out/think of things that cheer me up, stop me becoming maudlin, calm me down – he always did.

            & I love his speaking voice, it’s really sexy – I can’t believe I

            (1) never noticed before, when he was on tv a lot.

            (2) just wrote that sentence

            P’raps I need to get my head read too……

      • Kilbarry1

        Long story but

        NO bodies have to date been found in a septic tank in the former Mother and Babies home in Tuam;

        the tank was probably a water one not septic;

        in 1975 some children discovered skeletons (maybe 20) under a concrete flag in the same general area as the tank,;

        the Gardai (police) believe that the skeletons are from the Great Famine in the 1840s – about 100 years before the workhouse was taken over by Catholic nuns as a Mother and Babies Home.

        See discussion entitled “Tuam Babies” on the Association of Catholic Priests website (They are a dissident group and some posters are inclined to accept the atrocity stories so you can judge for yourselves)

  • Debbie

    If you agree with this article then this petition may be of interest to you – Introduce a statute of limitations for sexual offences:

  • Jon

    What about the kiddie porn found on his computer …..why have you left that out of your article ….. That’s worth ten years on its own …so if all this other stuff is made up…. 5 yrs and he’ll only do 2.5 I’d say the dirty old git has had a right touch ….

    • eric hardcastle

      they found 33 ‘suspect’ pix out of 1000s of porn photos which does not indicate a preference for child porn but probably the opposite.

      The CPS could not prove that those 33 were actually underage ie: they may have been 20 years old but looked 15 ( unlike say some Murdoch Page 3 nude pic who were under the now legal age and would see you in court if found in your possession although Brooks, Murdoch & Coulson have never paid a price for that)

      You would have rocks in your head to believe the CPS would not have charged Harris if they thought the charge could stick , certainly under the shocking “bundling” of charges unique to abuse trials. Most likely they knew they could not afford an acquittal or doubt in the juries mind on that.

      And why charge him ? you are convinced so they win anyway : make the announcement to add credence to the case, they get all the benefit of public condemnation of Harris – and then withdraw at the last moment. Job Done.

      • Paul Robson

        This is so vaguely defined in UK law ; there appears no doubt that Harris accessed pornography, which isn’t a crime. However, under UK law, a 25 year old woman dressing up as a schoolgirl, however ridiculous, counts.

        This is simply a smear.

        • Emma

          No it doesnt. It really doesnt. If it was a 25 year old dressed up as a schoolgirl, it is legal. It would, however, be for his defence team to demonstrate that, if she looked convincingly like a child.

          It does, however, indicate that he gets his kicks jerking off to pictures of kids.

          • Ian B

            No it doesn’t.

            This is the problem with the lack of any genuine analysis of sexual behaviours and interests. The schoolgirl fetish is not an interest in children. Without writing a treatise, it’s basically playing with the phase when a female becomes a young woman; hence (as with the St Trinians thing, an “acceptable” version) the “schoolgirls” all have pronounced adult female characteristics; nice legs, hips, bust, etc.

            The “paedo” interpretation of it is equivalent to saying that finding a bunny girl attractive is proof of being sexually attracted to rabbits.

  • A

    Do you still have this view now it’s come out he had 33 sexual images of children on his computer

    • eric hardcastle

      and you know these were child abuse images how?. When has the CPS not charged a person even when one provable image is found?. They charge every single time.

      • Emma

        If only…

  • eric hardcastle

    Also worth noting : under Scottish law this case could not have been brought to court as it would require corroboration from 2 witnesses.

    I also met Rolf Harrris in 1999 and spoke to him for about 2 minutes. I could so easily say he groped me during that time. The fact I was male would merely add to the media hysterics. I could remain anonymous and claim a share in the Harris fortune. I have some pretty heavy bills I need to pay.

  • Bertoss

    Not guilty, he’s just too much of a lovely man, and that’s one thing I do know. Perhaps he’s just a bit tactile. Anyways I don’t think its a good idea to compare his innocent relationship with that of Woody Allens who is a definite Peado!

    • Misty

      Someone on Mail Online likened Mr Harris to Ted Bundy!

  • Innis Garner

    You question what detail can be remembered from 8 years old ? , i was abused at 10 – 49 years ago & i remember every detail exactly !!!!

  • GB

    “victim shaming” – alive and well in 2014

  • donquixoteuk

    Interesting perspectives in both the article and the comments and certainly gives some food for thought on a number of difficult topics. It at least proves once again that life isn’t black and white, there is no definitive right or wrong, and informed debate is the way forward.
    I struggle a bit with you citing evidence based on Psychological studies as part of your argument here, and then in other blogs dismissing them. It kind of undermines your position(s).
    “It is wise to be sceptical of “scientific papers” in the field of psychology”

  • Rosie Brown

    So true, particularly the last bit and so fairly written. It’s good to hear my ‘secret’ doubts voiced. It is such a ‘nanny’ and ‘pc’ state these days, you daren’t say a thing, teachers can’t even hug children. God knows how they would all have got along in Victorian days, with mostly about 12 offspring all sharing beds, my grandmother told such stories. Have men suddenly become angelic? No. But modern awareness of course is a good thing, it’s good that men should think more about their actions. But like all changes for good, they swing too far the other way at their offset. We had no doubts whatsoever about the monster Jimmy Saville and yet we have doubts about Rolf Harris..there have to be a good reasons for this, like those you have mentioned. As you say we don’t know if he was a paedophile (an umbrella word for so many different things anyway) but I would stick my neck out (only on here) that he probably wasn’t. If he was being accused by his wife of being an adulterer, it would make a better case.There are far far worse people in this world and I do not think, as an old man, he should be jailed at all. It upsets me more that so many people love to hate.

  • MON2

    I very rarely comment on anything like this but I feel moved to comment on this occasion.
    As the article says none of us know the truth. There would appear to be a shortage of real evidence to convict, I cannot comment one way or another on the “evidence” produced but I have the utmost respect for Rolf Harris who is an icon form my youth. One aspect worried me about the description of the alleged “assaults”. Our society has moved significantly over 40 years on what is acceptable behaviour between men and women and adults and children. Some may say we have become paranoid. I am extremely concerned that we are able to prosecute actions of this nature carried out in the 1970s and 1980s based on the morals and ethics we see as being unacceptable in 2014. It was a different era with a very different moral and ethical code amongst the population as a whole. Think of the Athena Tennis Poster and the bikini clad girls on the pit straights at Grand Prix. We have based views on would that behaviour be unacceptable today – absolutely, would it have been then – probably not in the eyes of many at the time.
    Will we see in 2020 heavy smokers, who smoked in their office with other colleagues, being prosecuted for some newly named assault charge after the colleague has developed lung cancer from secondary smoking.
    I thank the author for putting forward a new perspective on the case. I personally think, obviously from a position of naivety of the facts, that this is a miscarriage of justice based on “beyond reasonable doubt” and I hope I never have to be the juror on such a case. I think the pressure currently on the jurors to be seen to do the right thing vs what the evidence does or doesn’t say is very great indeed, in cases such as this. I also feel, again from a very limited knowledge, that the sentence feels at odds with the cases of other celebrities recently cleared of offenses which were deemed more severe in respect of the alleged sexual activity.
    I wish Rolf Harris a safe and short time in prison. I will always believe these allegations are just that, not the truth.

    • Kirsty

      i think you are just inclined to be a supporter of Harris and his didgeredoo no matter what – Im not sure where you are going with your argument – on the one hand you are saying it was part of the culture back then and then you seem to be saying that the jury were under tremendous pressure to make a decision as to whether the evidence was ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ (considering which way you look at it of course) implying that it couldn’t have been possible for Harris to commit such offences???? and then you go back to saying that its not fair considering what some of the other celebs go up to. Make up your mind???
      MY FRIEND, forget about culture – it is intrinsic in our nature as human beings to know what is right and what is wrong – trespassing a person has ALWAYS be AGAINST THE LAW even from the days of issuing a tresspasser with a writ. And even although its against the law it is also in our nature as human beings and as social beings that we protect, nurture and care for one another – i never heard anyone say before that they had a gut instinct to put their fingers up a little girls skirt. Harris is a pedophile and he aint no star or icon – ask his victims. And guess what 2 celebs have now come out and made accusations about him AFTER THE CONVICTION – they obviously don’t want his money. Do you think that is beyond all reasonable doubt?????????? LOL

      • Joe Bloggs

        I think you’re just another man-hating Feminazi with an axe to grind.

      • Peoples Liberation Front

        I think the major point here is that he was convicted on hearsay, If you had a son or daughter that was convicted without real evidence I think you may have a different point of view. Plus Harris’s conviction has been politically driven by the State to purge themselves for not prosecuting Savile..

      • Hzle

        “trespassing a person has ALWAYS be AGAINST THE LAW”

        That all reminds me of Libby Purves’ assertion recently that other people’s bodies are “inviolable” – which would make it illegal to change a baby’s nappy without special dispensation from some special committee

  • zak willis

    I am not a libertarian but this has been concerning me for a while whilst I followed this case. There is a greater problem and that is in terms of what or who the CPS decides to go after and for what reason and on what evidence. I for example, had evidence that an ex-partner’s employer had many ghost companies, was using a fake identity, and was breaking many employment laws, yet nobody was interested. Indeed, the employment tribunal could not challenge him because he was not an official employer yet the police had been into his office where people were working. Then what happens – the government makes it even harder (I am self-employed but cannot see how vulnerable people are protected). The same occurs with the rental deposit system whereby people who are unfamiliar with the system cannot defend themselves against money being taken Finally, a friend of mine was nearly sectioned without a fair trial and I had to defend her so she didn’t get sectioned. So what we need to do is to understand all the near-misses, the things that don’t get prosecuted comparing the number of items that could be valid cases. Finally, when cases are successful in convicting offenders, we need to be proactively deciding whether we were correct in making these decisions. I for one cannot believe that Rolf Harris is guilty on the basis of the evidence and am sickened by the number of people saying paedophile and other such nonsense.

  • Catherine Cooper

    An excellent article. My husband and I both felt that this conviction was wrong. We have good memories of Rolf and the pleasure that he gave us and many other people over the years. He is an eighty four year old man. Where is the compassion in our country for this elderly person who has done so much good during his life? Why are the papers and the BBC deliberately making so much news from this and glorying in this man’s downfall? We abolished the death penalty in this country over fifty years ago, but I fear that Rolf or another of these elderly “criminals” is going to die because of these opportunistic women and these wrong imprisonments.

    • Misty

      What has staggered me is the profound viciousness of so many of the comments on social media and so on – comments along the lines that he should die in jail, rot in hell, be hanged or hurry up and die (preferably all of them as far as some people are concerned, I think). It’s almost as if some people are offloading their frustrations at Jimmy Savile not having been charged on to Mr Harris. The media – and some newspapers in particular – are really winding up the more rabid element of their readership. One person even compared him with Ted Bundy!

      There is also the usual thread about how he ruined his victims’ lives. For the life of me I cannot see how having your bottom patted (if it happened at all) ruins your life. It might be unwelcome and make you a bit cross, yes – or you might even not mind until years later when there is compensation being served on a plate. He’s 84 and yet people are complaining that his sentence isn’t long enough. Considering that the jury found him guilty on so little evidence (and none at all as far as the seven-year-old in Portsmouth was concerned), I hope they can sleep at night.

      • BrunaZanelli

        I totally agree with you! The vitriol aimed at Mr.Harris is abuse yet those making the most disgusting noises are supposedly against abuse. I have known Rolf for 40plus years, I have accompanied him on gigs, etc. seen him with children of all ages, and have NEVER witnessed any inappropriate touching. Yes, he hugs people but he is not a ‘sinister’ pervert. He is gentle and mild mannered and p’haps we should be looking at the jury. If as has been mentioned here, some couldnt understand English- that might account for the questions they kept asking. Why were they chosen as jurors in the first place! ANd would followers of Sharia Law really accept our laws? So many questions …

        • Ian B

          This is actually another interesting issue. In some areas of Britain, demographics have radically changed in the years since “historic” offences are claimed to have occurred. A jury is meant to be a jury of peers, but nowadays the people comprising one are significantly different to the peer group who would have judged the case had it been tried at the time.

          Even if it is the same ethnic/national demographic, it’s different generations who, for instance, simply won’t have personal memories of the pre-political correctness world the offences took place in. All of course is why statutes of limitations are a good idea.

        • Misty

          Another person on here (Chris Brosnan) made the same point about having known Mr Harris personally for many years and in all that time never having witnessed any inappropriate behaviour towards children. That, of course, prompted a sadly predictable comment that paedophiles are adept at hiding their behaviour. Sometimes it doesn’t occur to people that people appear normal because … they ARE normal.

          I too have wondered about the jury. The length of time that they took to reach a verdict suggests to me that some of them had trouble understanding what was going on and/or at least one had doubts about the evidence (or lack of it) and caved in to get it over and done with. The whole concept of the jury system revolves around being tried by one’s peers, but of course this no longer applies in practice. I wonder if this one understood ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, to be honest.

  • Moor Larkin

    The Cambridge business was fascinating. During the ratcheting up of the Savile Revelations back in 2012, Freddie Starr was accused of various things in the press. he immediately came out and denied ever being on a TV show with Savile. About a week later Ch4 came up with BBC footage of him on that very show, with the female making the accusations right behind him in the shot. It completely undermined him in the eyes of the public instantly.

    It seems this technique has been transplanted into the courtroom during a “live” case. The fact that Harris had done that show would be obvious to anyone doing a little research. That his defence did not do so indicates how lazy lawyers can be, especially the highly-paid ones. The whole process also indicates the way these celebrity trials in the UK are being stage-managed by the legal establishment and the media. I doubt Stalin could have done it any better.

    • Paul Robson

      It’s the inconsistency ; if Harris (or Starr) makes a mistake, and the pair of them must have been on countless TV shows, then it somehow proves they are liars.

      However, any errors in the prosecution claims, however laughably implausible, crass or contradictory are simply wished away or circumvented (most famously in the case of Anver Sheikh), “it was such a long time ago”. Plus they are often given umpteen attempts to get their story straight.

      • Moor Larkin

        The woman who contacted the court is a reporter: Karen Gardner. She was at these shows as a 16 year-old she said. She’s given interviews since and my understanding is that in one she told the story of Harris touching her inside thigh, but in another she described him reaching round and cupping her breast. She wasn’t a court witness however.

  • Rosie Brown

    I sincerely pray that Rolf Harris will read all this support.

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris guilty of indecent assaults - Page 13 - CaptiveBred Reptile Forums, Reptile Classified, Forum()

  • Andrew Griffiths

    It was very troubling to see how quick The BBC in particular were to turn on him. On the evening of his verdict BBC News screened David Sillito’s disgusting and salacious report twice in 10 minutes at 7pm. Early evening and two showings of a report that spoke of “invasive hands” reaching under clothing and resting in “private places” – even the BBC has turned tabloid over this. There has been no scrutiny of the legal process or discussion about the length of time that has passed since the events of these remembrances before labelling him a monster, no doubt to draw attention away from cases reported on BBC property.

  • David J

    On that dissection of the evidence – not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, not guilty

    • Emma

      You are confusing the word “evidence” with “media stories”.

      • Paul Robson

        This is the first attempt I’ve seen to actually analyse what Harris was accused of. If you look at other cases ; Travis, Roache, Lancel, this seems to be the pattern – anything goes mud slinging.

        • Emma

          Roache was found not guilty. As was Travis, so far.

          • Paul Robson

            Firstly, there’s an enormous amount of luck. Basically not getting the sort of people who say ‘oh he had child porn’.

            Secondly, the claims were, bluntly, laughable.

            Thirdly, it cost them a fortune get a defence. They could of course have had the office tea boy defending them against a QC , for free.

          • Misty

            Mr Roache had a different jury. Maybe if Mr Harris had had Mr Roache’s jury he would have been found not guilty too. But we’re not supposed to point that out, are we? Basically there’s an element of luck as to who you get on a jury whether you’ve done the deed or not. Bear in mind, too, that Mr Harris’s defence counsel was unavailable at a critical time (it beggars belief, but there you go) so the summing up was done by a more junior member of the defence team, to the prosecution’s advantage.

          • Moor Larkin

            Preston vs Southwark?
            Southwark is the only place to convict so far.

            I think Harris’ verdict surprises me less than Hall’s second round of Not Guilties. That was quite stunning.

          • Paul Robson

            Well, AFAIK Hall agreed a deal and was then XXXXed over ; either that or his original team were utterly useless.

          • Emma

            Hall agreed a deal to prevent him being tried for rape. He pleaded guilty to the indecent assaults knowing that a rape conviction would mean prison for the rest of his life.

            The other charges had nothing to do with his plea bargain.

          • eric hardcastle

            there is every chance Hall pleaded guilty thinking he would get a lesser sentence and remember- the exact same tactic used aganst Harris was used with Hall: a very serious rape charge not included in that court case against Hall was not proceeded with and then dropped upon conviction.

            This is US style ‘pleas bargaining’ via a back door where almost every person charged in the USA cops a much smaller pleas when numerous charges are piled on and then dropped.

          • eric hardcastle

            you are nitpicking to the nth degree

            We all know they were found not guilty, But Yewtree witch hunt tactics still prevail.
            Evidenced by a ‘climate’ of abuse, high profile ‘celebs’ escaping justice, alleged conspiracies with Tory pedo rings : it seeps into the public conciousness from which a jury is drawn.

            A real crime : a jury is meant to be “of their peers” so the jury should be made of Harris peers- aging celebrities who know you cannot remember one gig, town or hotel from another, night after night, week after week rather than the general public.

            As opposed to a claimant who probable meets one celebrity in their entire life and amazingly, forgets that meeting with a 3 year time difference even after that celeb supposedly goosed them.

          • Jonathan Mason

            It seems that a defendant ought to choose to be tried at Preston crown court and not at Southwark. Perhaps Lancashire has more intelligent people on benefits.

  • Paul Brien

    What about the 33 child porn pictures found on his PC

    • Paul Robson

      UK definition of child porn includes 30 year olds in schoolgirl outfits. Appears to have been part of a large collection which anything that fits the above is viewed as ‘suspicious’. If it was actual child porn as most people think it would have been used ; it’s a smear.

      • Emma

        How do you know this? Did you view the images? Did you send them to him? You appear to have insider knowledge.

        • Ian B

          We know that the police didn’t prosecute over the pictures and the prosecution didn’t bring them forward as evidence. We know what the law is and we know how the police operate.

          Part of the problem is the absurdity that such imagery is now treated as radioactive such that only a few licensed persons can view it. This means an essential part of public oversight of the legal process is missing. We are left with such vagueness as “found some images” without any description. Even with a description, we can be misled.

          “The accused had a picture of schoolgirls dressed and posed in a sexually provocative manner” could be used to describe a movie memorabilia collector who has a St Trinnians poster, as an example. The problem is that we are forced to rely on the police being reasonable, when we know that the type of people involved in vice prosecution tend to be crusader type people who are the least like to being cautious and reasonable.

          • Paul Robson

            It’s perhaps more the case that they want to deflect people actually looking at the evidence. Which is perhaps not surprising.

          • Misty

            I thought that too, Paul. With regard to song lyrics, I wonder if the abuse industry has got its teeth into this one yet:

          • Emma

            You are wrong on pretty much all counts. The CPS charged Harris with the image offences. His defence drew up the argument about them being over 18 and wanting time to travel to the Ukraine and track the girls/women down. That would have delayed the trial extensively, so the image offences were split from the contact offences. That’s what the defence wanted, as they didnt want the image offences – the tangible evidence – to conflate the his-word-against-hers evidence. The prosecution wanted to use the images to show that the abuse is in his nature.

            The original plan was that the images offences would have been tried after the contact offences.

            As it happened, Harris was found guilty and sentenced for the contact offences far beyond what he was likely to have been sentenced for image offences. Courts view contact abuse as more serious than possession of indecent images (downloading them is classified as possession when it comes to sentencing) and, as the images as described would be level 1 in the old sentencing guidelines or level C in the new ones, he would be unlikely to receive a custodial sentence for the image offences alone.

            As such, the CPS in now applying the charging tests about whether there would be a good chance of a successful outcome and whether the trial would be in the public interest, would not be able to answer the latter of those questions in the affirmative. The expense of prosecuting for possession of those images would not be in the public interest as it will not increase any sentence Harris would receive.

            With regards to your point about “a few licensed people” being able to view child abuse images, it has nothing to do with licensing as to whether people are able to view child abuse images. It can clearly not be the case that the public would be able to have a look to make up their own mind, but those involved in the investigation, the Court process, including jurors if necessary, would be able to view it. They are the people that NEED to do so, everyone else needs to accept that they arent going to and DO NOT NEED TO.

            Your comment about the St Trinians poster is an interesting point. In my last job, I received a report about a facebook page called St Trinians where the starting point was celebrating all things schoolgirly. It quickly became a page where risque photos of schoolgirls (i.e. children in their school uniform) were being posted. If you are into adults posing at children, there is a very fine line between that and the children themselves being the point of focus.

          • Ian B

            Public oversight of the legal process is essential to stop it going off the rails. The whole point of our trials being public affairs is to prevent the evidence being secluded to a few “need to know” people, because the “need to know” people can then pervert justice without us knowing they are doing it. Which seems to be happening in this case.

            If the imagery was such as you describe, then it is pretty obvious to anyone with experience and knowledge with porn (yes, that includes me) that these were just standard image sets of the normal kind. If a girl’s age status- just by looking at the images- is controversial (in the minds of Plod) then she’s in the adult zone, not the child zone. It is basically proof that they are not child porn, even if Plod hopes that one of the girls is 17.

            This is the classic and basic problem created by evangelical paedohunters, who have deliberately confused childhood, a biological status, with minority, a legal one. This has been done for obviously malignant reasons; the paedohunters want as many men as possible entrapped, rather than to create a just outcome.

            St Trinians is in fact a classic example of the blindness to sexuality that the paedohunters suffer from. They have no actual model of human sexuality, just a crusade. The whole reason the Trinians girls are sexy is that they represent a stage of young womanhood- TnA to be crude- not childhood, which is the absence of TnA. Thus a pulchritudinous young woman in a schoolgirl outfit represents that zone of age where she has become (biologically) sexually attractive, not paedophilia, which is an attraction to the absence of secondary sexual characteristics.

            Which besides all else is why a man who has become attracted to a teenager because she has developed her womanly attributes is not part of a paedophile pattern; and why the seven year old in this case becomes such a suspicious outlier. People used to understand this. We’ve actually regressed in terms of the understanding of sexual development. I refer you to Neil Sedaka–


            As another example, Traci Lords did porn from age 16 (which btw was legal in the UK until 2003 and the malignant Sexual Offences Act). 18 being the age in the USA, she used a fake ID. Once her age was revealed, all her performances mutated into “child porn”. But the reason she was in those movies was that she had a woman’s body (TnA) and thus the men who watched her movies were not exhibiting paedophile behaviour, and did not suddenly turn into paedophiles overnight when it turned out she was 16 or 17.

            Legal minority is not childhood. Whatever else Rolf Harris may be, only that one bizarre claim from a superannuated seven year old is “paedophile” and that’s why it sticks out like a sore thumb.

          • eric hardcastle

            you are ignoring reality : the CPS would have been happy fro the porn case to be deferred as any doubt if tried at the same time as other charges would lead to doubt on them all.
            CPS play to win not always to present truth.

        • Paul Robson

          No, anyone who has looked at things like Operation Ore knows how these things work. This has been a problem for years, things being classified as such because the Police wish it so – the classic example was Julia Somerville, a newsreader who I believed photographed her 18 month old child in the bath.

          Look at it backwards. Let’s suppose Harris had Child Porn pictures, of the sort that you meant to think. Do you really think it is plausible that this wouldn’t be used ?

          Harris has a collection of porn, undoubtedly, this is not uncommon or illegal. Out of those the Police will filter out the ones where the girls might be 18-21ish, or have pigtails or similar.

          It’s a smear ; like your last two lines is an attempted smear.

          • Emma

            I have looked at Operation Ore. It was based upon people paying for child abuse images using their credit card, from an American website using an adult pornography website as a front.

            The problem with Operation Ore was that it was on such a massive scale and there was nothing set up to be able to understand or deal with it. Not that they prosecuted people.

            I have explained below why Harris’ indecent images charges are no longer being pursued.

            And It is not a smear. Calling you a paedophile apologist would be a smea. But I wouldnt do that.

          • Paul Robson

            Your inability to understand the basics is astonishing. The problem with Ore is that the Police ignored obvious evidence of fraud.

            I don’t believe your claim. I do not know the history of the claim against Harris, but everything else you post is bizarrely lopsided.

            Your posts are littered with smears.

            ‘Rape apologist’ is a smear used by the lazy and simple minded who do not want to look at the evidence at all, but adopt a default position of belief.

            In even the most simple minded thinkers there must be some questions. Do the financial things – the blackmail reported in 2012, or the selling the story in the papers not bother you at all ?

            Or are you so gullible and naive you believe people won’t lie for money ?

          • Emma

            “The problem with Ore is that the Police ignored obvious evidence of fraud.”

            I don’t buy that at all, however even were that the case, that defence has been fairly well used in cases of actual fraud. The CJS consists of more than simply the police saying something, there is also the right to reply and the right to be tried, all of which present opportunities for contesting any such evidence.

            “I don’t believe your claim.”

            What claim did I make?

            “‘Rape apologist’ is a smear used by the lazy and simple minded who do not want to look at the evidence at all, but adopt a default position of belief.”

            Like this? “It is the Child Protection Industry racket again. All these people claim to care about children ; none of them do.” Is that a default position of belief or is that different because you said it?

            As for my posts being littered with smears, I think you are referring to insults, such as “simple minded” “lazy and simple minded” “gullible and naive” “Your inability to understand the basics is astonishing” “You haven’t got a clue”?

            I am fully aware that people lie for money. I am also aware that people lie to protect their assets when they have done things they shouldnt.

            Are you so gullible and naive that you believe popular people cant be abusers?

          • Paul Robson

            I’d refer you to Duncan Campbell’s work which shows actual sections of the database with clear fraud, but I doubt you could understand it or would want to.

            Smear is when you say people have viewed child porn or are rape apologists. The aim of the smear is to say something like “well you must be one too” (pretty much a given in your CP comment) or alternatively you support child abuse (rape apologists).

            Insults is saying someone is stupid or lazy. Mind you mine are arguably true (or false), yours “cock” “f**king moron” are simple plain abuse.

            Good for you being aware that people lie for money. I doubt anyone would lie simply to protect their money, they mainly would lie to avoid going to jail. You apparently don’t accept that asking somebody for £25k at the same time as threatening to go to the tabloids isn’t blackmail, so there’s still a long way to go yet.

            Yes, popular people can be abusers. Does Rolf Harris really count as popular ? They seem to be old more than anything !

            And yes, my experience over many years is that people who shout loudly in public about how much they love children and how everything they do is for little kiddies, invariably do not give a stuff about them and are after political power, funding, or rent seeking. People who do want to help difficult children just do it. The claim “I am doing this for children” usually actually means “don’t you dare question my motives or actions”.

            Sadly, I have yet to find any exception to this.

          • Paul Robson

            Just to add, in Operation Ore, the police used the credit card list like a list to prosecute, unlike every other country in the world. So if your CC was on that list, you were guilty, basically.

            The odd thing is that the ‘publisher’ who got slaughtered in the US courts was neither the publisher, and nor was most of the material CP. Landslide worked like a gateway ; more of a web host (specialising in porn) than anything else, the purpose was to provide a billing and locking system. Fraudsters (mainly in Indonesia I think ?) used the card recharging system as a way of extracting money from stolen credit cards.

            Finally, most of the ‘CP’ is actually suggestive names, there was, apparently, very few images. This isn’t surprising. To run a CP site and to make money from it, you need a country in which the rule of law is very weak and/or corrupt. If you started a site selling CP in the UK or US it would be closed down in minutes and you’d be in jail not long after.

            Most of it is passed around in small closed groups, I think, and most of it is recycled old stuff from days gone by when some countries were much less strict. We had this in the UK, I am old enough to remember the Sun ‘counting down’ to girls 16th birthdays so they could go on Page three.

          • eric hardcastle

            you may not ‘buy it’ but iI’s fact and there were numerous highly publicised cases where doors were smashed in , inflammatory claims made and names dragged through the media and many quietly dropped. Lives ruined.
            Mot unlike Harris in the ‘porn’ matter/

          • Paul Robson

            Oh and I forgot your nasty little smear

            “Did you view the images? Did you send them to him? You appear to have insider knowledge.”

          • Emma

            That’s sarcasm, not a smear, you utter fucking moron.

          • Paul Robson

            So “rape apologist” is a smear ?

            I am guessing “cock” and “utter f**king moron” are, just as a wild guess.

            Note to mods : please do not delete Emma’s posting on my account, though I appreciate you may do so anyway.

          • Emma

            Cock was most definitely an insult, for which I apologised and which I retracted. Utter fucking moron is a simple observation.

          • Paul Robson

            Odd really, as the first is partially accurate, and the second only makes sense without the first word, and then implies I am having sex with people who aren’t very bright.

            Am I supposed to be impressed ?

          • Ian B

            I have looked at Operation Ore. It was based upon people paying for child abuse images using their credit card, from an American website using an adult pornography website as a front.

            This is completely wrong. Very few people understand it, who dont know about the early adult industry on the net. Operation Ore centered around an “AVS” system. AVS stood for “Adult Verification Service”. These were a phase in the adult industry in which a website operated as a gateway; you signed up to 1 website (the AVS) and it gave access to thousands of other websites.

            These thousands of other websites were invariably crap; just a couple of small galleries of images plastered with adverts, designed to get you to “upsell” to a proper subscription website. So really, it was like paying for an unlimited cinema pass, only to find that the cinemas you got access to were all showing adverts and selling tickets to proper cinemas. Anyway, it was one marketing model during Web 1.0.

            The AVS was easy for webmasters to sign up to. I was briefly a webmaster member of one (I draw and sell adult comics) but decided to leave because it was all rather crap and I thought it was bad for my image as selling “quality product”.

            So, a small number of the thousands of websites signed up to the Landslide AVS were purportedly galleries of kiddie porn. Whether they really were or not is still debated; there is evidence that their webmasters were using them to launder credit cards and they weren’t even supplying any content.

            But even if they were, the average punter signing up for the AVS had no idea what was in every one of the thousands of galleries. But it was assumed by Ore that any customer with a Landslide account was viewing those galleries. This was deliberately dishonest. To go back to my “cinema pass” analogy; it is as if some tiny number of the free cinemas are showing kiddie porn films. You signed up for a general cinema pass. You have no idea that those cinemas exist.

            So thousands of innocent people who were just looking for ordinary porn- including many who had had their credit card numbers stolen and laundered by the webmasters with Landslide AVS sites- were declared to be paedophiles looking for child pornography, even though they were not.

            I hope that was clear. It’s a bit confangled to understand unless you remember the days of the AVS model and were involved with it (either as a webmaster or customer).

          • eric hardcastle

            no-one prosecuted in Ore? 100s were and a lot committed suicide despite genuine credit cars fraud being produced .
            See Duncan Campbell who presented evidence in the Lords (ignored by zealot Jim Gamble) of such obvious cases of fraud ie : a customer being charged 5 times a day for weeks fro the same website before their card was cancelled.
            100s of lives ruined.

          • John

            The scale for indecent images is defined and clear. The only smear is from you implying police agenda decides what will be used and what won’t. Not to mention a total lack of quality thinking from your part. Causality and casual connections to reach the conclusions you wish to make. There’s nothing worse than someone who thinks they are intelligent.

          • Paul Robson

            The prosecutor of Harris does not apparently agree with you.

            “The images look like they are extremely young girls, some as young as 13.The fact that they may be over 18 but have the appearance of very young girls is irrelevant”

            So ‘child porn’ as defined from this does not, as you well know, necessarily involve children (e.g. the under 18s), it is a subjective opinion as to whether someone may be under 18 or not.

          • Emma

            whats the source of your quote?

          • Paul Robson

            It was in the Telegraph and the Guardian. It’s a direct quote from the prosecutor who is called Sarah Wass (sic ?)

          • Emma

            Sasha Wass…yes I see it now and you – and the Telegraph take it out of context a little. She did say the words attributed to her but she also said some more which was along the lines that they wanted to show that he was LOOKING FOR indecent images of children. Using this fact in the case as a whole would have built up a pattern which shows Harris has a sexual interest of children and therefore his defence of “I could never do such a thing” is a pile of old cack.

    • Ian B

      The police haven’t prosecuted on them. The claim is “not in the public interest” but a reasonable assumption is that they are not actually child porn. Apparently he had, like many men, a large collection of thousands of porn pics on his computer. If some small number are declared kiddie porn by Plod, that almost certianly means they’ve trawled through looking for any they think they can convince a jury look underage. This is routine these days. The small number is the giveaway.

      • Paul Robson

        It’s basically meant to convince those who don’t think too hard that he’s a paedo.

        Look at it this way – if they had real evidence, do you not think it would be used, especially given the paucity of the rest of it ?

        • eric hardcastle

          of course it’s a smear and that should worry people more but they seem more concerned to ‘prove’ the claim is true.

          Even more worrying is that a high profile barrister , Felicity Gerry QC is now questioning why in the Harris sentencing other claims of abuse were not taken into account- those who said they had been abused but were not subject of charges.

          In effect she is demanding Harris be punished for unproven claims that are not subject to court scrutiny.

          So the goal posts are being moved ever so slowly so that defendants are in an insidious position with claimants & prosecution being given extra advantage. If Sir Keir Starmer enters Parliament he and his zealots will move them further given Labour’s recent history of adding 100s of extra crimes to the books.

          It may be that sensational abuse claims are indeed, a Trojan Horse for repressive laws.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      You have some evidence of this? Hm?

  • Ian B

    One thing here is that, basically, the essential principle of corpus delicti- that to be tried for a crime, it must be shown that the crime actually occurred- has for sex cases basically been thrown out the window. So it all descends to who gives the most compelling testimony in court. With trauma narratives developed by therapists and disseminated in the popular media now widespread, with the deliberate theatricality of the defendant isolated like a caged animal behind glass(!) and the accuser weeping behind a curtain, with the natural tendency to be more sympathetic to women and children than men and the fear of acquitting a “predator”, the deck is obviously stacked.

    It would be as accurate in discerning the truth to go back to throwing people in a lake to see if they sink or not.

  • Maxadolf

    It may well be that Harris undermined his good name with acts of indiscretion. But the elephant in the room is the knowledge that Westminster Village has for years practised pedophilea and got away with it. I recall Thatcher’s threat in the Commons that if any paper published the name(s) of anyone in here Cabinet as being a pedophile then they would be subject to legal recourse by the Government. Thatcher took the initiative to prevent a repeat of MacMillan’s embarrassment and resignation to and by her, following the Profumo scandal. That cover up seems to me to exceed the alleged Harris transgressions by a quantum leap. One or more of these pedophiles is still alive. Will any meaningful action be taken against these people? Well, don’t hold your breath!

    • Emma

      I think the issue is that the celebrities dont have the protection that the government officials have had. That’s why they are now being held to account for their abuse. Hopefully the tide has turned far enough for those in Government – and I know there are some – to also be held to account.

      • Paul Robson

        It is the Child Protection Industry racket again. All these people claim to care about children ; none of them do.

  • Heidi Loxley

    Excellent website!!! Finally some sense!!!

  • quatermass

    Thanks for this article.
    As a married man of 53 years, I’ve been a fan of Rolf for decades.
    I wasn’t at the trial or read much about it. I also have a current PVG certificate as I work with children occasionally.

    But I remember growing up in the 60s-80s and witnessed guys in a position of power at work ‘touching’ women inappropriately and wondering why they never reported the man even when 20-30 women in the room saw him doing it!
    There seemed to be this aura of acceptance made by women – Some men did this and women had to put up with it type of thing. I’d ask them why they’d never report the groper and I’d get a nervous, unsure answer that they didn’t want to make a fuss. Was it fear? I don’t know. They just didn’t report these things. So maybe Rolf did do this, I’m in no position to know.

    Yes men find young pubescent women attractive. Yes, even at my age. Evolution did that not society or culture.
    Most of us just smile and carry on with whatever when we see a pretty girl. But I guess some take it further if they think it’s ‘acceptable’ in their circles. Sid James virtually made a career of groaning at pretty girls walking by. It was that kind of attitude.
    Guys still comment when in others guys company on women’s appearance. You can’t change millions of years of instinct. But we don’t act upon it, of course we don’t! If some guy does act upon it, I hope the psychology experts find out why. Something odd must have happened to that man and his upbringing. Let’s find out and fix it?

    As to remembering an event 10+ years afterwards. Forget it. Memory is terribly bad at bending out of shape over the years and can’t be the only evidence. Just because a victim says they were at X and the event happened at Y. That doesn’t mean the event didn’t happen as obviously something did.

    This type of case is always going to be full of potholes of bad memories, financial gain, etc. So unless the victim can prove they told someone at or near the time then there has to be reasonable doubt as we’re just not capable of recalling shock events decades later I think.

    No doubt there will be other men in positions of status who are having sleepless nights right now. I hope their victims come forward and show the country that we’ve grown up a little and now show women more respect than my previous generation ever did!
    Things can only get better for women.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      When I was a young man it was common for women to grab my “family jewels” in bars and clubs. So why are these women not prosecuted for such “crimes” hhmm?

      Women saw women do things like grab me by the balls…

      Indeed, women condone perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse in the family courts. 99.9%+ of women condone these crimes.

      And yet all you can talk about is how some men touch women “inappropriately” and wonder why they are not reported?

      Why do you hate men so much?

      • quatermass

        Eh? I don’t hate men.

        When I was a young man in the 80s we all treated women with respect and courtesy. I’ve never been or heard of a place in Scotland (where I live) where women grope men!

        I have heard of women nights out where they have a male stripper, where women get a bit OTT. But that’s just hearsay and gossip.

        I was in pubs and clubs every weekend back then and even met my wife now of 29 years married in a club.

        Peter you must have had a odd upbringing to think women routinely grope men in bars and clubs. Very bizarre that seems to me..

        • PeterAndrewNolan

          “Peter you must have had a odd upbringing to think women routinely grope men in bars and clubs. Very bizarre that seems to me..”

          Well, in Sydney, in 1986, it was standard. It did not matter what bar you went to. As a strapping lad of 22 as I was at the time I would be groped every time I went to the bar to buy drinks….as were my mates who were as well built as me. The dweebs were let alone. I am 6 feet one inch and as a 22 year old I was a bit of a “looker”. Even today I am often picked as 10 years younger than my 50 years of age. I seemed to have been blessed with a young complexion.

          Indeed, it is so standard that women grope men that a woman recently groped David Beckam when he was giving a press conference and that was called a “joke”. Just google it.

          So. If you think that is seems “bizarre” that a female reporter would grope David Beckams penis in the middle of a press conference in the full expectation that she would suffer no penalty, which she didn’t, then it is you who is in denial. Right?

          After all? A press conference has a whole lot of cameras around and men do not come much more famous than David Beckham, right? So why was it ok for this woman to grope his penis? Why was it a “joke”? And if it is ok for a woman to grope David Beckhams penis in the middle of a press conference why is it not ok to grope a womans breasts. That’s about the same thing, right?

          “Eh? I don’t hate men.”

          Really? Tell me. What have you done to correct the situation that men in Scotland are treated like 4th class citizens behind women, children and STRAY DOGS when it comes to the protection of the law?

          What have you done to ensure that women who routinely commit the crimes of perjury, kidnapping, extortion, theft and child abuse in Scotland are held to account for these crimes?

          What have you done to help the many tens of thousands of Scottish men who have been criminally victimised by women in the family courts?

          If the answer is “nothing”? I assert you are a man hater….and I have a better than 99%+ chance of being correct in assuming you have done nothing.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      “Things can only get better for women.”

      Things are going to get MUCH WORSE for women in the west and I am one of the prime movers for this to happen. Women are going to be held equal before the law. One of the worst possible things that could have ever happened to women. But they have criminally victimised me and tens of millions of other men and they deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

      And women are so pathetic that they resort to censorship rather than face the truth. Western women are DEEPLY EVIL PEOPLE. And that is what I tell every young man I meet online and in person. I give them copies of my book The Truth Be Told.

      On reading my book some young lads have cancelled their engagements. Some young lads have left their lying, hypocritical christian churches.

      And if you think young men are going to pay taxes for pensions for the likes of man haters like you? Think again. They will give you your demise pill and point you to the cemetery. They are not going to pay for the men who betrayed their futures….of this you can be sure.

      Young men have figured out how much older men like you HATE THEM and how you have betrayed them by supporting women in the family courts and supporting women with criminal legislation.

      The future is very bleak for men over 40 in the UK…Scotland or otherwise. Your young men are waking up to your betrayal of their future.

  • John Smith

    Were you at the trial? Have you seen all the evidence? I didn’t think so. Anyone who has any experience in law knows you need to see the whole picture and details to make accurate conclusions. These are the fundamentals of rational and critical thinking in any specialist area.

    I like the “subtle” way you equate previous “not guilty” verdicts = “false accusers” – ignoring the possibility that the victims were telling the truth but the evidence didn’t meet the threshold.

    Of course doing so conveniently side-steps the glaring contradiction in your melodramatic conclusion; “No Man is safe under British justice” – because it’s easy to obtain evidentially weak sexual offence convictions, yet all the names you mentioned and examples you gave were not guilty verdict. It wasn’t so easy in those circumstances, was it?

    • Paul Robson

      The claims made against Roache and LeVell were supported by nothing at all. The threshold for putting evidence forward seems very low.

      Many people aren’t lying exactly, there’s a huge amount of delusion involved, and of course money.

      The other people are largely screwed anyway, as they have to pay for their own defences, or have a state provided Office boy versus a QC.

      It really depends if the jury is dumb enough to not pick up the basic flaw in the similar fact argument.

      • Paul Robson

        Response to John Smith, below, it seems to think his post is not active.

        Nope, the CPS will apparently prosecute on ‘I can’t remember it, but I think it happened’ (Roache) or the unsubstantiated allegation of one female who makes the abuser (LeVell) sound remarkably American. The test is very low. The reason for this is the change to Similar Fact in the late 1990s which encouraged mudslinging. I refer you to Anver Sheikh where the complainants changed their story because they had to have been fabricating, and the Police and CPS colluded in this.

        Half time things are almost never stopped, are they ? Incredibly weak evidence is almost never stopped (though actions against Police officers when paperwork magically vanishes are).

        There will be no appeal, because there is no alteration in fact, because there is no real fact. A says something, B says something else, Jury picks A or B. These sorts of confessions do not generally fit the appeal pattern, unless someone actually admits lying which does happen, but rarely.

        The probabilities are just made up. You have no idea whether that is true or not.

        I presume you are paid to do this and John Smith is not your real name.

        • John Smith

          You’re happy to disregard the parts that don’t suit your argument in a base-less manner. “Half time things are almost never stopped” – Yes, because the CPS apply their threshold test correctly to filter wholly unrealistic prosecutions. Yet you disregard this working systematic cause and effect because it doesn’t suit you.

          Where you there? Did you hear all the evidence? Do you know what evidence the CPS had to make the prosecution judgement? Have you seen the pre-disclosure file?

          The answer, I assume, is all no.

          Most convictions are safe. The base-rates are therefore in favour of this one being, too.

          • Margaret Jervis

            Most convictions are safe. Probably. But that doesn’t mean that there are not some categories of cases where there may be a disproportionate number of unsafe convictions. And that these cases are, by their very nature of relying on retrospective oral testimony, very difficult to appeal. The CCRC has a vastly disproportionate number of sexual offence applications (around 42 percent of total I think) compared to overall convictions (I can’t remember the figure – 17 percent? there is some research on this) – and they are in the same quandary as the Court of Appeal primary applicants – no fresh evidence therefore unlikely to be referred. The rules of evidence and judges directions are now so skewed in favour of the prosecution that what is unusual is the number of recent acquittals in multi-complainant cases. You may say well ex offenders are devious people who never admit their offences – but actually there is no reliable evidence to support this – prior to the ‘cultural revolution’ in the 80s and onwards sex offenders had the highest rate of admissions among all suspect offenders – around 90% as opposed to a mean of about 50 – 60 of aggregated offences and this figure of admission was replicated across sex offence types. So the presumption of ‘denial’ is not only unsubstantiated, but there is rather a greater probability of a presumption of admission by genuine sex offenders.

          • Ying Le

            Anybody that thinks the convictions are safe is nothing but a brainwashed fool. The government would kill you if it was convenient to it. Nobody is safe. They are reading your emails and listening to your phone calls. Snowden is a hero and he showed us the truth. It would not surprise me at all if government spies plant child porn on political enemies computers too. Nobody is safe. If you can make it to age 84 without being destroyed by the government you’re just lucky.

      • John Smith

        Why do my posts keep getting deleted?

        The jury heard all the evidence. You didn’t. The CPS must satisfy the full test code to prosecute.

        Harris’s legal team were top quality. The defence may make an application at ‘half time’ if the prosecution evidence is so weak to halt the trial. They didn’t. Did they miss that? Did the Judge miss it, too?

        An appeal will remove a jury. Aren’t Harris’s legal team capable of assessing whether or not this conviction, for some reason, is unsafe and undertake an appeal?

        The base rates / prior probabilities are that the convictions are safe. Specific information is needed to move from those. Superficial media information that the article is based on does not amount to that.

        • Ian B

          So far I’ve seen multiple copies of this comment under the names Emma and Misty. Something odd is goiing on with the thread.

          • John Smith

            That’s not me.

          • Emma

            I think the blog software is freaking out.

        • Jonathan Mason

          “Harris’s legal team were top quality.”

          It didn’t seem to me that they did a very good job. The “I was never in Cambridge or Portsmouth, so prove it” defense may b have seemed remarkable simple and elegant, except that they should have figured out that half the time Harris didn’t know WHERE the heck he was. One can only conclude that the jury believed that because he lied or forgot about Cambridge, then the same applied to Portsmouth.

          They did a lousy job of pulling apart the contradictions in the prosecution witness testimony, both in cross examination and in the final summing up–in which the lead counsel was missing because of illness and a junior had to fill in.

      • Paul Robson

        I have no idea John. I have not complained, honest. I can see no legal reason why your post should be blocked. I don’t agree with you at all but you are not offensive. Emma is far more offensive and her posts have not been blocked.

        They keep appearing and then disappearing. I have three copies of your post beginning “The Jury heard all the evidence. You didn’t”

        • Paul Robson

          Note: could you be posting from a blocked ISP ?

    • HATE YA

      Looks like ‘John Smith’ is another mindless true believer in the God of
      Government. Enjoy your blissful ignorance you fool. The rest of us will
      be living in the real world where government can cage 84 year old men
      who have done nothing but be libertines by having an 11 year affair with
      a friend of their daughter from age 18 to 29. He’s in a fucking cage
      tonight, like a dangerous ape in a zoo. Where is the evidence this man
      is a violent criminal?

  • Buffy

    On this ‘evidence’ every girl or woman who worked in an office or factory in the 60s 70s or 80s would probably be able to make a case for abuse – it was almost impossible to walk through the office without receiving a pat on the bottom or at the very least a comment about your figure or what you were wearing, we accepted the banter, took it in our stride and grew stronger for it – that doesn’t make it right but it hardly made them sexual predators, times have changed, thankfully, many things happened back then are unthinkable now. Bindi’s ‘friend’ could not have been that traumatised to later go on and have a full blow relationship for several years and then try to extort money out of him because of it. It’s a sad day for British Justice when someone can be convicted and jailed on what seems to be no evidence at all

  • False Accusers Kill Yourselves

    Harris got railroaded. Total miscarriage of ‘justice’. There is no ‘justice’ in the UK anymore, hasn’t been for years. Harris should have got on a boat across the channel to France, where as an innocent man, he’d be able to have the same protection as a guilty man, Roman Polanski, who actually sodomized a young teen and is a very disgusting individual and a coward from justice. Rolf was never going to get any justice in the UK, and had a case for legitimate political asylum. And why not run? What’s to lose? You lose your reputation the second these allegations are made in Witch Hunt UK so there was never any chance of defending his honor. Maybe he’s just old and found out the hard way, that he was wrong to have a shred of faith in the British state. If not France, some other country, whatever, just get out of this corrupt mass hysteria infected lynching ‘justice’ system.

    Anybody who is interested in the case for Jimmy Savile’s innocence, is encouraged to spend the eight hours it takes to read the compelling and painstaking research at

    I wasn’t convinced until I read all of jim cannot fix this, I am now, we live in a bizarre witch hunt world. Jimmy Savile was a manchild with a hugely domineering mother that he had very profoundly confused feelings about and he was an emotional cripple that couldn’t date women, he might have fucked a few, but certainly not 13 year old girls and certainly not hundreds and thousands of victims, it’s a total lie. Anybody eccentric and a confirmed bachelor who looks strange can be branded a pedo, and this is what happened to Savile too.

  • Georgina Jones

    But what about the those aspects that didn’t get taken to court, such as the indecent pictures of girls found on his computer or the instructions in his diary on how to wipe his internet history? While these weren’t brought into it because they had enough ‘evidence’, I think that they alone show there was something very wrong.

    • Jerry from your face

      I hate people like you. I really do. Hundreds of millions of men jack off to 18 year old porn stars. Harris did just that. Like tens of millions of men he learned how to give himself internet privacy by clearing his history to evade prying eyes into his personal yet legal porn choices. The government dropped the charges of ‘indecent images’. That is all you need to know. Also, Harris’ lawyers get Ukrainian porn site owners to speak to the teenage porn stars and get their photo I.Ds, no stone was left unturned. The government had no case, Harris was jacking it to barely legal, yet legal, porn stars, like so many red blooded males in this world. You deserve to be hated because you believe media lies. I suggest you read, you dopey slag, how easy it is for men to be accused of ‘child porn’ simply by possessing images of young looking professional porn stars who are well over 18. As this case I will now link to suggests

      I hate you go to hell.

      • John

        You have no idea about what you’re talking about. Images are compared against a clear and objective scale. It’s not done on a whim. You are showing ignorance.

        • Ian B

          You are talking pants. The “clear and objective scale” is a subjective classification of imagery based on visual evaluation. It is a kind of pseudo-objectivity beloved of pseudo-scientists.

          • I HOPE YOU DIE

            Government mercenary pseudo-scientists. Who are prepared to cage 84 year old men for their own financial gain. May they all die of cancer.


          Hahahaha listen to yourself! You worthless fool. “Oh no the government has objective scales to determine that a porn star from the Ukraine is under 18 without even asking the woman or seeing her ID oh no they can look at the image and just objectively use their objective scale’. And there is WMD in Iraq too, that was you circa 2002 wasn’t it? Believe that lie too. How does a US man get charged with child porn for having a DVD of young looking porn star Lupe Fuentes?

          Why didn’t your statist government worshipping ignorance get Scotty to beam up the “clear and objective scale” to the cops that arrested that guy? You’re a fool. Go and vote for some bigger government and some more bombings and wars and some Burka bans and some witch hunts you sack of shit. It’s people like you existing in this world, that makes for some consolation for the terminally ill. At least they won’t have to be in a world with fools like you anymore.

      • Georgina Jones

        I watch porn myself, I have no problem with that.

        However even if you can account for the ages of the all girls (some of which they couldn’t) The fact that they are made to look like they are very young girls, such as the site which was on his browser history called ‘My little nieces’ clearly implies that in watching it you are sexually aroused by young girls.

        I watch rough porn because I find that arousing. I do not watch insestual porn because I do not.

        • Misty

          If you care to have a look at ‘My Little Nieces’ you will find that it is full of women who look like ‘My Older Aunt’. There is not a female in sight who might even remotely fit the description of a little niece. Now, I must delete it from my browser in case I’m accused of doing something untoward forty years ago.

          • Ian B

            Yeah, just a standard teen TGP.

            Unfortunately Sasha Wass QC is playing to a gallery of people who either know nothing of internet porn, or won’t admit that they do for fear of Rolfing.

        • Ian B

          Watch out, “rough” pron is considered to be rape by our new masters and about to be made illegal. You could be Rolfed any time.

          Oh by the way, the reason you think you like it is that you’ve been brainwashed by the patriarchy. So you probably need a psychological corrective by therapy as well.

          • Georgina Jones

            Sigh. I like porn because sometimes the old imagination is lacking and I want to orgasm. It is a means to an end.

            I know what I like sexually not because I’ve been brainwashed but because I’ve explored what turns me on.

          • TheSlimeGod

            Yes, and for millions of men around the world the image and thought of a young, fertile womb getting sprayed with a never ending mist of semen is biologically entwined into our system to ‘turn us on’ and ‘get us off’. Young, healthy women in the prime of their fertility do it for me every time. And I don’t ever see myself getting bored of that. Accept that men and women are different in their desires. I don’t judge your weird-arsed fetish of getting strangled and thrown around a room with your nipples clamped up in pegs so don’t judge mine and my fellow males fantasies … OK?

          • Georgina Jones

            Yes, ‘fertile’. I’m talking about the idea of find the prepubescent attractive – that is what I’m judging. I find the idea of my own fertile womb being sprayed with semen sexually attractive – It turn me on greatly.

            Not quite sure where the whole I like getting /nipple clamps came from. I said I liked it rough, not that I like S&M, you’ve jumped to conclusions there.

    • Ian B

      I like how, as Victorian suffragism reasserts its control of the sexual discourse, we’re getting back to all these quaint old terms like “indecent” and “unacceptable”.

      “Oh dear Georgina, did you hear that unspeakable utterance?”

      *flutters handkerchief*

      • David Cameron

        I just blasted all over my keyboard to a porn video of a girl in an American porn video and she showed the cameraman her photo ID and it said her 18th birthday was the day before the filming took place. I’m not ashamed in any way. When I was 17 I had sex with 16 year old girls and I often use the memories of those legal consensual encounters as part of my ‘spank bank’. And if smoking in privately owned pubs was made legal again and the owner gave me his consent to smoke in his pub I’d smoke in his pub.

      • Georgina Jones

        No need for smelling salts I’m afraid.

    • Misty

      The reports that I have read state that the computer was used by other family members. Like millions of men, he watched porn and then deleted the sites from the computer’s browsing history because, like millions of men, he didn’t want other people to know he’d been looking at porn because of the awkwardness and embarrassment factor. And so what if he wrote the deletion instructions down? At 84 he’s probably not a computer expert and probably needed to write things down!

      • Bang IT

        I know plenty of old people who are having a go at mastering computers and they take written notes about various computer commands. It’s completely normal. So is getting a boner over a smoking hot Ukrainian 18 year old nubian princess with glistening baby oil smeared all over her hot tight young arse.

      • Georgina Jones

        Why does it have to be ‘like millions of men’? A lot of women watch porn, myself included. (I know that’s completely on a side note) I can appreciate the need to write things down but not to visit the sites that he did.

        • TheSlimeGod

          Yes, that’s why it’s millions of MEN. You don’t see the need to visit
          those sites because you’re not a man. That makes your comment a waste
          of time. You clearly have no idea what those sites actually contain
          (Legal aged women made up (poorly) to look like underage girls) or if
          you do you have absolutely no idea about what the vast majority of men
          fantasise about. If you ran a porn site I bet it would be all lace and
          frilly knickers with sparkling diamonds and beds of roses and oher
          boring shit that only women get a kick out of. The only men that would
          visit that site would be the ones trying to get into a chicks pants.

          • Georgina Jones

            Actually I think if I ran a porn site it would be most excellent.
            Don’t assume I’m into all that shite because I’m not.

  • Tom B

    I was reading the Judge’s summing up. There did appear to be a familiar MO he used, such as spitting on his fingers and then inserting his fingers etc. Given the fact a bunch of counselling notes from yesteryear were produced to back up Bindi’s friends claim, and the fact that MO was recorded and then mentioned by other girls, the jury was led to believe that Rolf was guilty by the fact that unrelated people were able to explain the same MO used.

    We also have to consider the web searches (although not used as evidence). They seem to highlight a liking for younger girls. However, some of the inaccurate accusations such as dates, time periods didn’t get exploited enough by the defence.

    • Ian B

      Depends what you mean by “younger girls”. In purely physical terms, women peak in the later half of their teens. Hence for instance, national treasure Sam Fox- started Page 3 at 16, retired at 20. What were these search terms of his?

      And where is the judge’s summing up on the web, btw? All I can find is reports of it in the press. Got a link?

      • TAKE COCK

        All cave men, ancient civilization men, Australian aborigines in their primitive state, etc, were ‘paedos’ according to the modern religious beliefs in ‘sex abuse’. I hate to break it to all of you, your DNA has been alive for billions of years and only in the last hundred years if that, did the females you’re descended from, have to be 18 to take a cock.

    • Misty

      Yes, I’m sure he spat on his fingers before inserting them in front of an eager queue of autograph hunters at a community hall where he would have been the focus of attention ….

  • Allan J Shipham

    I have been a lone voice in my circle of friends making the same argument. Unfortunately in the UK we have abandoned ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ and adopted ‘Guilty because someone says so!’ :-(
    The conclusion in this case is a stark warning to people around the world that even if they are diligent, they too may some time in the future, become victims of false allegations. You don’t have to be rich like Mr Harris to qualify, all you need is someone with a grudge, a dislike or a debt to settle. We can expect more of this.
    If this happens to you or someone you know, please be aware you are not alone. There are many innocence organisations working tirelessly to help you, and people like you. If you are a professional within the scope of ‘Carer’ or ‘Teacher’ you will find a lot of useful information and support on
    Search the Internet and find support. Legal representatives will only try and negotiate the ‘best deal’ as suggested in cases like Stuart Hall.
    Like the author here says here, no one really knows what happened except the accuser and allegation victim. I would like to see a victim of false allegations get a big pay out from the accuser when they are found to be lying or experiencing false memories.
    We are likely to see fewer cases bought forward after that. What I fear is that this witch hunt mentality is only going to get worse unless common sense starts to intervene.

  • Smash it

    Harris is innocent but like all statists he spent is life worshiping government. Accepting worthless medals around his neck from the benefits scrounger Queen Elizabeth he lapped it all up. And in the end like it always ends, government banged him deep in the bung hole. We got see a giant public reaming and now the man is locked in a cage. Let this be a lesson to anybody that thinks they can trust government. And gentlemen, if you are in your 50s and you feel the need for some 18 year old poon, there are 18 year old escorts available, you don’t need to have an affair with your daughter’s friend just to get some of that sweet 18 year old snatch. Mmmmmmmm. 18 year old snatch. Tight!


    I’m not even gay and I would suck celebrity cock if it meant I could get enough money to retire.

  • GenGen

    All this for there 5 mins of “Fame” and lots of Compensation and next thing you will see in the Magazines oh, so & so done this to me blah, blah, blah.
    I can’t even remember what I did at the age of 7 or 8 or even 12or 13, I just know I was enjoying my Childhood.
    Back then Females would do all they could to get near a Celebrity for an Autograph or just to touch them. They were all Groupies.
    So a lot of the cases I do not believe otherwise they would have come forward sooner, what about in there 30’s 40’s 50’s you mean to say you would not of told someone, I find that very hard to believe.
    I just wonder who they are going to “Target” next and ruin the rest of the persons life.
    Men on building sites cannot even whistle at a woman any more, what one earth is this world coming to ? All the so called Female Activists want to grow up and get a life..

  • Junican

    Regarding the MO, could it be remotely possible that prosecution lawyers might just have slipped in a few leading questions?

  • Cloud
    • Ian B

      ““Even if they turn out to be 18 he is still looking for underage girls and that is the evidence we would seek to put before the jury.”

      Also, nice to see the White Slavery Myth as usual-

      “A lot of the girls hail from Ukraine and Eastern European countries associated through trafficking.”

      This is needless to say entirely unevidenced peddling of a feminist narrative.

    • eric hardcastle

      how many times must it be explained to you : these tabloid reports stem from police claims that were NOT presented in court- which Harris was NOT charged with and of which there is NO evidence – but a claim used very effectively to convince you apparently that it is true.

      The CPS do NOT have the privilege of NOT charging a defendant of a serious crime if it can be proved. If there was even one photo he would have been charged.

      You should be asking yourself why you accept a newspaper article at face value..Is it because it re-inforces a prejudice you may already have?

      Less than 1 month ago the Telegraph also claimed that *800 Irish children’s bodies were thrown into a cesspit”- a complete fabrication, a falsehood without an iota of truth in it, without them investigating but by simply parroting other internet sources.

      And thus when Mark twain said years before mass media ” a lie is halfway around the world before the truth has got it’s boots on” he never said a more accurate thing.

      i wonder what a shrink would make of a person who is lied to repeatedly but does not condemn the liar and when shown proof of the lies, returns to hear more lies.?

  • eric hardcastle

    She has ‘outed’ herself repeatedly : claimant Tonya Lee who insists she wants to put the Harris episode behind her and forget so keeps giving interviews to reinforce this is now asking for court transcripts.
    This is entirely co-incidental of course to the rumoured $150K fee being offered by an Australian tabloid and more likely for her own book.
    Rolf Harris- the gift that keeps giving.


      First thing that evil c-nt Tonya Lee is going to buy with her media
      whore cash is a new set of teeth. Sick bitch is probably then gonna buy a
      Rolf Harris original artwork on eBay and hang it in her house as a
      reminder of the elephant she bagged. The only resources of civilisation
      that should be going to these four lying bitches, is not money, not
      sympathy, just four shiny caskets for after they all overdose on pills
      and commit suicide out of guilt.

      awoke tomorrow to a newspaper that heralded the suicide of one of these
      false accusers, I’d just grin and say “good”. People that screw with
      the fundamentals of our justice system don’t deserve to breathe on this

      • Misty

        Given that the jury took so long to reach their verdict, it does suggest that there was at least one member who had doubts and caved in to get it over with. I wonder if they (or those people, or indeed the entire jury) can sleep at night? Guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? I don’t think so.

  • Kirsty

    hahaha. Oh my goodness – this article is quite substantially and quite blatantly peppered with bullet holes of bias in favor of good ole “Rolf” and Jake the peg. I hate to say this but it is perfectly feasible for someone to have a memory of something that happened to them when they were 8 years of age – hard to believe but actually the human brain can facilitate recollection of an event from 45 years ago – I was never aware that there was anything abnormal about that and it is also perfectly feasible and quite normal that the powers of recall remember significant details with a degree of accuracy and details of less significance with a lesser degree of accuracy. At 8 years of age a child has developed their sense of what is right and wrong in the world and would know what is and is not appropriate behavior from a middle aged man that is supposed to be a celebrity. Its effectively saying that an 8 year old would not have realized that that kind of behavior is inappropriate because it is behavior they may well have expected or not known that there was anything unusual about it. I’m sorry but I’m autistic and I would have remembered something significant like that and possibly failed to remember which park it was in, what colour the flowers in the park were, which day of the week it was on or what the weather was like at the time but i would have remembered for sure being touched inappropriately by a man that I was a fan of because at 8 years of age my little brain is already starting to register and categorize the behavior of others as either being right or wrong behavior and something like that would stick in my mind. An 8 year old to me would pay particular attention to what is right and wrong and less attention to the details of an event. some people seem to forget how a child’s mind works. To me that seems absolutely totally and utterly plausible. I think it is less plausible for Rolf Harris to NOT remember as an adult entertainer that he has been to Cambridge and entertained his fans in Cambridge. What do you think?? And given the way his family staged their entry and exit from the courthouse like they were giving us all an example of the ideal nuclear family with Rolf as the head of the family – their lifelong financial and emotional support crutch all hanging onto him drawing from him what could be some last gasp lifeline support. They obviously thought about how it was all going to be staged – it is certainly not the behavior of an innocent man consumed with outrage and complete bewilderment at the sheer magnitude of the accusations against him who could be forgiven for believing that this was a hate campaign. A man who cannot contain his sense of injustice either by the anger he feels or his utter disbelief at the circumstances he has found himself in does not stage some ideal family unity at the doors of the court with every member of the family assuming some role play and then going into the court and give members of the jury and judiciary a rendition of “Jake the peg”. Come on, where is peoples sense of rationale? You couldn’t make it up but obviously he tried.


      Shut the f-ck up. You’re just jealous of Rolf because while he is
      ARTistic, you’re just autistic. You failed to put a single bullet hole
      in this article. You fail. Go and sit in the corner and stare at the
      wall with your crash helmet and bib on. ” At 8 years of age a child has
      developed their sense of what is right and wrong in the world” –
      baseless pseudo-science you dopey bitch, if what you say is true,
      explain African child soldiers. Oh! Rimshot! And not all of us are
      retard idiot savants that need to go to K-mart to buy some underpants.
      If most people say they can’t remember jack shit from when they were
      eight years old (and that’s what most people say), then it is a fact
      that most people can’t remember jack shit from when they were that
      young. Fact remains, and please pay attention, I know your Ice Lolly
      just fell off its stick and your “carer” will be along in a moment to
      wipe the melted food colouring ice off your mouth, but just listen for a
      second you malignant retard, Bindi’s friend engaged in an affair with
      Rolf Harris from the time she was 18 until she was like 30. All Rolf is
      guilty of is being a seeker of barely legal poon, but it was legal. The
      rest of the liars are looking for a payday and should all commit suicide
      forthwith because they are evil. Run along now, and please put the
      wrapper from your Ice Lolly in the bin.

  • Jake the Peg

    Does anybody know the address where I can write to Mr. Harris AO, CBE, to let him know that not everybody believes the lies? I would like to send him a letter of heartfelt support and to encourage him not to give up in the face of this sickening witch hunt.


    • Misty

      I guess we will find out soon enough when the Daily Mail discovers that he’s not been sent to a torture chamber, a high security prison or Broadmoor.

      • F U CK YOU

        PO Box 757

        Heathfield Road



        SW18 3HS

  • Jake the Peg

    “The four counts of making indecent images were related to the Protection of Children Act 1978 which interprets viewing images on a computer as “making” images.”

    By the fucked up standard of British spastic “laws”, that means I “made” 12 Years A Slave. Where’s my Oscar?

  • Jake the Peg

    What is really “indecent” in this case, are the pieces of lying trash and the government scum bags that aided and abetted them.

  • Andy Hawker

    I dont know all the facts, i haven’t botherd to study them, but i think there are far too many charges for RH to be totally innocent, maybe he is not a sexual predator, but i dont think there’s any doubt he’s a dirty old man, and that he abused his position. and i believe he deserves his punishment!! Also thsi article, obviously written by a friend of RH, mentions the innocence of other of which is Dave Lee Travis..he got off because lots of people didn’t want to give evidence, since then many more young girls have come forward, and he will be brought to justice, Yew Tree are preparing new charges now!! I know this because he attempted to rape a member of my family..not a minor!!

    • F U CK YOU

      What you are, is a brainwashed fool. You’re nothing but a “where there’s
      smoke there’s fire” fuckwit. “Too many charges”. Remind me to let the
      next Hitler know that all he’s got to do is level many charges at
      anybody he wants you to agree is a criminal. I hope Dave Lee Travis sues
      the living shit out of you for what you just said about him “trying to
      rape a member of your family”, and I hope you lose your house. And you
      believe an 84 year old man, Harris, should be locked in a cage, die in a
      cage, and be forcibly separated from his ailing wife, for what? having
      an affair with a younger woman 30 years ago? Someone should put you in a
      fucking cage when you’re 84 and we will see how you like it!

    • Flying Tiger Comics

      I dont know all the facts, i haven’t botherd to study them,

      …stopped reading right there.

      let the lapdog media and the political class make you into a sheep, if that’s your morally lazy choice; but don’t then expect sane people to have to sit still to listen to your baa-ing.

    • Andy Hawker

      I didn’t need to read all the facts in the case because i knew some of them already, which is why i’m using a false name here, and not naming the person in my family!! All my family are high profile people in the music and entertainment business, and we have known about these ‘freaks’ for years, the BBC is,, or was a breeding ground for sexual predators, and more will be brought to light!!

      • Ian B

        And I think you’re just making shít up.

      • F U CK YOU

        Nobody believes you Andy Hawker. I still hope you get unearthed, and sued for libel.

      • F U CK YOU

        Oh and Andy Hawker, don’t think for a second that Dave Lee Travis’ lawyers couldn’t get a court order for DISQUS to hand over your IP address hence leading to your real name, it would take less than a week. You claimed a living person “raped your family member”. I’d be very worried if I were you.

        • Guest

          I said ‘attempted’ you idiot!! people like u cause trouble by not reading things properly!!

        • Andy Hawker

          I said ‘attempted’ u idiot it’s people like u who dont read things properly, and jump on the bandwagon that cause more harm than good!!

  • viscount oik of that ilk

    in the not too distance future this will be seen as mccarthyism and the repeat of the 80’s witcht hunt that said 4000 children a year were being sacrificed to satan

    there is a very dangerous puritan attack on freedom

    be afraid be very afraid

  • Carl Draper

    Good article, but btw it’s Catherine Zeta Jones not Katherine Zeta Jones

  • Peter Lloyd

    A great article – the criminal justice system has claimed yet another innocent victim and everyone is washing their hands. This is the “evidence” that was “beyond reasonable doubt”? (from

    1. No photographic evidence exists – There is no video or photographic evidence of these assaults taking place. Neither are there any tape recordings or even notebook records of them taking place.

    2. No DNA or any other physical evidence exists of these assaults.

    3. 40 Year old memories are not accurate – Many medical studies have proven that memory of events that took place 20, 30 or even 40 years ago is notoriously poor and often wrong. Most of us cannot remember what we did 2 days ago let along 50 years ago. Many times in these cases details have been proven to be incorrect in terms of location, dates and timings of the assaults. So how can we be confident that events that cannot be independently verified can be true? For anyone still not convinced about just how bad and dodgy memory can be then please watch the BBC Radio 4 File on 4 podcast “Memory on Trial”.

    4. Nobody witnessed the assaults.

    5. Motive – No motive for these crimes seems to have been established.

    6. No admission of guilt – this would be enough to convict but why are the defendants not only stating that they are not guilty but behaving as if they are genuinely not? The bizarre behaviours such as Max Clifford joking behind a Sky reporter and Rolf Harris singing Jake the Peg in court are not those of a guilty person trying to avoid jail but someone who has faith in the criminal justice system that the truth of their innocence will be recognised. Unfortunately how wrong they were!

    7. Delay – Why are these cases being brought only now 20,30, 40 even 50 years after the events took place? If they really happened then why weren’t close friends and relatives told at the time? Why was nothing reported to the police? It is sickening to see the police congratulating themselves on these convictions 30 years after when they did nothing to investigate them when they happened.

    8. Lack of victims – If these really were the truly horrific paedophiles that we are led to believe they are then there should be hundreds of victims not the few dozen that we have seen. A real paedo is not going to just peddle their crimes a few times especially given the massive power and opportunities that they were given.

    9. No porn found – If these men really are paedos then why was there no child pornography found in their houses or on their computers? Either you are or you are not phychologically deranged to be a paedo so a lack of porn would indicate that they are not and points to their innocence.

    10. Criminal harm – These defendants did not physically harm or penetrate their victims neither is it alledged that they did. At most they “touched” them. Whilst I do not condone such behaviour in any way on the scale of crimes these are at the modest end so why are they being treated like war criminals? Compare this with for example the actual permanent physical assault and harm done to the young victims of female genital mutilation. This must surely be a far higher priority for the police to put their resources into as it is causing severe damage to thousands of young girls, repeatedly by a small number of perpetrators. Maybe because there are no celebrities involved?

    11. Public good – Contrast the possible alleged harm (that cannot be proven) to a few victims with the massive factual and visible public good that these defendants have done.

    12. No downside only potential reward – The alleged victims have no downside in this whole process, on the contrary they could win substantial damages. They are not paying for any of the lawyers even if they loose whereas the defendants have lost £100,000 even millions over this.


      Not even a child or teen’s aging yellowing dairy entries from decades ago. Not even a family member or friend of the witnesses that can corroborate them coming home from an event traumatised.


  • Carlos Bonell

    Thank you for this thoughtful article and for articulating so well thoughts that have troubled me about the Rolf Harris trial.

  • Pete

    I agree with the original article – each individual case against Rolf
    Harris was highly flaky and I feel suspicious as to whether the jury got
    it right. But the jury came to their conclusion purely based on the
    number of women who made similar complaints. That seems quite
    reasonable (i.e. if one woman accuses me of assault she’s just a nut –
    if two unrelated women who do not know there has been a complaint made
    make a complaint it’s fair to assume I must have done something – but if
    there’s 14 then surely that would be enough to lock me up). But my
    question is this: When the first accuser (presumably Bindi’s childhood
    friend) went to the police to make her accusations – did Rolf’s name
    become public before or after the other women made their accusations? It
    seems a bit coincidental if all these women made their complaints at
    around the same time after 30+ years of being traumatized – but not
    quite traumatized enough to go to the police until they find out
    somebody else has accused him) .

    • Terry M

      I understand there were just 4 women who made accusations but 12 counts were laid on the file.
      At the time we had just got over the big Jimmy Savile debacle which brought fear to many celebs and non celebs alike because they too had probably patted a bottom or touched somewhere back then that would be classed as inappropriate behaviour today. Those things were accepted male behaviour and girls assumed it would happen to them. (The bra had been burnt) women and girls felt free and did much more than their parents thought, and so did men and boys. Your mother would tell you not to hang about but to come straight home as a girl. But you would go off and seek pleasurable things. It was exciting meeting a star or celeb and you expected them to pat you when asking for a autograph. It was a sign of them noticing you. You were not thinking that in 40 years time you would try an sue them when they are wealthy.
      Other famous names started to pop up after Savile, when compensation was mentioned by the press. The search was on to see if there were more Savile’s out there. It isn’t hard to imagine how many celebs were accused of the wandering hand syndrome, including football players too. Some were more than that and those men were summoned to court.
      The fact that only 4 women had chosen Rolf Harris as their abuser/groper means he is very unlikely to be guilty of anything substantial. It is so, so easy to accuse somebody of a sexual offence and make it sound similar to another’s account, even if it hadn’t been broadcast who it was by then. How many ways can a man grope a woman’s breasts or bottom ?

      My opinion is that there was no case for Rolf to answer as the only words used to convict him by this Judge were from the 4 accusers. There was, not surprisingly after all those years, if ever there was, no factual evidence at all, and certainly no Guilty “Beyond all reasonable doubt”, which makes this conviction unsafe to say the least. An appeal should be lodged ASAP.

      BTW, there was no evidence of any porn whatsoever on Harris’ computer.

  • sweet jaydee

    I think something is very very wrong with this outcome .I believe rolf is innocent .I too was a child of the 70s and I know a lot of people who would be on the same charges .look how tv changed .love thy neighbour .full of racism in todays age.are you being served with young mr grace having his secretary on his knee or bend down so he could look up skirts,on the buses reg and jack looking up skirts ,even innocent terry and june the boss at terrys place work always patted bottoms,it was normal behaviour in that era .,. I also know that a pat on my bottom wouldn’t have made me an alcoholic or ruined my life .and I would have been one of those kids who would have told school mates or a friend and said dirty old codger.i also know if my friends dad had touched me and I was scared of him then thered be no more going round her house to bump into him let alone keep a relationship going till I was 29 do we know a million per cent rolf was looking at the porn .someone else could easily use his laptop/pc etc .I have a laptop but my 19 yr old son ,his friends my daughter her friends all have access to it if they wanted .and as others say even if he did look wheres the harm ..millions men ,women every day around the world access it .when the filter is off my pc I can type child and put images and young naked women will be there ..type paris Hilton for example and see how many nude pics with her head pop up ..the fact theyre 18 theyre over age is no relevance what man wants to look at 40,50,60 yr olds .we all like beautiful people and a majority are young ..
    I too wish there was a way of sending support to rolf and his family .I hope he gets a retrial or gets to appeal and I hope the accusers are happy with their wads of ill gotten gains .

  • Misty

    I see that Leon Brittan is now being investigated over claims that he raped a 19-year-old student at his flat in 1967. 1967 .. that’s what? Forty-seven years ago? How can such an allegation be proven beyond reasonable doubt after all this time? But, as Mr Harris’s case shows, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ has quietly been dropped as far as British justice is concerned. One day this shameful period in our history will be regarded in much the same way as the Salem witch hunts or the activities of Matthew Hopkins, the Witchfinder General of East Anglia.

    • Terry M

      And while we are waiting for real justice to return to British courts, innocents like Harris are being deprived of their good name and lifetime achievements. Will Rolf ever recover from this brutal sentence and will he be able to continue caring for his wife Alwen ? At his late age in life, I really hope so. The press, Judge and jury along with the £££ accusers must be ashamed of themselves, I hope they can all sleep at night, unlike Rolf and his family !

      • Misty

        The hysteria-fuelled comments on Mail Online suggest that, depressing though it is, Mr Harris’s incarceration has become a form of morbid entertainment for the masses. The frightening thing is that most of these people will be eligible for Jury Service.

  • malcolm y

    There are some similarities between the Rolf Harris trial and an earlier one:
    It started with a witch hunt
    There was establishment pressure for convictions
    The accused caused the victims emotional, not physical, damage
    The evidence was questionable and based primarily on the testimony of a child
    The sentence was brutal
    That was the Pendle Witches trial in 1612.

  • sweet jaydee

    what I don’t get is how can the testimony of the 7-8 yr old stand up in court.there is no evidence on file ,record of that event never mind if it happened .they cannot find anything that relates rolf to the place ..even the place where it supposedly took place cannot find a record of the event .so all they did was believe a young childs account of events that happened 40 yrs ago . I personally cannot remember what I did at 7-8 ..I certainly cannot remember if anyone specifically patted my bottom (I think a teacher did once when i was asked to go get the school register and said chop chop) or if santa might have touched my knee when I sat on his lap at a Christmas fete,im guessing it might have happened as I say lots of people got bottoms patted.and I know lots of girls who got told they looked nice in costumes by male pe teachers ,none of us are traumatised by it . I must remember to see if that santa or teacher is rich now ..

    • F U CK YOU

      No, being touched on the bottom for 3 seconds is worse than being murdered in cold blood. Every day people are murdered in cold blood but an aging wino woman who claims to have had her “life destroyed” by 3 seconds of groping leads the news. ISIS takes over Iraq but an old celebrity pinched a bottom in the 70s. THE PRESS DESERVES TO DIE OF CANCER.

  • Guest

    Take out the compensation. Do it for peace of mind only. Pretty soon we’ll have adverts… ‘Did you suffer abuse from a dirty old bloke…. really think about it….. turn those one night stands into something more long lasting….. get compensation!!!!’ Grim.

    • sweet jaydee

      well said … I too can see the suffered sexual harassment at school,work,in the street at any time since birth phone or click here to claim

    • Misty

      And text messages: “Claim compensation for the sexual abuse you suffered. Call XXXXX now!”

  • Deguwitch Rose

    A very well thought out and reasoned article. I too feel very uncomfortable with how this case has been tried. There has been little attempt to understand that sexual morality was very different in the seventies. Bottom pinching was widely accepted. Granted it is unacceptable today but one cannot judge a man for behaving in tandem with the social mores of his time.

    • F U CK YOU

      It’s acceptable to me, you can pinch my bottom any time you want. Does anybody even like the phonebook sized list of what is not “acceptable” these days? And who decides? Feminazi academics?

  • Susie

    One question to you: Have you ever been abused as a child? That may sway your view. Look at all the cases of abuse of children … many kids are too scared to speak out for fear of their parents calling them liars. I sat in on the jury for a case where a man systematically abused five of his nieces over a period of years (aged between 7 – 14) and a nephew (5 years old); his sister called her children liars and turned away. They had to face this man in court, having lived with the abuse in silence for years and only when one person had had counselling was she encouraged to bring her uncle to justice. You may have points in the Justice system but NEVER imagine that a child does not remember significant times in their life when they are shocked to the very bone and carry fear around with them into adulthood.

    • Ian B

      None of which applies to any of the charges against Harris. This is the problem, people keep confusing apples and oranges by putting them falsely on the same “spectrum” of behaviour. There is a deliberate refusal to do a proper analysis.

      The charges here are (a) a very long affair (b) some miscellaneous groping (c) one strange outlier of the 7 year old. All non-related, and none in an oppressive family situation. It simply is not qualitatively the same as the case you describe.

    • sweet jaydee

      abuse is different to a hand on leg or a bottom pinch/feel is also different as the child in this case has said its a specific event and time that it took place yet there are no records . a childs imagination is a wonderous thing as well and every family has different ideas of whats sexual behaviour family for instance never let me watch anyone kiss on tv and told me never to let anyone hold my hand or stroke my hair in fact any bodily contact .others would see a kiss on a cheek or a tap on a bottom from an “uncle” as most family friends would be called as ok..also this child wasn’t alone with harris .im guessing she was supposedly in a line with other autograph hunters .I don’t see how you can compare this with an abuser . and your talking children .the friend of bindi carried on till 29 yrs old.there will be a time when a disgruntled porn star will try to get compensation for the sexual encounters with her actor co stars , I watched a programme called Friday night dinner where there was a scene with the gran and her fiancé .he squeezed her breast and said juicy .what happens when she decides she has been traumatised by this behaviour or are they still in 2014 showing that it can be acceptable behaviour .yes on tv .but these actors and actresses sometimes only meet for one show .I think this case paves way or has already made way for lots of shit to hit celebrity fans and there are going to be 100s quaking in their shoes …

  • Brian Catt

    This was Peter Cooke’s version of our wonderful establishment Judges at work. Biased belief on such ancient recollections which were often just wrong in fact seems a poor basis for finding someone guilty.

  • Let my Harris go loose, bruce


    Well-wishers and supporters and help Mr. Harris through this terrible dark time when he is being tortured by the criminal British state, locked in a cage, made to undress, and anally searched for drugs. Mr. Harris has given his high level of talent as a gift to the public and entertained us for decades. This man that once rubbed shoulders with the Crown, has now been anally raped and thrown in a cage by the Crown. In 28 days, Mr. Harris will be moved to Norwich or Kingston prison. He is currently being held captive in a cage in Wandsworth prison. The untalented, unimaginative government goons that decided to get a job as a ‘Screw’ because they are too dumb to make it in the private sector will no doubt be spitting in his food and hurling abuse at him. You can make his time pass a little easier by sending him encouraging mail. The address is as follows:

    PO Box 757

    Heathfield Road



    SW18 3HS

  • maddylou

    I totally agree with this article. I wonder how many so-called ‘victims’ would have come forward in any of these alleged historic abuse cases if no financial compensation was in the offing? Very few, I bet. Who will be next? Aged rock/pop stars? Members of the Royal family? Your parents? My parents? I’m only thankful that I’m neither well-known or male.

  • kat

    You are not qualified to write on the topic of child sex abuse, sexual assault or indecent assault- clearly you have no understanding of these issues and the potential ways in which they destroy lives. Your focus on false allegations (which are made at the same rate as for other crimes; it is INCREDIBLY rare in spite of what the Daily Mail would have you believe) and your assertion that an adult would not remember sexual abuse because YOU can’t remember the name of your teacher demonstrate this. I find this piece and the comments underneath extremely offensive. Perhaps if any of you had experienced such an assault and lived with the consequences, or indeed had any understanding of abuse in general/false allegations, you might be a little more sensitive to such issues.

    • Pete

      Kat – you are going off topic. The original poster has not implied that child sex abuse does not destroy lives. The focus of the article is on the accuracy/validity of evidence in the case of the trial of Rolf Harris. I followed this trial – and unless the jury were privy to some nuggets of information that I am not aware of then I absolutely agree with this article – I think the verdicts are highly suspicious.

      • FFFFFFUC K yyyoou

        I’m more than happy to say that being groped has not destroyed a single life. Being raped, different story.

      • Hzle

        “The original poster has not implied that child sex abuse does not destroy lives.The focus of the article is on the accuracy/validity of evidence in the case of the trial of Rolf Harris”

        This being the case, one might ask the question why kat wrote such an angry-sounding post. Questioning the evidence for conviction is exactly what we should be doing, because miscarriages of justice happen all the time.

        There is also an air of unreality about this conviction. I myself find it hard to believe. Read the piece above. Does it really constitute a “40 year campaign of abuse against women” as the Times has it. When I read that I fear British justice and the media may have gone terribly wrong.

        Yet as usual there are very vocal feminists who are furious at the mere suggestion that a man might be innocent of sexual abuse. Does noone else think this is a little odd?

      • kat

        1. The writer is calling into question the validity of allegations made on the basis that they themselves cannot remember certain things from their childhood. This demonstrates a total lack of understand of childhood sexual assault and compromises the piece as a whole. I’m not going off topic at all.
        2. Following his conviction, a radio 4 reporter explained there were further details that were not reported upon as they were so horrific – he stated that Rolf Harris would have been able to be charged with life sentence under today’s law. In addition, the police said, following conviction, that in 2012 he had been found with images of child abuse. They released this information after the trial to add weight to their explanation of why he was convicted. They couldn’t make this public before in case they needed to try him for it separately had he been found innocent at this trial. So sometimes the media actually does the moral thing – or does as they are told – avoiding sensationalism in respect of victims.

        So yes, the jury probably were in possession of more facts than you as a spectator, as is generally the case.

        • Tim

          1. The writer is calling into question the validity of allegations made on the basis that the testimonies were inconsistent and backed with no evidence. apparently though the word of the “victims” who stand to make a considerable amount of cash from this are undeniable, because obviously they would never lie.

          2. Confirming radio 4 presenters would never talk shit and that radio 4 itself is the oracle of truth. I find it hard to believe that all of the media sources available would not publish information about parts of the trial because it’s “too horrific”. What kind of crack are you smoking to be thinking the media would not leap on that near instantly.

        • Pete

          I remember lots of things from my childhood – and incidents I regard as eventful I damned well know the year it happened – like I know my grandmother died in May 1978 (I can’t remember the actual date but I just remember this – and I’m sure the diaries I kept would confirm that my memory is correct). One of the victims was THREE years out !!!! making her 16 instead of 13 when she was allegedly assaulted in Cambridge … her childhood memories must be all over the place. But the jury did not seem to think being 3 years out for a traumatic event like a sexual assault was relevant ….. Words fail me ^_^

          I don’t know anything about what Radio 4 said – all I know is that I have tried to follow the trial taking all the available info I can get my hands on and I still feel worried that an innocent 84 year old man is behind bars based on some very inconsistent anecdotes from 30+ years ago. Just my opinion.

        • Pete

          also – ref the child porn on his computer. Having child porn on your computer is illegal. So the police would definitely have prosecuted if they thought they had a case. The fact that they haven’t prosecuted just adds to the mystery of this whole, suspicious conviction.

    • Ian B

      The opposite is true. We know false allegations are extremely common and have done since the Satanic Ritual Abuse debacle. The therapy industry basically acts as an allegation generator. We know that there are thousands of therapy victims wandering around believing in abuse that never happened, constructed memories by their therapists. This is why testimonial in this area is chronically unreliable.

      Unfortunately, the coalition of feminists, ultraconservatives, therapists and common or garden conspiracy theorists behind all this have developed it into a faith system, in which people believe as fervently as other faiths. They will not be dissuaded, they refuse to look at facts, and it has gradually infected the State and legal system. This is why it is such an important issue for libertarians.

    • F U CK YOU

      He’s a citizen of the f-ckin country where this travesty of justice
      occurred. That means he is at risk of being put in a cage on the basis
      of a false allegation. He has demonstrated he is a competent writer and
      blogger. He has spent days, evidently, imbibing all of the publicly
      available information. Plus he is not biased and doesn’t have his
      ability to reason ruined by the kind of bias you display. ALL OF THESE
      PIECE OF CITIZEN JOURNALISM ON THE ROLF HARRIS CASE SO FAR. And how the hell would you know what the level of false allegations is in “historic
      sex abuse” cases where there is no physical evidence just a he said/she
      said, he’s rich, she wants a payout, dynamic? How would anyone know? I’m
      compelled to decide that the final analysis of your comment Kat, is
      that you’re full of shit.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      So Kat,
      if you are such an expert on this? Why not ask Catherine Burn, the NSW Deputy Commissioner of Police and a radical feminist why she is protecting Bill Toal and Michael Toal who have been openly and publicly accused of raping Suzanne Toal.

      Just google “crimes against fathers Catherine Burn”. You will find the article I published about her. The police in Wagga Wagga refused to investigate the case because Michael Toal got his mates at ASIO to tell the police not to investigate.

      So I put the accusation on the facebook of Catherine Burn who removed it claiming it might “prejudice any future case”. I pointed out that at the time Rolf Harris was being accused in all the tabloids and no one seemed to have a problem with that.

      Suzanne Toal claimed to her sister, Jennifer, my ex wife, in 1989, that she was sexually assaulted by her father as a teen girl. Jennifer asked my advice which is how I got to know about the allegation. Since I made the allegation public another woman has come forward and said that Suzanne Toal also reported to her that her father raped her AND her brother raped her.

      Suzanne Toal has not been willing to issue an affidavit saying that her claims were false in nearly 2 years. So it would seem that there is something to the claims she has been making for over 20 years now.

      So…why is a radical feminist who is deputy commissioner of police refusing to even ask a question about this very public allegation, hhmm? And would it not be the case that women who work in the area of female child rape would want to ask Catherine Burn why she is not investigating this case.

      And by the way? My ex used the accusation of rape of her little sister to blackmail her father into supporting her crimes during divorce. So it seems if a woman blackmails her father with a rape allegation of her little sister to make money in divorce THAT is perfectly ok….hhmm?

    • PeterAndrewNolan


      “Your focus on false allegations (which are made at the same rate as for other crimes; it is INCREDIBLY rare in spite of what the Daily Mail would have you believe) ”

      Many police officers put the rate of false rape allegations at 90%+. That is not “incredibly rare”. False rape allegations are as common as mud.

      Indeed, false allegations by women are as common as mud. My wife gave perjurous testimony in my divorce and this is considered perfectly ok by 99.9%+ of western women. It is NOT considered ok by 99.9%+ of women in Germany.

      You women openly condone and support false allegations. So what you say carries no weight at all.

      I, myself, was subject to false allegations by my wife way back in 1997 and I was severely injured by the police when they arrested me.

      Until you women DEMAND women who make false allegations are punished to the same tune as the man might be punished you are liars and hypocrites and I will denounce you as such.

      Indeed, I am denouncing western women as DEEPLY EVIL PEOPLE because you know these false allegations often lead to men killing themselves and you condone them and support the women who make them anyway. Just like you have condoned and supported my ex for SEVEN YEARS despite the fact she has OPENLY CONFESSED that her allegations in divorce were FALSE and made under oath….as in PERJURY.

      I DEMAND that women are prosecuted for perjury.

      I DEMAND that men are compensated for the crimes of perjury and slander.

      And if they are not then KILLING WOMEN is necessary until such time as these DEMANDS are met.

      You might want to tell all your women friends that us men are FED UP with your perjury and slander and we are now fighting back.

  • Lisa anne

    Shame if he’s done this but I find it hard to believe and If he hasn’t done this someone holds the key to let him out so hope they speak up soon money talks but sadly it can bring lies and false accusations too


      You sound like a lovely person thank you for your kind good will. Unlike Kat below who is a malignant C U N T.

  • Tim

    What about the reports of Rolf downloading child porn?

    • Ian B

      See above. The reports are carefully worded misdirection. He had no child porn.

      • Tim

        I’m not sure where you meant by above? The article? I read it already.
        But he’d searched particular sites that were named, and the pictures were described that he’d downloaded. That’s the part, as much as I’d like to – I can’t dismiss.

        • Ian B

          That’s because they’re describing in deliberately misleading ways. You can look at the sites named yourself. They all contain adult porn with over 18s. Little Nieces is a standard TGP (basically, link site) for instance. Yes, the names are dodgy sounding, but porn is frequently described in dodgy terms; basically anyone looking for content featuring girls who are cute/petite or just wandering around clicking random links could bump into those sites.

          Like I said, they’re legal. They prove nothing. There was no child porn.

          This is why it’s so dangerous for public oversight of the law to make the general public rely on descriptions by prosecutors. For instance, I have on my hard disk a movie which features young women (and men) being tortured to death in graphic detail. This proves I am a psychopath?

          Well, it’s called “Hostel”, is entirely legal and mainstream and was released with BBFC approval. If I don’t tell you that part, what conclusion would you have drawn?

          (For the record, by the way, I found it genuinely disturbing, in the “I wish I hadn’t watched that” category. So there you go).

          • Hzle

            “This is why it’s so dangerous for public oversight of the law to make the general public rely on descriptions by prosecutors”

            Many people have come here with the same misapprehension. I also note that it’s often mentioned in the papers that Rolf Harris was “having an affair” – as though people should read that and say “what an evil man, he must be guilty of everything else too!”

            Character assassination in the press, basically. How much are journalists in the broadsheets paid? They’re worse than useless. Many a time I’ve seen corrections on basic reporting from ordinary people who had to go and do the work themselves – just to find out what actually happened!

    • BrunaZanelli

      but did he download child ‘porn’? If so, why didnt the police charged him? Because these *children* were 18yr old + adult women. how many men on here, right now, can honestly say they have never looked at adult women on line. How about Page3 girls? C’mon fellas, you guys cannot resist oggling female bodies. I will never believe Rolf was sexually interested in children.

    • Misty

      There was no child porn. There was evidence that legal adult porn sites had been accessed from his computer (but that wouldn’t be the case with yours, right?). The computer was reportedly also used by others. The issue was that some of the women looked borderline in terms of their age (in other words, there was some doubt that they were over 18). The defence investigated this and found that most of the women WERE over 18 but looked younger, which is common in the industry. The exceptions were a small number of women whose ages could not be determined (probably because they could not be traced) and THAT is why the case was left to lie on file. NONE of them were definitely found to be under 18.

      Unfortunately, certain sections of the press groomed the masses by insinuating that he had been looking at kiddy porn, and the salivating masses believed it. Hence he went to trial with the masses (and, quite possibly, members of the jury) outraged and ‘discusted’ (as they tend to write) that he had been looking at images of little children. He had not.

      How anyone could ever have received a fair trial under such circumstances is beyond me.

  • Jimmy Miller

    And the kiddie porn found on his computer just got there by osmosis?

    • Ian B

      There wasn’t any kiddie porn on his computer. Even the prosecution have admitted that. It’s just ordinary porn featuring adults (18+) who Sasha Wass QC is implying through careful wording is “underagey looking”.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      You have some evidence that there was kiddie porn on his computer?

      Please share.

      • John Nolan

        Any evidence of foul kiddy porn on you computer, PeterAndrewNolan? Want me to share?


      Let’s all live in a world filled with Jimmy Miller’s shall we, where FUCKWITS read bullshit in the press and just believe it without even reading deeply. You’re a sack of shit Jimmy.

      • Jimmy Miller

        Oh yeah, like you know anything about it, anonymous internet pussy. Should have known this was a website for shitheads.

    • Guest

      There has been no actual evidence of any kiddie porn ever being on Rolf’s computer.


    Historically, the age of consent for a sexual union was determined by
    tribal custom or was a matter for families to decide. In most cases,
    this coincided with signs of puberty: menstruation for a girl and pubic hair for a boy.[2]
    In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have
    children shortly after the onset of puberty. Roman law required brides
    to be at least 12 years old. In Roman law, first marriages to brides
    aged 12 through 24 required the consent of the bride and her father, but
    by the late antique period Roman law permitted women over 25 to marry
    without parental consent.[3] The Catholic canon law
    followed the Roman law. In the 12th century, the Catholic Church
    drastically changed legal standards for marital consent by allowing
    daughters over 12 and sons over 14 to marry without their parents’

    • AttemptedNeutrality

      And today in the UK, the age of consent is decided based on the age at which a typical teenager is deemed to be emotionally ready to engage in sexual relations.

      This is based on the huge raft of knowledge we have gained since Ancient times about human psychological and physical development.

      • Murray Rothbard

        In fairness, its not that clear cut, the same information is available to every country in the modern age and yet there are a wide range of different ages of consent. Even in Europe they range from 13 to 18

      • F C U CK YOU

        “Deemed” by whom?

        Cite evidence of the “raft of knowledge” you turd. You claim it is a “raft of knowledge” about not only human psychological development but “physical development”. Has the age at which girls first get their rag changed so much? If anything it has gotten younger due to toxic chemicals.

        • AttemptedNeutrality

          Disinclined as I am to reply to someone who calls me a ‘turd’ and refers to menstruation as ‘the rag’, I will attempt to rise above your deliberate attempts to antagonise me and respond solely to the rational elements of your comment.

          Regarding evidence of psychological maturity, these recent scientific studies found that humans’ brains are actually not fully mature until into their 20s – and this includes areas of the brain involved in decision-making. So I would say that 16 is actually a very liberal age to set the age of consent at.

          • Misty

            This doesn’t take into account the biological drive to have sex and reproduce, which is very strong in the mid to late teens.

          • Hzle

            The pruning of synapses and neurons is very interesting, and we’re still trying to work out how this relates to learning. It emphatically DOESN’T tell us anything conclusive about when someone is “mature enough” to enter into a sexual relationship

            Should people wait until they are 30 (like Bernard Shaw, I think) till they feel safe to have sex without it being abuse?


    Why hasn’t this blog been updated in a year?

  • RWW

    The UK loves a media witch hunt. And this is what has been IMO

    • Misty

      And the masses love a ‘paedo’ to hate, even if the person concerned isn’t one.

  • Hzle

    There’s no escaping this, unfortunately, you have to say it as it is. Not avoid the truth:

    For years, many ordinary women, with various shades of feminist view, have variously shouted, left the dinner table, practiced social exclusion games – when a man suggested that maybe some guys accused of rape/sexual assault might be innocent. These women didn’t argue logically, they put any kind of social pressure they could just to win points. And too many men fell for it.

    To some of these people , the only kind of miscarriage of justice is when a man who (according to them) should be convicted, goes free. They can’t or don’t want to conceive of the notion that some men might not be guilty, or that an act like bottom-pinching should not merit a prison sentence.

    Sadly, the fact is that many women have been at fault in this way. But we men have also been in the wrong. We’re afraid to say what we think, afraid to criticise some women, because of what might be said about us.

    But also because men – like the women I mentioned – just haven’t cared enough about justice. It’s a f*cking disaster – caused by complacency and the virus that is feminism. We need to wake up.

    • Feminazism is bad

      Feminazism is one of the most canerous ideologies to afflict mankind, ever. It’s really bad. As you go around the internet and expose yourself to stuff that isn’t just the MSM and you see what people have to say when they have the freedom to speak their minds, you see that a great many right thinking normal everyday common sense people hate feminazism.

      • Hzle

        Oh I don’t use that term, nor do I go on about “misandry”. There’s no need to adopt the same tactics as those I disagree with. I just want to make ordinary people see that we’ve made some mistakes

    • AttemptedNeutrality

      Unless the Jury was completely made up of a particular kind of feminist woman, then your logic does not hold up to scrutiny.

      Maybe instead of making a biased generalisation about ‘feminists’, and trying to pin the verdict of this case on this vaguely defined group of ‘women’, you should try to make a rational argument against the verdict based on the evidence that was presented.

      • Hzle

        Why should I? That’s very ably been presented above. There has been a good discussion below the line, with commenters such as yourself providing arguments (some good ones) to balance the main article.

        I’ve learnt something from both sides. I still currently have concerns about the “reasonable doubt”, also the motives of the accusers. My view may change

        I read a police blogger saying that you have to write down what was said and done ASAP – not a day later, because the memory mistakes start to creep in then. After ONE DAY. How about after 40 years?

        Those who see a lot of court cases say that witnesses regularly lie in court, sometimes to cover up the “blanks” in their memory. I understand that one of the leading psychological theories about memory is that memories are constructed. People take the bits they remember, and use logic and bias to fill in the gaps.

        I respect your comments here, I hope you can see why I’m being very skeptical. Partly, I admit, it’s because I’m quite upset by Harris’ conviction. So yes I am biased. But an examination of what is going on in the media and the courts is very much in order, I feel.

        What do you think?

      • Hzle

        “Unless the Jury was completely made up of a particular kind of feminist woman, then your logic does not hold up to scrutiny”

        Well my logic is that feminsm has become a very popular meme, and so has influenced not only hardline feminsts but many men, also perhaps the legal system and definitely those working in the media – writing awful biased reports of the trial (I wasn’t just think of the jury, but I didn’t make this clear)

        It’s not logically necessary for the jury to be made up of one sort of person for a meme to become influential amongst many people. So I think the logic is (somewhat) sounder than you claim

  • Misty

    Plus there is a certain amount of kudos attached to bedding a celebrity.

  • Em

    Their was two witnesses who said they remembered seeing Harris at the community center in portsmouth and gave evidance??

    • Martyn

      Actually Em, the prosecution produced two witnesses who could vaguely remember that Harris had been in the Portsmouth area at the vague time the alleged incident took place. Neither witness claimed to have seen in the incident, one claimed he was there for an autograph secession while the other claimed he was there to open a shop.

      Against this witness testamony was the fact that, by the police’s own admission, no record could be found in the local council archives or in the archives of the local newspaper – which has been in business 1873 and has archives stretching back at least over 75 year – that Rolf Harris had visited the Portsmouth area between January 1967 and May 1974.

      The police’s own investigation turned up no solid evide to support him even having visited the area in that seven year period and their appeal to public produce two people in a city with a population of over 200,000 that could only remember him being there in vague terms.

      That’s a major hole in the prosecution’s case. They couldn’t even prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he had even been in the area when the alleged incident took place.

      • Misty

        This one – the Portsmouth one – was arguably the weakest one on the list (though the others could hardly be termed strong in terms of evidence against Mr Harris). This is an important point, because the Portsmouth woman was the only one of the four who was prepubescent at the time of the alleged incident. Because Mr Harris was found guilty (with there being no evidence whatsoever apart from the woman’s testimony of what supposedly happened FORTY-SIX YEARS AGO), he was labelled a predatory paedophile in the press, when clearly he is nothing of the sort.

        From the Huffington Post: “The woman, giving evidence from behind a screen [of course] at Southwark Crown Court, claims Harris molested her when she went to get his autograph at a community centre near Portsmouth at one point between 1968 and 1970.

        She told the jury that when she got to the front of the queue, Harris
        crouched down, signed her piece of paper and then touched her bottom and vagina.”

        OK, let’s say for the sake of argument that a seven- or eight-year-old girl is at the front of the queue in a very public place. Is it really likely that Mr Harris would put his entire career at risk by touching her bottom and vagina in front of a queue of people eager to get his autograph?

        Even in practical terms it would be difficult. She would probably have been facing him (as there were a lot of people to get through), which means he would not have been able to put his hand ‘down the back’ (see below) without leaning over her and letting the people in the queue see what he was doing.

        If she was standing next to him, was it on the left or the right? Mr Harris is right-handed. He would have been signing autographs with his right hand, meaning that she would probably have been standing on his left. This means that to have touched her in the way described, he would have had to lean over with his right hand (presumably still holding a pen), put his hand ‘down the back’ (difficult – you have to twist your hand unnaturally and stick your elbow in the air to attack the knicker elastic and fiddle), all while you are crouching down at her level. Again, all very noticeable to the people in the queue who would have been watching closely as Mr Harris was the focus of attention. Something resembling a game of Twister would have been rather obvious. Did the defence not try all this on a tailor’s dummy?

        Or, if he had used his left hand for the ‘abuse’, it would have been very difficult in the circumstances (like, with people watching) as he is not left-handed and would have struggled with the knicker elastic from his crouched position.

        “He was looking at me, smiling, and I was smiling, looking excited, and
        suddenly out of nowhere I felt his hand go down the back and up between my legs,” the woman told the court.

        Down the back of what? We’re not told, but if it was a pair of trousers it would require quite a contorted and noticeable effort if he were crouching down beside her. Was she wearing a skirt? Again, we’re not told (maybe she can’t remember after forty-six years) but putting your hand down the back of a skirt in front of a crowd of eager autograph hunters would be quite difficult, too, unless it had an elasticated waist. That still leaves the battle with the knicker elastic.

        Then, “Another statement was read from a counsellor who also said the woman told her about the claims.” Mmmm. How many women see a counsellor solely because someone put their hand down their skirt/trousers when they were seven?

        And then, “The earliest count relates to the woman who gave evidence this morning, and said she felt she had gone out of her body after the claimed abuse.” A seven-year-old is not going to have their life ruined by a stray grope that lasts all of a few seconds, for God’s sake, whether it is real or imaginery! But the abuse industry is very good indeed at trying to persuade us that the most minor ‘sexual assault’ equates to a lifetime of alcohol dependence, misery and anything negative that you can think of.

        I hope the defence looks at this one again, and quickly. At 84, time is not on Mr Harris’s side.

      • Em

        Actually one said he helped with celebrities who appeared at the community centre in Portsmouth, including Diana Dors and Rolf Harris.
        He also said he got an autograph for his daughter from Rolf Harris and was at the same time as the alleged incident.

        The next witness is another former Portsmouth resident who says he remembers Harris visiting the community centre in the late 1960s when he was a boy.

        They suggest Harris did not visit the area until 1978 and he was never there in the late 1960s.

        The witness disagrees, and insists Harris was there at that time, which is when the woman claims she was assaulted.

  • Misty

    From the Guardian: “And it will be little comfort for Harris to learn that he is far from
    unique: the over 60s are the fastest growing group behind bars – thanks,
    largely, to the fact that convictions for historic sex abuse are on the
    increase.” So, WHY are these convictions on the increase? Simply because these men are elderly (or heading that way) and we are now in an age where even the most low level sexual offending – and even behaviour that was once euphemistically known as ‘a bit of slap and tickle’ – is described as a ‘sex attack’. These men are being punished today for doing what men did forty years ago, when social standards were very different. It is unfair, it is pernicious, and it’s filling up our jails with quite normal people who are no threat to anyone. The government needs to think again about ‘historic sex abuse’ and slap a time limit on accusations, quick. Ten years would be more than enough (in the case of children, 10 years from when they reach the age of eighteen). Now that the abuse industry is running out of entertainers and is eyeing up politicians, maybe we’ll see some action. Incidentally, the Guardian reports that Mr Harris is currently being held in Wandsworth Prison.

  • Tracy

    I don’t know all the details or evidence of the sexual abuse he was accused of, but there is the fact that indecent images were found on his computer – can you explain that?

    • SYork

      What FACTS do we have about these images… and why was he not prosecuted over them? Possibly because he might be found not guilty… (any other reason to drop the charges?) and so it is easier to use the dropped case to back up the likelihood of the other verdicts being right… meanwhile that ‘child porn’ on his computer isn’t child porn. Oops.

      Mere details! He’s a groper at least, burn him!

      • AttemptedNeutrality

        The Judge stated that the reason Harris was not charged re: images was because the defence attorney insisted they would have to travel to the Ukraine to check the ID of all the models in order to verify their age.

        The charges were not pursued because the prosecution did not want the UK taxpayer to have to foot the bill for all this ID checking.

        However, forensic analysis of some of the more graphic images strongly suggested that some of the models were underage.

        • SYork

          Have you see the pics? Can you source this reason that a tax-paid trip to the Ukraine was the reason the case was dropped? Doesn’t sound like it would cost much when you think about it, considering the hugeness of the case and the charges in question. I’d have chipped in.

          Can you assure us the girls were underage? Because the prosecutor (of this case that never happened) said that they were ‘very young girls’. Surely you don’t need DNA, if the police are deciding on who looks underage, let the jury see. I suspect they were worried that in fact the girls would not look clearly as young as to remove reasonable doubt. Better to just say ‘yes he had child porn too’ to bolster the main conviction.

          Harris’s defence was going to argue the girls were of age – if they were truly ‘very young girls’ (isn’t that vague though? Means whatever you like) I think a jury could take one look at them and agree they weren’t 18. Why not let him walk into that huge trap if the girls were so obviously underage?

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Sure – here’s my source. I quote:

            “Harris’s lawyers argued that they needed several more weeks to complete their defence on the indecent images charges, describing a long process in which private investigators sought to see ID cards of the models posing on the websites, many of whom were based in the Ukraine, to prove they were over 18. Faced with a choice of delaying a major trial, with the administrative chaos and attendant costs this would bring, or severing the charges, the judge had no option and the jury heard nothing about the images.”

            “Expert examination of “very graphic” images of one girl’s genitalia appeared to show she was aged 13 or under, Wass said.

            “Harris had searched online for terms such as “just teens” and “younger girls”, Wass added.”


          • SYork

            Doesn’t sound like the UK taxpayer was funding anything?

            It seems a fair request and they could have delayed that case rather than dropping it. Just seems an excuse. Now please answer, if as the prosecutor said, the images were of ‘very young girls’ all they would need to do would show the pictures to the jury, who would immediately see they were not 18, right? Why didn’t they go for that? According to their version of events, i can’t see how they would have failed to get the guilty verdict by doing that.

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Not sure why you’re asking again, as the answer is contained in the passages I quoted from the article.

            “Faced with a choice of delaying a major trial, with the administrative
            chaos and attendant costs this would bring, or severing the charges, the judge had no option and the jury heard nothing about the images.”

            I.e. the judge had to decide to leave out the photos, because of the “administrative chaos and attendant costs” of the investigation.

            Sounds like you’re not aware of this, but when someone is taken to court by the Crown Prosecution Service a proportion of the cost of the trial is paid for using public funds. For example, the defendant can claim back money from ‘Legal Aid’ to pay for investigations that had to be undertaken to respond to certain allegations.

            Here is an example of another trial that had to be abandoned because the defence proposed a huge investigation that would have to be paid for by the tax-payer:

          • SYork

            You implied the taxpayer would be funding the trip to the Ukraine to check IDs. ”The charges were not pursued because the prosecution did not want the UK taxpayer to have to foot the bill for all this ID checking.”
            Which you portray as a Herculean task that would have spread ‘chaos’ (what chaos?) and delayed the trial (that’s routine, I know trials. It would have been adjourned, it would not have been a problem – IF the prosecution was sure of success, CLEARLY they were not, we can all see that if Harris’s team was going to get IDs/had already got IDs, then there is NO WAY that Wass can be telling the truth that these were ‘very young girls.’ I take that to mean under ten, I think most would. Possibly under 5. NOT close enough to an adult you’d need to see ID. Knowing this, it is obvious why the case was dropped, and instead we are just fed tales of ‘child porn’ and web search terms with which to assure ourselves he was a wrong ‘un. I was concerned before, I am now angry that Harris has been labelled a paedophile on very poor evidence.

            You dodged my question again. If the girls were clearly very young girls, and the defence was going to argue they were overage, how is it possible that defence wouldn’t fall apart as soon as the prosecution showed the photos to the jury? If they were that obviously underage, if they were truly ‘very young girls’ – please, explain – you’ve got your guilty verdict, no doubt about it. Why drop the case? Money??? The public purse? IF the public would have to pay anything towards the Ukrainian ID checks, which I doubt, I think they would be quite happy if it meant a child porn downloader was convicted.

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Look – I simply paraphrased a direct quote from the Judge and prosecution barrister. They were the ones who used the term ‘chaos’ and stated that they had to leave out the image charges due to the delays and costs associated with the investigation. If you have a problem with that information, then you’d better write to the prosecution service and Judge Sweeney.

          • SYork

            No The Guardian used the term ‘chaos.’ How do you ‘paraphrase a direct quote’ anyway? I can find no direct quote from defence or Judge, as reported in the Guardian, of ‘chaos’ being a reason for abandoning the case. I accept you didn’t make up the word, but I put it to everyone reading – ‘what chaos?’ Whatever, if the case was dropped, then I conclude it was because it was not winnable, not because of costs or ‘chaos’, and so would most reasonable people I believe.

            ”However, forensic analysis of some of the more graphic images strongly suggested that some of the models were underage.”

            Explain please, if you can. I know it’s from the same strangely written Guardian piece, but I find this whole paragraph baffling, anyone else? How graphic is more graphic? Lets be frank, are they are suggesting something like ‘you can see up the girl’s vagina and it’s clearly not an adult one’? Or what the hell do they mean? It’s all innuendo. And as I just showed, as with ‘they were very young girls’ it shows the prosecution is definitely NOT a good source for neutral information. And neither is the media.

          • SYork

            The websites, My Little Nieces, etc – they are not child porn sites. You can look them up. They are ‘barely legal’ types, easy to find, IDing the girls because they don’t want to get done for child-porn. They use of-age models, sometimes in school uniform situations. I don’t think that’s wrong, and it’s not child porn. Yet a large percentage of those following this story have been told ‘Harris had child-porn’ in his PC. He did not. They say the search terms and let the reader imagine what illegal child-porn lies therein. A quick look shows no children. Adults.

            And these same people saying ‘string up the nonce’ will have looked at a topless 16 year old on page 3 of their paper that day as they always do.

          • Ian B

            “Forensic analysis” is an impressive sounding way of saying, “we looked at the pictures and decided for ourselves they are kind of underagey looking”.

            The descriptions fed to the media are blatantly and deliberately dishonest, designed to be read by and shock people with no experience of porn.

          • Hzle

            “Look – I simply paraphrased…”

            You’re backtracking

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Hzle: If you look at the comments, SYork questioned why the image charges were dropped – I responded by telling her the information I had read in the Guardian about the reasons why. What precisely did I ‘backtrack’ on?

            SYork: Are you seriously saying you don’t know how to summarise something another person said? That’s what paraphrasing a direct quote means.

            If your argument is that we should not accept media reports of what the Judge and prosecution said because journalists distort information, then you have also undermined your own first comment – since your opinions of the trial are also based on the information about the evidence you have read in the media.

            Either media reports are an unsuitable basis for speculation, or they are not. You cannot have it both ways, choosing to believe only those articles that back up your opinion.

          • Gennifer Flowers

            He’s fuckin innocent.

          • Terry M

            Going by that information it seems then that Judge Sweeney was siding with the prosecution then when he said that it would cause chaos with the investigation during the trial which is not as neutral as he should have been. This tells you that he may have already made his mind up where he wanted to take this. If he can do this then his behaviour could bias the jury too.

            The actual websites Rolf had visited were all legal sites which certify they only use models 18 or over. That is all the prosecution and press needed to know. That is all Rolf needed to know. No offense was committed. It’s true that a lot of these websites photo-shop the images to make them look younger though. But even if the prosecution thought that one girl looked younger it made no difference to the case. As far as Rolf knew, he was looking at a girl 18 or over. This would be the true reason why this wasn’t taken further.

            For his nude paintings Rolf would look at naked images to get the proportions right. This is normal behaviour and certainly no crime committed.

          • Misty

            With regard to the judge, surely I wasn’t the only person to have grave concerns over what was reported in the media: “The judge in the Rolf Harris trial has asked the jury to calmly consider
            the evidence and then have the courage to deliver true verdicts
            “whatever the consequences”.

            Why does it take courage to deliver true verdicts? Isn’t a verdict supposed to be a true one? ‘Whatever the consequences’ sounds a bit worrying to me. If I had been on that jury I know how I would have interpreted these remarks, whether I agreed with them or not.

          • FU CK YOU

            –ck you Attempted Neutrality my arse. You’re not neutral. Nobody
            here believes you are either. A government that is prepared to label its
            citizens as child porn consumers that isn’t willing to pay to check the
            ID of 18 or 19 year old Ukrainian porn stars is a terrifying
            government. It’s pretty clear that the UK is a terrifying government
            that will allow feminazi QC’s to destroy innocent men. (Queen’s C u n
            t). If you think for a second, a nanosecond that the government’s
            “experts” can look at an image of a young woman and guess her age you
            are delusional.

            fact that you allow the government and its statist media to simply
            claim that doing an investigation of the Ukrainian porn stars would be
            ‘adminstrative chaos’ shows how ridiculous you are. If you are going to
            cage an 84 year old, the government should prove the models are under

            I hate you and the sole reason I don’t punch you in the
            fucking head is because it is illegal. You do deserve to be punched the
            face though.

          • PeterAndrewNolan

            “If you think for a second, a nanosecond that the government’s “experts” can look at an image of a young woman and guess her age you are delusional.”

            True that….one time I was surfing in Australia when I was 19….this very well developed and pretty girl started talking to me…so like any 19 year old boy I talked back. I was thinking she was 16 or 17 but I asked her age just to be sure.

            She said she was 13. I just shook my head and said to her “You girls ought to come with a non removable dot on your forehead to tell us how old you are.”

            Of course, she was all “upset” I did not want to talk to her once she told me she was 13. There was no way in the world I would ever have picked her as 13. I had never seen a 13 year old so well developed before.

            Today, if the same thing happened and she was “angry” that I would not talk to her she would run to the police and say I had molested her and she would be taken seriously.

            Some police in the UK have said that they believe 90%+ of all rape claims are false. I think the number is more like 95%+. And since I have also been the victim of a false DV call and I was severely injured in the unnecessary arrest I would also claim that the vast majority of DV calls are also false. Especially since false rape and false DV and false sexual harassment claims are not punished in any meaningful way. It was only 3 years ago that the first woman in the UK was given actual jail time for a false rape allegations…and only then because it was against a police officer so they had to do something about that one.

          • Illuminati Ingrid
          • PeterAndrewNolan

            The Guardian? LOL!! As a “source”.

            Thanks for the laugh.

            The lame stream media is nothing but a propaganda tool. There is nothing written in any lame stream media that is not approved by the “hidden guvmint”.

            No reporter would last 24 hours if he or she submitted a story that was not what the editor wanted. You can tell this is the case because no lame stream media will print the fact that the entire legal system is a criminal cartel…something that has been well proven for a long time now.

        • PeterAndrewNolan

          “However, forensic analysis of some of the more graphic images strongly suggested that some of the models were underage.”

          Oh, and you think the police are trustworthy?! LOL!! That’s a really good joke.

          Police ROUTINELY commit perjury to make SPEEDING FINES stick. Go and ask ANY police officer and challenge him to whether cops commit perjury on a routine basis. I have NEVER had a police officer deny that statement when I make it to them. A high profile case like this? The police will lie their heads off to get a conviction.

          Police are the second least trustworthy people in society….only outdone by politicians for their lies. Hell, police make used car salesmen look honest.

          And yes. When I was 19 I was given a speeding ticket when I was not speeding. I know I was not speeding because I was drunk and riding my motorbike home quite slowly because of that.

          The cop lied on the stand and he knew he lied on the stand.

          Since that time I have told HUNDREDS of cops that story. How a cop lied on the stand just to make a false speeding ticket stick. EVERY COP has told me that they know full well that cops commit perjury to make charges stick from speeding tickets to murder. NO COP has ever denied that he KNOWS cops who have done this.

          Police….the worst enemy of the people today.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      Just remember….a woman just had her facebook closed for “child pornography”.

      And what were the images? Her two daughters in swimwear at the beach.

      “child pornography” includes what would be considered COMPLETELY NORMAL such as a woman taking photographs of her own daughters in a public place in appropriate dress.

      Let alone when I was a kid and we were often naked after swimming in dams and rivers when we were 4 or 5 years old. That would be called “child pornography” today.

      In case you missed it feminists, who demand “tolerance” have lobbied for legislation that criminalises normal behaviour, especially in men.

      There was a case a few years back in scotland where a 3 year old girl drowned in a pond. An elderly man in his 70s came forward to a newspaper and said that he saw the girl alone just before her death and chose not to come to her aid because he feared being labelled a paedophile. He wanted to bring his story to light to show that the constant man hating and constant false allegations of men being paedophiles has a price…in this case the little girls life.

      Rather than THANK this brave man for coming forward and sharing his story he was HATED ON. So all us men took good note….not only do we NEVER help a child in need in the public, especially a girl, if the child meets a tragic fate we ALSO do not report the fact that we did not help for fear of being called a paedophile.

      And by the way? You women are SO DISGUSTING that I have been falsely called a paedophile by my psycho ex-brother in law and his mates for THREE YEARS. And you know what women say about that? They LAUGH about that and they hope that calling me a paedophile damages my business. They hope that lies and slander about me harm by business.


      Western women are disgusting. You really are very, very, VERY disgusting and I DESPISE you for what you have become.

  • pippinites

    Reminds me of the witches of Salem..

  • Solomon Chatley

    I’m intrigued as to why a child (friend of Bindi) – would then re associate herself with him over the passing years, if she was that traumatised!

    • AttemptedNeutrality

      It’s called an ‘attachment disorder’. Sometimes when a young teenager is sexualised by an adult before they are emotionally mature, they paradoxically develop an attachment to the person who abused them. Especially if the person who abuses them is an authority figure who they admire. It can take years to overcome this kind of psychological damage.

      It’s the same sort of mechanism that underlies ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ (if you’ve ever heard of it), when people who are kidnapped become emotionally attached to their kidnappers over time.

      • Misty

        From the Sydney Morning Herald: “Ms Woodley [defence] asked several times why the complainant repeatedly turned up in locations where she knew Harris would be, and why she didn’t try harder to avoid getting close to Harris after she alleges he had begun to abuse her.

        “I could have done I suppose – I wish I had,” the complainant
        said. “I was just scared of him and did what he wanted. … I just felt I
        had to do it.”

        So, let me get this right. She was scared of him so planned to turn up at locations where she knew he was going to be? This sounds to me, speaking as a woman, to be behaviour consistent with fancying someone who is not making themselves available and trying to get yourself noticed because he isn’t noticing you enough! It seems to me that the only ‘attachment disorder’ here would be that Mr Harris wasn’t ‘attaching himself’ enough!

        From the Guardian: “Wass asked Harris at length about the eight occasions he says the pair had sexual contact, spanning from when she was 18 to 29. The entertainer conceded that he barely spoke to the woman during that time, recounting just one chat when he sought to cover evidence of their relationship.”

        Sexual contact (not necessarily sexual intercourse) on eight occasions over 11 years doesn’t quite suggest a rampant abuser or predatory paedophile to me (well, not if the accuser is 29) – more the behaviour of a normal bloke who makes the most of an opportunity.

        • Guest

          Also, when a child has been abused by someone they know, instinct tells them not to go anywhere near them again. Why would a scared or frightened child keep going back when they know they will be abused ? Sorry that doesn’t wash.
          I remember an act of sexual abuse on me when I was 8-years-old. I never went back for more !

          • Misty

            And I’ll bet you didn’t go back and ask for 25 grand for a pet project some years later!

      • Ian B

        Sometimes when a young teenager is sexualised by an adult before they are emotionally mature, they paradoxically develop an attachment to the person who abused them.

        When the relationship is acceptable to society, we call this “falling in love”.

        • AttemptedNeutrality

          *Sometimes* we call it love – but usually not when it begins with one person forcing themselves on the other without consent, which is what was alleged.

      • Pete

        it’s not ‘attachment disorder’ at all… it’s called: ‘he’s a rich and famous millionaire so I’d rather shag him than somebody of my own age group’

        • AttemptedNeutrality

          Well this is another possible explanation – I don’t want to insist that my suggestion of an attachment disorder is definitely the truth, since I wasn’t present in the trial and didn’t hear all the evidence. But I think that we at least have to be open to the possibility, since these kinds of disorders can occur – especially among those who have been sexually abused.

          • Pete

            “Well this is another possible explanation”, you say … which is exactly why there is unavoidable doubt !!! – it’s just her word against his.

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Well it wasn’t ‘just’ her word against his, as far as I can tell from the reports. It was reported that several of her previous therapists also testified to say that her story had remained consistent since adolescence and was in line with their diagnosis of her problems. However, the reason I don’t want to insist on my version is that I wasn’t there like the Jury were to hear these testimonies.

          • Pete

            ok I think I’m beginning to understand it now – you say: “her story had remained consistent since adolescence” …. so let’s get this straight: She had been sexually abused by Rolf Harris since the age of 13, and while Rolf was busy leading a celebratory lifestyle, and whilst having a family he managed to find time to abuse the girl to the point where it created some kind of ‘attachment disorder’ whereby she kept on wanting to have sex with him until she was 29, and it had NOTHING to do with his money – oh except for when she asked him for £26000 (nearly forgot about that bit) … but while she had been drinking heavily and telling her therapists that she had been sexually abused since age 13 by Rolf she was STILL sleeping with Rolf because of the ‘attachment disorder’ … and it had nothing whatsoever to do with him being a multi-millionaire – have I got the story right now?

            More likely ‘attachment to money’ disorder.

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            I am not trying to insist that the ‘attachment disorder’ account is necessarily true – just trying to point out that we should be open to the possibility of it; and also to the possibility that the evidence presented to the Jury (which included witness statements from the girl’s therapists) was compelling.

            As observers with partial evidence, I think it would be prejudiced and unreasonable of us to dismiss this story out of hand – given that a Jury was convinced.

          • Pete

            Did the detachment disorder miraculously disappear when Harris refused her £26000 ? LOL

            Not ‘attachment disorder’ …. it’s ‘attachment to money disorder’

          • Misty

            Has it not occurred to you that while the therapists (plural – interesting) would have (presumably) given their evidence in good faith, she might not have been truthful in what she told them? Her distress in court might well have been because she had gone so far down the track with a fanciful allegation that it had been impossible to get out of it. By that stage she might well have convinced herself that it WAS the truth. Obviously I don’t know, but this possibility is something that should have been explored by the defence. What is certain is that there was no credible evidence to convict Mr Harris, let alone beyond reasonable doubt You couldn’t make it up.

          • Misty

            Sorry – put this in the wrong place (I was referring to the Portsmouth case).

          • AttemptedNeutrality

            Yes it has occurred to me – but I think the suggestion of the prosecution was that it would be less likely for the story to be a lie in light of the fact that she had been telling the same one since adolescence without changing it.

            Personally I am not insisting that the ‘attachment disorder’ story is true as I was not on the Jury and did not hear the evidence in person. What I am trying to say is that we should not dismiss the possibility of its truth out of hand, and assume that the evidence was not strong enough.

          • Pete

            and it beggars belief that the jury found Rolf guilty based on the words of somebody who had been under therapists (plural) AND was an alcoholic ^_^

          • Misty

            Headline on Mail Online (9th July):

            “Police told concert violinist who died of an overdose ‘NOT to get
            counselling before testifying against her former teacher in sex abuse
            trial in case it altered her memory’.

            At least two of Mr Harris’s accusers had been having counselling for whatever reason.

      • PeterAndrewNolan

        Every time a woman does something stupid it is a “disorder”.

        Women are NEVER responsible for their own actions. Even when they KILL THEIR CHILDREN it is a “disorder”.

        A mother kills her children she is “sick” and gets “help”.

        A man kills his children and he is a “monster” and gets “life”.

        You woman have no credibility left.

        You women are disgusting liars and hypocrites who resort to censorship to hide the truth that men are speaking.

        • AttemptedNeutrality

          First of all, drop your bias – I am a woman but I still think men deserve equal treatment in court, and I am as concerned as you about discrimination against men.

          But: I don’t think it is true that women are *always* given benefit of the doubt when it comes to crime. Think about Myra Hindley and Maxine Carr, for example. Often juries and the media come down extremely harshly (and justifiably, you might argue) on women who commit crimes.

          • PeterAndrewNolan

            “First of all, drop your bias”

            You do not get to tell me how I present my words you man-hating bitch. You get to listen to what I say or you choose to ignore what I say. And given that 99.9%+ of western women openly condone women committing crimes against men it has become NECESSARY for men to kill women to gain a path to justice BECAUSE YOU WOMEN REFUSED TO LISTEN TO US MEN.


            If you man hating western women do not want to listen to me? If you want to censor me? If you want to suppress the truth presented by me? Then you will just have to listen to the mute testimony of the women being RIGHTLY AND JUSTLY KILLED by men in divorce.

            Tell me? How many women do men need to RIGHTLY AND JUSTLY KILL before you, personally, will listen?

            1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

            Go ahead. Give me a number of how many women YOU PERSONALLY HAVE TO SEE KILLED before you are willing to clean the wax out of your ears and listen you man hater.

          • PeterAndrewNolan

            “But: I don’t think it is true that women are *always* given benefit of the doubt when it comes to crime.”

            And here is your imbecile “not all women are like that” argument again.

            Because it is not ALWAYS the case then all the cases where it IS THE CASE should be ignored.

            You know? It is not ALWAYS the case that a man kills a woman in divorce….so it must be ok by you when a man DOES kill a woman in divorce.

            That is what you just said in reverse.

            How does it feel? You stupid, imbecilic man hating woman.

  • sidetops

    There are few things I recall that happenef aged 8. Except you do remember something as prominent as sexual abuse, like you remember your first day at school.

  • grandwillow

    I remember being sexually abused at the age of 7. I am now 55. The abuser did the same thing again to someone else 30 years later..The police told me my statement I made would be of no use as it happened too many years previous..The accused even told the police he did what I had stated..but because these people are celebrities everyone wants to come forward. There is no justice for the normal person

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      Well I was raped many times in my marriage according to the womens definition of rape. Women LAUGH at me when I say I was raped according to their definition.

      So why should men care about women being raped when women certainly do not care about MEN being raped. Western women are the worlds most disgusting liars and hypocrites. And rape is one of the best examples of this.

      • AttemptedNeutrality

        Well I agree with you that the same definition of rape should be applied equally regardless of whether the perpetrator and victim are men or women.

        But I am also a Western Woman, and I believe that many other Western Women would agree with your opinion too.

        Just because there are some Western women who are hypocritical and who deny men equal rights does not mean that all Western women are like that.

        • PeterAndrewNolan

          “But I am also a Western Woman, and I believe that many other Western Women would agree with your opinion too.”

          Then name one who is a prominent woman who has published a paper or presentation or given a speech to that effect. After all? If there are MANY other such women then it should be easy to find a public quote with google, right?

          Let me assure you. I have talked to more than 10,000 western women directly and more than 30,000 indirectly. I have emailed every sitting politician I can find the email address for in the US, Canada, Ireland, UK, Australia and New Zealand. I have emailed hundreds more women who hold prominent positions in the womens rights area.

          To date there has not been ONE WOMAN OF NOTE willing to say that women must be held equal before the law to men and is willing to sit on a jury to make it so.


          Therefore, if you assert there are “many” such women? You are going to have to prove your claim or admit it was false.

          “Just because there are some Western women who are hypocritical and who deny men equal rights does not mean that all Western women are like that.”

          You women are so sick in the head. You are so predictable. Do you know how many women immediately forward the “not all women are like that argument”? 99+% of them.

          This is about the most stupid and imbecilic argument you can make. The argument is “because there MIGHT be ONE woman who is not like that, a woman who is never named and presented, all the OTHER WOMEN who are EXACTLY LIKE THAT should be ignored”.

          Here is the equivalent.

          “Not all men rape women so therefore it is ok for SOME men to rape women.”

          That is what you just said to me in reverse. Now. When it is presented as NOT ALL MEN RAPE WOMEN SO IT IS OK FOR SOME MEN TO RAPE WOMEN how do you feel about that? Hmmm?

          Since western women are imbeciles and incapable of logic and reason we have to talk to you in terms of emotions and emotional responses. That is why I talk about how it is NECESSARY to kill women to gain a path to justice for men. You are imbeciles incapable of logic and reason but you sure get upset when a man talks about the NECESSITY of killing women to gain a path to justice for men.

          I despise you western women. I can put put in to words in the public how deeply I despise you western women. And the “not all women are like that” argument is one of the reasons I despise you and know you to be of the mental capacity of imbecilic children. 99%+ of you repeat the same imbecilic argument “not all women are like that”.

          Now. You go and find me the SPEECHES and PAPERS and PRESENTATIONS by notable women, especially women in politics where the woman has said women must have equality before the law for remedy and are willing to sit on juries to make it so. You said there are “many” such women who would believe the same.

          PROVE IT!

          My email address is I will be waiting.

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris and unreliable memories | Liz Terry()

  • kristina

    I do nt understand what was the crime. Millions of womem are raped and no one is punished. It used to be normal to have a man touch a woman. If she indicates she doesn’t want it he stopped. Easy. If notthat’s something else. Furthermore he was in a public place. I was a teacher of young children and when we became afraid to touch a student or give them a hug so much affection was lost. Lets get real

    • Hzle

      Interesting. A girl at my son’s nursery kissed the hand of one of the fathers (not her dad, I think) coming to collect his child. She ran off happily and he thought nothing of it but you could see the nursery staff worrying and saying “come here” to the girl, as though they had to be constantly vigilant – the assumption seemed to be that any man might be a covert paedophile.

      A corollary of this is that men are probably afraid to show affection to kids. If I’m right about this then we’ve created an insane situation.

      The roots of it are a) paedophile hysteria – whipped up by the newspapers – and b) implicit attitudes towards men that are never openly expressed or questioned.

  • #5014

    Perhaps I can help in explaining why people who have been abused stay in touch or continue a relationship with their abusers.
    From the age of two years old and for the rest of my childhood until the age of 17 when I was kicked out with nothing, I was physically and mentally abused by my foster/adoptive mother. My whole childhood can be summed up in two words; sad and unloved.
    However, despite this, I remained in touch with this woman until the age of 34. It was only after a close friend, who had suffered similar parental cruely, had a complete breakdown, did I wake up to the ‘what the hell am I doing still speaking to this woman?’ There is always a trigger and Jimmy Saville triggered a lot of people’s memories.
    It has taken me until the last year, and much therapy, to come to terms with the cruelty of all my childhood and that there are people in prison for lesser things than were done to me.
    I am now 50 years old and still remember many, if not all of the acts of cruelty and torture that I endured, but perhaps not the exact age that I was.
    It’s about mental maturity, being comfortable with yourself and trusting that those that love you will support and believe you. Don’t forget, these people are very, very clever and as I had to, lead a double life to exist. Mine was the awful home life, that nobody new about, and the safe school life. The two were kept very separate for my mental well-being.
    Let the courts decide, I say and the fact that all those you name were not convicted suggests that justice does prevail in this country.

    • SYork

      You agree that courts have got it wrong before though? We know that because many innocent people have been freed. We can also safely guess that many juries simply make the wrong decision, sometimes because they (or enough people on the jury) will not convict because to them, without a confession or with the possibility that a robot from the future did it, there’s a slither of doubt. This has been reported by people on juries, that what was beyond reasonable doubt to the majority was never going to be good enough for one or more members – in effect things had to be so far beyond reasonable doubt to 100% incontestable.

      The other problem is that sometimes juries go the other way, and ‘probably’ or ‘more likely than not’ replaces ‘beyond reasonable doubt.’ That may have happened with Rolf Harris. The jury may simply have had too many people on it ready to ignore holes in the accusers’ stories, or the fact that they had been paid for their story already, or thought that the fact he had an affair with his friend’s child when she was 18 was ‘bad’ enough or meant it was likely that it started earlier, and perhaps mostly that because Jimmy Savile got away with it, they were going to make sure ‘this one’ didn’t. And with that mindset, ignored the fundamental rule of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

    • Ian B

      Two points-

      The first is that people frequently stay in touch with bad family members and particularly parents because… parents. Cutting off from one’s family is a major step. That’s very different to somebody you’re having an affair with.

      The second is that, sorry to say, as soon as somebody says they’ve been in therapy, I and an increasing number of people start getting sceptical. Why? Because we know that the therapy industry has utterly poisoned the well of memory with false ones. That does not mean that every therapy patient is making it up. But we don’t know which ones are. Once a therapist has started “helping their patient remember abuse”, there is no way of knowing what is real, what is exaggerated, and what is entirely constructed.

      I appreciate that this comment must seem harsh. But that is the position we are in. And it is therapeutic methods themselves which have brought us to this unhappy position.

  • one women and her dog Sam

    A reasoned and well thought out article. It reflects some of the conversations I have had with friends over the past year.
    Jimmy Saville has never been tried in court and found guilty, and yet he is condemned. The media including the BBC had now been reporting as if it is all proven fact.
    In this country we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a court of media. We should celebrate this, and fight to uphold it. Guantanamo Bay is proof that not all great nations believe this is a basic right for all humans.

    As to Rolf Harris, there may also have been issues. However, this does not seem to be a safe conviction and I hope there is to be an appeal.

    Any family that talks about the past, even recent past will have as many versions of one event as there are people talking about it. That is why there is to be proof and evidence, without that our justice system is failing.

    NB, I think this article warrants better responses than some of the name calling and abuse I have read in the comments. Turn your anger onto something that will keep the good and get rid of the bad practices in our country.

    • PeterAndrewNolan

      “Jimmy Saville has never been tried in court and found guilty, and yet he is condemned. ”

      Men do not need to be tried in court and found guilty. You man hating women think it is more than enough for women to commit perjury to condemn us and steal from us…especially in the family courts.

      I have been persecuted for SEVEN YEARS based on perjury that my ex has ADMITTED WAS PERJURY. And I have been hated on by 99.9%+ of western women when I point this out.

      Just today my twitter account was suspended because you disgusting, vile, pathetic women can’t stand the truth.

      There is not ONE WOMAN in politics in the USA, Canada, Ireland, UK, Australia or New Zealand who says women must be held equal before the law.


      You western women disgust me. You really do. I am so glad I do not live among you any more. Your hatred of men has made it NECESSARY for men to kill women in divorce to gain a path to justice. And if you have not noticed? Men are doing exactly that.

      No words printable in public can describe how much I despise you western women and how disgusting you are and how low you have sunk. No words at all.

      How DARE you condone perjury?

      How DARE you allow mens lives to be ruined by perjury?

      HOW DARE YOU?!

      • Illuminati Ingrrid

        Paedophile faggot …

  • kitty

    I’ve said from the beginning its all lies and these women are just cashing in…

  • Stacey

    I have never believed that he could be capable of doing these things. He has been wrongfully accused and our justice system stinks.

  • Gennifer Flowers

    He’s fuckin innocent ya cunts.

  • Gennifer Flowers

    R O L F H A R R I S I S I N N O C E N T

  • SYork

    All media now report ‘Rolf had child porn on his computer.’ The truth is the charges were dropped because his defence team were going to prove the 33 pictures of alleged underage girls were adults. Two things, how can the media keep reporting as fact something that has never been proven? Can he sue them on this issue for libel? Also, they can say indecent photos of children were found (well, according to police according to their judgment of how old the person looked to them, if they want to be accurate) but it’s very disingenuous and misleading. For the purposes of the law/indecent images, anyone under 18 is considered a child. Thus we can read police allege the photos were of children, while Harris’s defence team argued they were adults. This reads ridiculous unless you know they are debating a 17 year old. How many people hear ‘child porn’ and imagine a 17 year old? Not many from the comments I’ve read since. Rolf Harris had a child porn collection and that meant he was getting his jollies ‘watching little kids being abused in the worst way’ to quote one person. The media will happily let this be what people think.

    Meanwhile, I read that The Sun, Star etc stopped using 16 & 17 year as Page 3 in 2003. The law making under 18 a child in relation to porn/indecent images changed from under 16s around the same time. Does this mean th The Sun were selling what would now be legally termed child porn until 2003? To all ages! If I tried to download a photo of Sam Fox doing page three, would I be guilty of making an indecent image? Is that child porn on my computer?

    • Tim

      The media gets away with it by sticking it in quotes, or sticking “allegedly” or “believed to be” on it. It’s an absolutely disgusting way of steering the general public to believe something that is either untrue or not yet proven to be true without being libellous. That said, some of the titles I’ve seen on news sites certainly reads as libellous.

      • SYork

        ‘The media gets away with it by sticking it in quotes, or sticking “allegedly” or “believed to be” on it.’

        Well the media doesn’t even do that in this instance. Have a google.

        • Terry M

          I always thought that the laws referring to child-porn and peadophilia actually referred to prepubescent children as in the clinical terms. I may be wrong, but once a child hits puberty and beyond they are no longer a child in that sense. Why are the press therefore using these terms to mean anyone under 18-years-old when it suits them to ?

          So Rolf never had any child porn on his computer at all.

          If you know Rolf’s art you will know he uses nude model form images for his nude paintings. There was no reason for this to be pulled apart by the press other than to make him sound like a peadophile and shock the public, all this crap just to sell more papers on another character assassination of this man, but they have no guilt or shame in doing this to anyone do they. They can get away with it.

  • chris

    Interested in your description of false accusations. Someone being found not guilty doesn’t automatically mean that the allegations were false

  • David

    I agree with a lot in this post, but isn’t it possible that the evidence against him was a lot stronger than BBC summary reported (a news report cannot report 100% what was said in court for reasons of time). I hope that is the case otherwise someone has been convicted of something he might not have done.

    • Scott McMahon

      A news report cant even cover a fraction of what gets said in court… Nor can even a more detailed article in a newspaper… I’ve served on a jury, so I know this to be a fact….

      • Pete

        … then perhaps these golden nuggets of information that only the jury were privy to should be shared with the general public … and then we’d know one way or the other wouldn’t we. Because without that, it feels like a massive miscarriage of justice has just taken place.

        • Scott McMahon

          You really just dont have a clue what you’re talking about do you…? The information could be privileged information for the jury only that they cant discuss, because it may lead to the identity of a victim becoming public knowledge…

          And, if you honestly think a miscarriage of justice has occurred here, then you’re delusional..

          • Tim

            Being able to pay for a lawyer doesn’t help if the Jury is biased. Realistically cases like this with this much media attention shouldn’t go to public trial on the ground that it’s impossible for the jury to come to an impartial decision.

            When you look at the testimonies that were given and the glaring holes in them, you really do have to ask yourself how the jury sat their and decided that it was “beyond reasonable doubt”. The answer is simple though. With this much media attention they are pushed to believe that these allegations aren’t lies regardless of evidence, and they would feel better putting an innocent man away that letting a guilty man go.

            That’s not how the law works nor is it how it should work. These cases have pretty much become then next “no win no fee” accident claims, since all a claimant has to do is put forwards a bogus claim and the most amount of risk they have is that they gain and lose nothing.

          • Pete

            agreed Tim. Also Scott’s original assertion “A news report cant even cover a fraction of what gets said in court” could actually be taken as – the public may be missing information which proves Rolf DID NOT commit some of these offenses, and it’s just something else the jury decided wasn’t worth taking into account. I really wish we had access to the full courtroom transcripts.

          • Pete

            … but you are one of the millions of the general stupid public who hasn’t bothered to think this through clearly. I guessed this else you couldn’t possibly have written that post. Did you actually follow this trial properly – or did you just read the news headlines like most people and decide: “no smoke without fire” ? …. else did you REALLY not notice the gaping inconsistencies in this trial? In fact, have you even read the above article properly?

            For you people to say- “the jury know things that we don’t and we can’t be told to protect the victims” is a cop out on my opinion. Rolf Harris is a highly talented, national treasure, who many people say hasn’t a bad bone in his body – if he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, then I, personally, feel the need to see evidence of this “beyond reasonable doubt” – and not just blindly accept it like you appear to have.

    • Tim

      While not everything can be reported, especially not word for word, the general gist of what evidence was given would be reported. I would expect the media to have reported at least the fact that some evidence existed beyond absolutely none if there were any, even if they were unable to divulge what that evidence was.

  • Lise Rothwell

    Mr Harris is a piece of my past, I remember watching him as a very happy part of my childhood. He needs to get a decent lawyer and appeal the conviction…All these women are doing is jumping on the tails of the Saville cases, hoping to get some easy money, not caring that they have caused a lovely kind caring man a lot of heartache and could be the cause of him dying away from his family with all this hanging over his head…..He should be told that the people who love him don’t believe a word of what’s been said about him and to hold his head high, he knows he has done nothing wrong!!!!

  • BrunaZanelli

    I hope when the miscarriage of justice is proven all those trolls with toilets for mouths will be among the first to apologise. The vitriol and abuse is sickening and in the main it has been hurled about by deadheads who have nothing better to do than violate their internet connections. Surely that is also abuse!

    • Terry M

      Bruna, please don’t let those trolls get into your head. They know nothing about the case and the pathetic, sickening conviction of an innocent and well loved public figure who has done nothing wrong in his life, only good.
      This miscarriage of British justice must be brought to light by a good lawyer or judge who is brave enough to go against the system as it is.
      These things have just got out of all proportion, mainly down to the vulture press and media on the backlash of one particular man – Savile. The following fervour whipped up by them has given no chance for ANY innocent man who gets accused of a sexual crime, even if it was decades ago or not even a crime at the time. The established stance now is to get as many men as possible and ruin their lives. Money is a great reason to accuse if you know they have a wealth.
      It is pathetic that a man can be accused then convicted on the say of someone else with no factual evidence whatsoever. There are so many faults with this conviction, not the least to say that it shouldn’t have even got to court.
      Who do you believe, Rolf or a few compensation chasers? I know who I believe !

  • Misty

    I have just seen this headline in the Mail Online regarding the tragic case of Frances Andrade: “Police told concert violinist who died of an overdose
    ‘NOT to get counselling before testifying against her former teacher in
    sex abuse trial in case it altered her memory’. That’s interesting – an admission by the police that counselling can alter your memory. How many of Mr Harris’s ‘victims’ were getting counselling (for whatever reason)?

  • Misty4

    I’m not sure why my comment has disappeared by take a look at the very interesting heading on this Mail Online article:

  • kat

    Hilariously incompetent attempt at trolling, babes.

  • Natfloesp

    Admin, I do not know if Rolf Harris is guilty of the crimes he is accused of. However, if you had been molested at whatever reasonable age (and 8 applies) you would remember the incident. Maybe not the date but you would know the person who did it and under which circumstance.

    • Pete

      mysterious, I agree. But the girl in question DID NOT remember the circumstances. “The court heard that no evidence could be found that Mr Harris had been
      at the community centre. He also showed his hands to the jury and denied
      they were hairy.” This was the only alleged prepubertal assault and considering it was supposed to have happened 45 years ago – no DNA, no photographs, no witnesses apart from the accuser, no fingerprints, nothing – the Crown Prosecution Service should not have even brought it to court.

      • s

        Their was two witnesses who remembered going to community center and getting autographs who gave evidance in court.

        • MAJR

          No, there were two witnesses who vaguely remembered Harris being in the area. One claimed Harris was there to open a shop, the other claimed he was there for an autograph secession. As far as it was reported, they didn’t give exact dates, they didn’t give the exact location, they just vaguely remembered he had been there around that time.

          And two people in a city of over 200,000 coming forward to back up the claim of the prosecution that he was even in the area cannot possibly carry more weight than the complete lack of solid evidence in the council records or archives of the local paper to do the same.

          • s

            Another witness has now taken to the stand, who says he helped with celebrities who appeared at the community centre in Portsmouth, including Diana Dors and Rolf Harris.

            He says he got an autograph for his daughter from Rolf Harris.

            Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

          • Pete

            how can another witness have taken to the stand ?? … you posted this 10 hours ago and yet the judge passed sentence nearly 3 weeks ago ??? …. the link you gave was from a news article at 15th May. And the link you posted referred to a 51 year old woman weeping about an alleged 3 second grope from 45 years previously.

            Are people now resorting to putting up smoke-screen posts/links to try and make us think that Rolf is obviously guilty, when clearly the allegations were so weak that they should never even have got as far as the judicial process ??

          • MAJR

            Against those witness statement is the fact that no record was found in either the council or the local newspaper archives to prove that Rolf Harris had been in the area during a seven year period between 1967 and 1974.

            Memories are not reliable, they can change over time and accuracy cannot be guarenteed. Archived records or editions of newspaper dont change, they might be lost perhaps but there was, to my knowledge, no suggestion that there was any gap in the council or newspaper archieves for the time in question.

            Frankly I would put more trust in records and solid evidence than I would the recollection of people from something that’s claimed to have happened over 40 years ago. There’s too big of a gap in time to expect any kind of accuracy in getting the correct date or year from memory alone.

          • Carrie

            I totally agree. A rather different view of the witness testimony was reported in the Sydney morning herald:

            “Thursday’s hearing also had a moment of comedy, as an old witness with a thick West Country accent gave rambling testimony about close encounters with celebrities such as Diana Dors and Sid James, before taking the defence counsel to task for suggesting he had misremembered Harris visiting his town.

            “You are suggesting I am making up stories, he said, in an outraged voice. “I am not a man who is stupid or otherwise.”

            He then explained to her how she could go and check council archives for a record of Harris’ visit to the town near Portsmouth about the time the complainant claimed she was assaulted.

            He was the first of two witnesses who recalled Harris visiting the town”

            The above quote is from It does not seem to me that they got anything like a reliable witness there.

            I wish that we could know more about the make-up of that jury, We know that one of the jurors fell asleep but didn’t need anything repeated, and those questions that the jury asked while considering their verdict seemed crazy.

            I hope that Rolf does appeal and that the judge in the appeal trial can see the gaping holes in the case.

          • Misty

            According to the Cambridge News, the jury was made up of six men and six women – not that that means much, I guess.


            Incidentally, the article contains this:

            “The woman, who is now 52, told the jury of six men and six women that
            Harris put his arm around her, and moved his hand up and down her back,
            before squeezing her bottom.”

            He squeezed her bottom? Well, if he did, it was pretty much normal male behaviour back then (not now, of course). You only have to look at the Carry On films and sitcoms such as On The Buses to get an idea of the culture that prevailed at the time. Yet this has been reported time and time again as a ‘sex attack’.

            From the Daily Mail: Rolf Harris has today been found guilty of 12 SEX ATTACKS [my emphasis] on young girls …..” (

            Nothing like inflating a bit of run-of-the-mill bottom pinching into a full-scale sex attack! And that dreadful phrase ‘young girls’ … all the supposed victims were in their teens apart from the Portsmouth one, for which there was no evidence at all.

            A different jury might well have found him not guilty on all counts.

          • Carrie

            Yes, the whole “daily mail” attitude, which has been reflected to some degree in all the papers, dries me nuts. They were doing it a little even before the conviction, when they should have been simply reporting facts.

            The bottom-squeeze has puzzled me from the start. She even said it felt nice when he put his arm around her, but that the bottom-squeeze made everything go bad. Turns out that she was 17 or so if it happened at all. Good grief. If I were to take to court every man who patted or squeezed my bottom when I was that age (actually a lot younger, my body matured early), I’d have no time for anything else. How can anyone who is now over 50 regard that as an attack, or abuse? It was normal for its time, as were fulsome compliments and big hugs and kisses on the cheek or even, briefly, the lips. To say that it has coloured the rest of your life and damaged you foreever is madness and an insult to women who have been truly abused. It is a part of today’s “victim culture”.

            It would be interesting to know more about the jury, because there could be real cultural reasons for the convictions which would then let us see why we got this silly result. What would be the catchment area from which they would choose jury members for Southwark? If I recall aright, Southwark is the only court so far to convict in any of these “historic abuse” cases. So is the general culture around that area more prone to produce “Social Justice Warriors”, or is there a large percentage of very young adults? Or of other people from cultures who would not be able to understand the casual sexism in the UK of earlier times?

            I know that we have not seen everything that the jury saw. But between the various eager news outlets, we have been shown zero reliable evidence to cause a conviction. There can be nothing to stop the media from reporting genuine corroborating evidence, but they have not done so. It may be that they were not allowed to report the juciest bits of the allegations, but those are not corroboration.

          • Misty

            My guess is that the media hasn’t reported genuine corroborating evidence because there wasn’t any.

          • Carrie

            I agree — the media was slavering so much over this case that I am sure they would have blazoned any such evidence, as they did with that ridiculous Cambridge video. I was really addressing the meme of “oh well we mere outsiders didn’t see all the evidence that the Jury saw, so they know better than us simple mortals”. I cannot see that there has been anything other than a miscarriage of justice here, and it makes me truly fearful for all older men. And very sad for Rolf and his family and good friends.

          • Jethro

            Who frigging cares if he was there or not! I think we are all missing the point. Someone has been convicted on the basis of word of mouth testimony dating back 40 years! Geezez is it just me? This is loony tunes stuff.

          • s

            The next witness is another former Portsmouth resident who says he remembers Harris visiting the community centre in the late 1960s when he was a boy.

            The defence asks the witness when Sid James and other celebrities visited the area.

            They suggest Harris did not visit the area until 1978 and he was never there in the late 1960s.

            The witness disagrees, and insists Harris was there at that time, which is when the woman claims she was assaulted.

            Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

  • Pingback: The Manhunt May Already Have Started | Frank Davis()

  • Misty

    Heading in the Independent today (11th July):

    Police demand right to challenge jury verdicts: Home Secretary to examine papers in case of teenager cleared of murder despite admitting that he struck fatal blow with knife

    So, not only do the police say that counselling can change memories:

    Inquest into death of Frances Andrade hears how police urged her not to have
    counselling before she gave evidence in sex abuse trial in case therapy
    altered memory

    they also are demanding the right to challenge jury verdicts that they think are wrong. But juries always get it right … don’t they?

  • Desi

    It’s so sad that his comment thread has slowed down and everybody moves on and forgets the innocent 84 year old man rotting in prison. God bless Mr. Harris I hope he is OK.

  • elvis

    dont be a F……..twat Saville & Harris are paedophiles & should rot in hell

    • Alice

      So all your ancestors were paedophiles then? So if a jury of twats finds you guilty based on the flimsiest of evidence then you are guilty because the system said so? The same system that used to tell us the earth was flat amongst a billion other bullshit things. What about the hundreds if not thousands of men wrongly convicted of rape only to be released when DNA proved it wasn’t them. Innocent men vilified by sheeple like you. All convicted because of circumstantial, word of mouth evidence by an insane legal system.

      • Misty

        This is what is so worrying about the jury system – an entire jury could be made up of ‘twats’ who are unable to understand complex evidence, cannot speak or understand English very well, hate ‘paedos’ to the extent that anyone on trial for alleged crimes against children is guilty before they even set foot in the dock, reach a verdict under pressure because some of them want to go nightclubbing or to bingo, believe in Sharia law over the law of this country, or who don’t like the look of the defendant because he’s ugly or has shifty eyebrows.

        The whole idea of the jury system was for people to be tried by their peers, but many people who serve on juries nowadays couldn’t remotely be described as peers of the person in the dock.

        And when this motley bunch finds someone guilty (or not guilty) it is taken for granted that the verdict is the correct one!

        The sad thing is that had Mr Harris been tried by a different jury, on the evidence (or lack of it) put forward, he would probably have been found not guilty.

        • Helen Kistler

          This is not Sharia law.

  • MrMcHenry

    If someone accuses me of some crime last week then I likely know who I was with and where at the time and can make a case for the defence. Now if there is an accusation from 20 years back, or 30 or 40. then I really would not know how to begin defending myself.

  • Murray Rothbard
  • Jethro

    You do realise that in some European countries his “offences” wouldn’t even be considered illegal. 13 years old. Ok may be a tad twisted but is that paedophilia? Have you seen some of the 13 yr olds out there!

    Still the entire case is hog wash and should have been thrown out.

    Why do web sites in the UK and Australia use American spell checkers?

    • Hzle

      I wonder if people also notice the language used. Those who want to see Harris in jail talk about his “abuse” of girls and women. I think what this means is that he may have pinched a few bottoms (The horror! The horror!) and may have had a sexual relationship with someone under 16.

      The second is illegal in some countries, but it is not what comes to mind when you talk about “abuse”. The word carries very dark connotations.

      The same goes with “statuary rape”. People start calling a man a rapist – in the full knowledge that they are giving people a different idea from what (in some cases) actually happened.

      if people don’t want to describe things honestly – but instead use the word abuse because it sounds awful, then surely they’re guilty of a kind of lying. As I’ve mentioned, the Times newspaper talked about the “full extent of [his] campaign of abuse against women” – which I think is their nadir

      • Misty

        Good point, Hzle. The definition of what constitutes abuse has widened considerably over the years as abuse industry ‘charities’ need to persuade the gullible public that they need their money to continue to fight said abuse (never mind that their Chief Executive is on a salary comparable with those in some private sector companies). Hence a pat on the bottom over forty years ago (pretty much normal male behaviour back then) takes on a sinister connotation today.

        Before long we forget that it was a pat on the bottom because it’s been reported time and time again (and not just in the downmarket tabloids) as ‘abuse’, which has far more graphic connotations. God forbid that you have patted (or are alleged to have patted), say, ten bottoms over twenty-five years as that makes you a ‘serial abuser’. If the owners of said bottoms are in their teens, you become a ‘predatory paedophile’ in the press, even though a paedophile is, strictly speaking, interested in pre-pubescent children. If you present as a normal bloke (despite having patted the odd bottom) it’s not because you ARE a normal bloke – it’s because paedophiles are very good at hiding their activities!

        Even more damaging in some respects is that some people (mainly the flakier type of women, it would seem) are now viewing themselves as victims of abuse as a result of a bottom pat on some unspecified date in the 1970s – in some cases, I suspect, because a counsellor has told them that they HAVE been abused. Suddenly, everything bad that has ever happened in their life can be traced to that bottom pat.

        You couldn’t make it up.

  • Jethro

    Ok I think the majority of sane rational people have agreed that the case was a terrifying joke from beginning to end. A remake of Bonfire of the Vanities this time starring Rolf Harris. The difference of course is that the movie had a logical rational ending. The question I have is WHY HAS HE NOT APPEALED? Does anyone know anything in this regard???

    The second question is more flippant. Why do police bother doing a rape kit as fast as possible after a rape? Surely the woman can just say the guy did it and he goes to jail…. Time is irrelevant. She can just accuse him 40 years later.

    Note to Mr Harris: Not all of us believe the crap spewed out by the media. Many of us are behind you. Many of us are still trying to fathom what the actual crime was even if you were “guilty”.

    • Carrie

      It may be that they are trying to find legal grounds for an appeal. As I understand it there are restrictions on being allowed to appeal.

      New evidence popping could do it — in which case, could the information regarding false memories and the dangers of counselling help?

      Also, if the defense can show that there was an unfair bias in the judge’s summing up or in such things as the prosecution being allowed to change the goal-posts “on the fly”, or in the fact that previous to the trial there had been media reports of suspect images on Rolf’s computer so that a non-biased jury would be hard to find… would any of this kind of thing make an appeal allowable?

      The Cambridge affair should surely have been thrown out rather than allow the “victim” to change her age. The Portsmouth nonsense looks downright impossible, and as for Tonya Lee — don’t get me started.

      Maybe he feels too beaten and upset to even contemplate trying to clear his name. But I hope that he does appeal. There is still time.

      • Jethro

        New evidence comes to light… there wasn’t any evidence in the first place. I feel like I’m living in an Idiocracy. Scratch that. I know I am.

        • Carrie

          An idiocracy indeed. It seems that the people who keep banging he drum about the “patriarchy” and “privilege” are beginning to get what they want — more Rich Old White Men in jail.

      • Pete

        Carrie and Jeffro, I agree with everything you’ve said. Also the – Bindi’s friend case being abused on holiday should have been thrown out by any sensible court process on the grounds that a) the witnesses (Bindi) said that nothing unusual appeared to happen and she was with her friend virtually all the time etc b) the girl herself kept a diary indicating that she had a nice holiday c) the girl was having sexual encounters with Rolf from age 18 to 29 (before asking him for £26000) …. and if the jury REALLY believed she was having adult sex with him because of “attachment disorder” then they REALLY need to get a clue and start remembering how life actually works rather than listening to the opinions of some misguided therapists. Don’t get me started on this either ! :-) It makes me bloody angry.

        • Carrie

          Oh lord yes, Bindi’s friend, gah… I avoided commenting on her because there is so much to say, which you have so admirably paraphrased. The diary is nonsensical, for instance any girl who keeps a diary puts her deepest thoughts into it. She seems to me to show all the signs of a woman who felt the need to blame someone else for her own failings, and who became vindictive when Rolf had another affair.

          • Misty

            It was reported that when Bindi confided in her friend regarding her suspicions that her father was having an affair with the housekeeper, the friend replied, “The bitch, the old cow, she is so ugly, what on earth does he see in her? How dare he? What a s*** he is. Your dad is a right b******.’ That, to me, suggests that she was jealous – but I have not seen this angle mentioned in any of the news reports. Sadly, the housekeeper passed away in 1999. She might well have testified to Mr Harris having a good character (by all accounts he was very kind to her and her adopted son who had learning difficulties). Maybe she could have testified regarding certain other people as well, but this is, of course, speculative.

          • Pete

            What actually happened is so obvious – it actually frightens me that Sasha Wass QC managed to persuade the jury that this woman was going “attachment disorder” – why couldn’t the jury read between the lines and know that this was a load of horse-shit ? People on juries should only be picked when they have an IQ beyond 100.

            I hope Sasha and the jury are sleeping well at night ^_^

          • Pete

            Yep that sounds spot on…. I was thinking on the lines of – 18 year old women don’t generally look at 40+ year old blokes in a sexual way …. however, if the 40+ year old bloke was to win the lottery and become a millionaire then the goalposts change somewhat. However, Rolf was already a multimillionaire – a fantastic catch – she probably had deeper ideas of where their “relationship” was going but he was just using her for what he could get out of it …. not very moral, to be fair, but not illegal and a common way for blokes to think/behave if they have half a chance.

            To me that is so bleeding obvious which is why I get so cross when idiot morons go on about her having “attachment disorder”. But as you say. she became vindictive when life was going badly for her – and Rolf Harris has been royally shafted for it.

  • Pingback: Of paedophiles, cybercriminals and surveillance | ITsecurityITsecurity()

  • Carrie

    I see that the Daily Mail readers are outraged again. It appears that Rolf’s jail doesn’t look hard enough. Apparently they were happy thinking of him suffering abuse in Wandsworth, and don’t like that he is in a place better suited to older inmates..

    • Pete

      and 99.9% of the Daily Mail readers won’t have followed the trial like we have and won’t have actually thought about the holes in each count against him. It isn’t their fault though …. It is the fault of the media who manipulate these people. This case just demonstrates how powerful the media can be. i.e. why let facts get in the way of a good story ?

    • Misty

      Someone even suggested that they take his drawing materials away. Another said that he should physically fight for his food and water. Even the merest suggestion of a ‘paedo’ (most of them can’t spell it) in any context is enough to get this mob going. Most of them seem to be people who aren’t very bright but like to think they’re middle class. And at some point some of them will end up on juries, making decisions that will have life-changing effects on others. And that is far more frightening than their spiteful, uneducated, misspelled and downright vicious comments.

      • Carrie

        Yes, that is what frightens me — that they are eligible jury material. And, given the illogical verdicts in this trial, it strengthens my concern that this has been a miscarriage of justice.

  • Misty

    There is something that I don’t quite understand here and I wonder if someone can shed any light on it. It is regarding the Portsmouth incident. According to this blogger: the judge, in his summing up, said that the incident happened at the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant (which is 18.5 km from Portsmouth according to a distance calculator, and which opened on 6th May 1963). Why, then, was this alleged incident continually referred to throughout the trial as having happened in Portsmouth? Does referring to Portsmouth (which is well known) make it sound more likely that Mr Harris would have appeared there, whereas referring to Havant (which is not well known, apart from having had its name on Tampax boxes) would make it appear far less likely?

    The Havant suburb of Leigh Park is essentially a post-war housing estate which was built to cater for people bombed out of their Portsmouth homes during the war. It is not what you would call a ‘posh’ area. Mr Harris, at the time this incident was alleged to have happened, was at the peak of his career and in great demand worldwide. It seems very unlikely that he would have appeared at such a lowly venue – not least because his fee would have been somewhat higher than those charged by most of the local acts which are the mainstay of venues of this type. The prosecution tried – and failed – to place Mr Harris in the area around the time of this alleged incident. There were a couple of supposed witnesses but, given the crowds that would have flocked to have seen him, you’d have thought that it would have merited a substantial article in the local press. There was nothing.

    Now here is another puzzling bit. From the Huffington Post: “She told the jury that when she got to the front of the queue, Harris
    crouched down, signed her piece of paper and then touched her bottom and
    vagina. “He was looking at me, smiling, and I was smiling, looking excited, and
    suddenly out of nowhere I felt his hand go down the back and up between
    my legs,” the woman told the court.”

    Down the back and up between her legs, note – and he ‘touched her bottom and vagina’ (the inference being that there was direct contact, as there is no mention of it being over clothing). In front of a queue of people who were queuing to get his autograph, where he would have been the focus of attention, and from a crouched position?

    Note the judge’s remarks as reported in the previously-mentioned blog: “Taking advantage of your celebrity status, you twice put your hand UP HER SKIRT [my emphasis] between her legs and touched her vagina over her clothing.”

    So, there is an apparent discrepancy here – ‘down the back’ or ‘up her skirt’? And were her bottom and vagina touched directly (as there was no mention of clothing over them), or only her vagina, over her clothing? Was the jury concentrating on direct hand to genital contact, rather than touching through clothing? All based on a supposed memory of forty-odd years ago, of course.

    The summing-up continues: “I have carried what Rolf Harris did to me for most of my life, it took away my childhood, it affected every aspect of my life from the point he assaulted me.” Sorry, but I don’t believe it. Some people truly suffer in life – those who were interned in concentration camps, for example, or who lose family members in tragic and unexpected circumstances, but not because of two seconds’ worth of grope (if it happened at all, given that memories are fallible in the long term).

    Maybe it wasn’t Mr Harris at Leigh Park Community Centre? Maybe it was someone who looked like him? Or a comedian who was doing what we would now call a Rolf Harris tribute? Maybe she was led to believe that it was Rolf Harris, for whatever reason?

    Whatever did or didn’t happen at this community centre, Mr Harris should not have been convicted of it beyond reasonable doubt on the evidence available, which was … er … none.

    • Carrie

      You can download the judge’s sentencing remarks from the proper source, without having to rely on a hate-filled site:

      As far as I know, that is the only transcript available from Rolf’s trial but at least it gives us details of the claims. It is interesting that the judge did not think that Rolf should pay compensation, apart from paying the prosecution bill.

      As regards the actual alleged grope, the judge says it was over her knickers. Whatever way you look at it, that whole thing was a weird, impossible kind of action. The man is supposed to be bending down, facing the girl, and was able to do a grope down her back and up between her legs without anyone seeing him turn into a pretzel?

      I do not know a great deal about Havant and Portsmouth, but as I understand it Portsmouth is basically the district, covering Havant and a few other small places. So “Portsmouth” hotels, colleges, council buildings etc would include any that may be in Havant. Thus, Leigh Park is a large council estate (with a community centre) in Havant, which is in Portsmouth District. And Portsmouth itself is in Portsmouth District of course.

      My guess is that the girl saw a Rolf tribute act at the community centre and got that all muddled up with a bad dream of some kind. It is seriously impossible to my mind that anyone can remember in such detail an occurrence that long ago when she was so young. Yes one can remember the odd thing vividly, but can one actually recall it accurately? The memory does play tricks.

      And why couldn’t the jury see that this alleged incident was very different from all the others? In no other case has anyone even suggested that he had any interest at all in pre-pubescent girls, all the others were girls or women who would have had more curvaceous figures. So the prosecution’s insistence on the similarities of the “attacks” is a nonsense too.

      It looks as if he is not going to appeal, doesn’t it — which I think is sad.

      • Pete

        I have just read those sentencing remarks in detail. Thanks for sharing the link … I still find it very difficult to understand how victim “C” let herself get abused more than once … bearing in mind sexual abuse must be a deeply unpleasant experience. Surely by the time she was 15 she would be savvy enough to think: “I’m not going to let this man anywhere near me” – let alone letting him walk into her bedroom (alone) But having sexual encounters with him until she was 29 is surely nonsense … (what I actually mean is “it’s nonsense unless the man happened to be a millionaire” :-) )

        • Carrie

          I totally agree. I know from personal experience that what you do is AVOID being alone with the man in question after the first time. Most of the time, you can do that. Even if he has access to you and does do it again, it doesn’t make you feel like going back to him when you don’t need to. The prosecution’s idea that she was “groomed” by him after only a few episodes when she was 13 or 15 is ridiculous! Surely the kind of effect that they are talking about can really only occur after the abuse has happened so often that it seems “normal”, and I highly doubt that a victim would then visit the abuser voluntarily in such a casual and occasional manner when she has been free of his presence for years. Incidentally, part of the description was that he fiddled with her until she pushed him away. So she was in fact capable of pushing him away; again, not indicative of someone who is “groomed”.

  • Misty

    I have just found this site relating to the Leigh Park Community Centre in Havant (where the ‘Portsmouth incident’ was alleged to have occurred): The main hall there (which would be where Rolf Harris supposedly performed) holds up to …. wait for it … 150 people! I wonder if the defence checked this out and made efforts to find out whether there had been any structural alterations since the 1960s to make the main hall smaller? Would Mr Harris, who was at the peak of his career in the 1960s, REALLY have performed in a community hall on a council estate in Havant that held only 150 people? Hmm. It’s not quite the Royal Albert Hall, is it? They’d have had to pay a small fortune to book him … for 150 people. The ticket prices would have had to reflect this and consequently would have been beyond the reach of a good many locals – but at least having Mr Harris on stage there would have attracted a lot of local press coverage. Oh – hang on! The prosecution couldn’t find anything at all when they went through back copies of the local paper. It’s not beyond the realms of possibility that some local chap with big hairy hands was on stage singing Two Little Boys – a song which is very strongly associated with Mr Harris, any maybe more so in the mind of a child.

  • Ian Harris

    I agree from what I have read that the conviction seems at least doubtful. if he can still afford it, because our costly legal system will already have cost a fortune to defend himself, he should appeal.The ‘ruined life’ is a gross exaggeration; and even if there is some truth in it, don’t individuals have self will? Most of us have suffered a little bit of kiddie-fiddling in our youth, without ruining our lives!

    • Hzle

      Is “ruined life” an exageration? This is an old man who realises that many of the people who loved him may never speak to him again.

      His life will have been felt worthwhile and meaningful because of all the love and admiration from his fans and the public (a powerful drug). That’s all gone and been replaced by revulsion and hatred.

      It’s a very difficult change for anyone to cope with, let alone for a man of his age. And I haven’t even got onto what prison could be like for him..

      • Carrie

        Hzle, I think that Ian means that the alleged victims are saying that he ruined THEIR lives, and that that is a serious exaggeration. As he says, many of us have suffered a bit of kiddie-fiddling in our youth and it has not ruined our lives. I certainly have, even my husband was subjected to a bit of groping in his childhood. People who go on to do great things also get groped; Richard Dawkins, the biologist, for instance, was touched-up by a master at boarding school. He got a lot of flak from the “social justice warriors” for saying that this did not harm him.

        You would have to be quite a special kind of snowflake to have a simple, fast grope become the biggest thing in your life forever. Tonya Lee with her (I paraphrase) “I cannot be alone with my thoughts at night…” and women blaming their alcoholism and everything else that has gone wrong in their lives on Rolf, good grief. What annoys me is that this kind of nonsense causes harm to the cases of real serious abuse.

        I agree with you that Rolf’s life has been ruined. Even if he does manage to appeal and win, his current guilty verdict will always be in the public mind. He did a lot of good in his life. There is absolutely no evidence that he is guilty of the specific crimes for which he was convicted, and in fact they do not make sense at all with all of the information that has been given to us. Remember that the stuff we have read comes from a media biased against Rolf (apart from the judge’s sentencing remarks which clearly show his reasoning) and we still find it unconvincing.

        I am sure that Rolf did go beyond a simple hug and did pat or squeeze bottoms when he was younger; he probably thought that the women liked it. A lot of men did touch and compliment curvaceous young women in those days. He was not a rapist, nor was he really a sexual abuser and he was not a paedophile as he showed no interest really in pre-pubescent children. The Portsmouth incident stands out as totally different from the other complaints and reads as nonsense however you look at it.

        I wish that he would appeal. I suspect that he won’t, as for him the damage has been done. His life has been ruined.

        • Hzle

          Yes I think I misread that, thanks.

          I agree with you 100% on how too much has been made of groping. I’ve had my bottom pinched by women in pubs and nightclubs a few times – actually I’ve had women (whom I didn’t know) do absolutely ridiculous things to me*, and I have no wish to see them go to prison for it.

          The people who go on about equality of the sexes must be extremely obtuse if they can’t see a mismatch there.

          But it’s a bit of a popular meme at the moment – Libby Purves wrote in the Times how peoples bodies are “inviolable” – disappointingly silly stuff from such a good writer

          And I guess lawyers will make them exaggerate the effect on their lives

          The problem is there isn’t much of a concerted response to this, and there are pressure groups, charities and no small amount of money and power accompanying the “abuse” racket

          * not recently alas

          • Carrie

            “* not recently alas” LOL I too no longer receive the attention from the opposite gender that I used to. My theory is that gravity has increased, which accounts for everything being a LOT less “pert” than years ago…

            I despair at the current wave of idiocy. The modern-day uber-feminists will always insist that they are all for equality, that’s all they want, whilst labelling anyone who suggests that we need equality also for “white cis-gender males” as “MRA and mysoginist”. And if you ask a question about, say, “privilege”, they impatiently point you to “feminism 101″. Those of us who are white heterosexual able-bodied occidentals are high on “privilege” and should shut up, especially those who are male, and listen to the Women of Colour (especially those who are transsexual and/or homosexual and/or disabled). They hijack words so that we get the ridiculous situation that “white people cannot be raped” and “Black people cannot be racist”. Yes I have seriously seen people making those claims. The Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) know no limits.

            And this is the climate in which old men such as Rolf, who come from an era when pinching bottoms etc was almost a compliment and complimenting a young woman on her looks was approved of, are having to answer for being normal. Take a look at old 1940’s films, such as “the philadelphia story” and see how Uncle Willy pinching bottoms was considered to be fun. Today, Uncle Willy would be in gaol for such a terrible crime. Okay, Rolf was a bit over the top with such things, but he was/is not a paedophile (who ever heard of a paedophile who only touched one pre-pubescent child, and in such a way?) and he does not deserve to have his whole life ruined and all his good work negated for it.

            I just hope hope hope that the legal system rights this wrong, either by showing us evidence that really is convincing of his guilt or by overturning the verdicts. I am so uncomfortable with the way I feel about our justice system at the moment; I was naive enough to trust it until I looked closer. Now I feel that the SJWs are winning and we live in a place where “victims” will always be believed regardless of lack of evidence and no innocent person is safe if accused. Oh and because I am female I am automatically a victim of the patriarchy. Gah.

  • Fred Nerd

    This would have been a convincing rebuttal for me had not Hugh Heffner been cited as someone in a normal relationship. The shaded jetty defence needs expansion. Is the shade caused by geology or buildings present at the time or trees that grow?

    • Carrie

      I think you are posting in the wrong thread. This blog post and thread is about Rolf Harris.

  • Steve CH

    Yayyyyyy! Rolf has applied to appeal !!!!!!!!

    • Carrie

      YESSSS! i just saw that too, in the Huffington Post. I hope his appeal is allowed!

      I notice that the powers that be have refused to increase his sentence, too, so maybe his luck is turning… Fingers crossed…

      • Misty

        I hope his luck is turning, too. By the way, regarding the woman who was supposedly ‘abused’ in the Portsmouth incident (for Portsmouth, read Havant) claiming that she was listening to the world-famous Rolf Harris singing ‘Two Little Boys’ in a 150 seat hall at a community centre on a council estate in 1968: ‘TWO LITTLE BOYS’ WAS NOT RELEASED BY ROLF HARRIS UNTIL LATE 1969! In the highly unlikely event that Rolf Harris was even there, and in the unlikely event that he sang a song (written in 1902 by an American composer) that most people at that point had never heard of, why would she remember it? Yes, people remember it now because it became so well known, but if you hear a song that you’ve never heard before, especially if you are only seven or eight, it doesn’t exactly stick in your memory, does it?

        • Carrie

          That’s a very good point, Misty! It is so infuriating that he was found guilty of something that is so ridiculous. It was unverified, unlikely for several reasons (including his lack of interest in pre-pubescents), and physically impossible for a non-contortionist.

          And this is the very one who has now waived her anonymity in order to say how terrible it makes her feel that he might be allowed to appeal. Well, if she was lying maybe she is afraid of getting found out? When she heard he is trying to appeal: “I almost felt like I was in the cell with him, serving time with him. The pain I felt, it was terrible.” Gah. How nonsensical is that? Good grief, that sounds so much like Tonya Lee’s dramatics.

          I SO MUCH hope that his appeal will be allowed and that a sane judge gets to hear it.

          • Misty

            So do I. This woman said that she ‘felt his hand go down the back and up between my legs.’ The judge, in his sentencing remarks, said that Mr Harris put his hand up her skirt. Putting a sneaky hand up someone’s skirt wouldn’t be too difficult, I guess – but that’s what the judge said, not what SHE said. SHE said ‘down the back and up’, which would be jolly difficult to do sneakily in front of a crowd of people all trying to get your autograph.

            What also puzzles me is that, as she was only seven or eight, someone would have taken her to hear the world famous Rolf Harris perform a song that had not yet been released in a 150-seat community hall (which would be more suited to a whist drive) on a council estate in Havant for which there were no advertisements, programmes or newspaper reports. While I accept that some people might have since died, why were there no family members in court to corroborate her ‘evidence’?

            It sounds to me too as if she might be getting twitchy about his appeal. It has to be remembered that Mr Harris is now a predatory paedophile in the minds of the masses largely as a result of the ‘Portsmouth incident’.

          • Misty

            I wonder why this woman has chosen to give up her anonymity? What are her motives, I wonder? Attention-seeking? The chance to make a lot of money by selling her story to those dreadful real-life magazines? It could backfire on her spectacularly, though. In any event, once a person has outed themselves like this there will quite likely be people coming forward to say, “It’s HER?! My God, she’s as nutty as a fruitcake!” (I’m not referring to this woman specifically here, but anyone who chooses to go public in such a situation.) I have to say, though, that the comments that this woman made, as reported in the press, made her sound quite hysterical. But, as we all know, that was because of the three-second period of ‘abuse’ that supposedly took place when Rolf Harris performed ‘Two Little Boys’, well before the single was released, in a 150-seat hall on a council estate in Havant when he was so famous that his appearance didn’t even merit an advert in the local rag, a souvenir programme or a news report.

          • Carrie

            “the three-second period of ‘abuse’ that supposedly took place when Rolf Harris performed ‘Two Little Boys’, well before the single was released, in a 150-seat hall on a council estate in Havant when he was so famous that his appearance didn’t even merit an advert in the local rag, a souvenir programme or a news report.” LOL I should not have been drinking coffee when I read this. Bravo, it is so succinct and accurate.

            And seriously, the more I look back at the various different reports and the inconsistencies in the “evidence”, the more amazed I am that any one person could have found him guilty of these particular crimes, let alone a group of twelve.

            As you say elsewhere, where are the people who would confirm that she went to see Rolf Harris at that time? All dead? Yes, methinks that perhaps Ms. Wendy is getting a bit twitchy.

          • Misty

            Her comments relating to the appeal are very over the top and emotional. It’s part of the legal process for someone to lodge an appeal, so she should have expected it (especially as he was convicted on virtually no evidence). I think she comes across as hysterical, over-emotional and worried (for whatever reason) – and the masses will be lapping all this up. “Poor Ms. Wendy! How could that nasty paedo Rolf do this to her? How dare he appeal!” I fear for the justice system in this country – I really do.

            If he does get to appeal and is granted a retrial (hopefully at Preston and not Southwark) or a reduction in his sentence I think there will need to be a free sample of smelling salts in every copy of the Daily Mail on the day it’s announced.

          • Carrie

            “there will need to be a free sample of smelling salts in every copy of the Daily Mail on the day it’s announced.” *laughs* I really need to stop drinking while I read comments. My monitor is starting to complain. I can so well picture the Daily Fail readership falling back on their cushions from shock. Even before Wendy “outed” herself, people there and elsewhere were saying “how DARE he try to appeal, the man is a monster, he shows absolutely no remorse.” They cannot grasp the concept that he believes himself to be innocent. How would he show remorse for something he doesn’t believe that he did? And some of the outright viciousness against him (and against people who say milder things about him) I find terrifying. Truly we do not have to scratch the surface of our “civilisation” much to get to the underlying savagery.

            I am a little surprised though that Wendy isn’t getting plastered as front page news all over the media; I wonder if there is some kind of curb on them while the appeal request is being considered? Or maybe Rolf is starting to be “old” news.

            Oh, but it would be a wonderful outcome, if we were to see a good honest re-trial… But I suspect that it would not happen that way… Well, we can dream of a fair justice system I suppos.

    • Pete

      Positive news but a bit early to be celebrating yet. If the appeal gets accepted then we still have to hope it won’t just be a repeat of the original trial i.e. he has been convicted on zero evidence before, so what is to stop the appeal just being another travesty …. i.e. more idiots on the jury (whilst and the media compound it with inaccurate, yet damaging statements)? It would be wonderful to see a successful appeal process – and I don’t just mean for the sake of Rolf and his family – but also for the sake of justice and common sense.

      • Carrie

        I know it’s early days, and we are possibly grasping at straws, but there was no chance at all that these verdicts would be investigated unless he actually tried to appeal. That’s what I am celebrating; the chance to hope that an apparent miscarriage of justice might be overturned.

        I don’t know much about the legal system, but I have been told that an appeal would most likely not go before a jury. I don’t know if it is better or worse to know that a judge would be the sole person to finally decide Rolf’s guilt, but if he is allowed to make his appeal then that might be a hopeful sign. Anyone who decides that he can appeal must at least be unconvinced of the fairness of that awful trial, which may mean that the defence have at last got something useful to produce. Who can say.

        We do not know if Rolf is generally guilty of inappropriate behaviour towards young women, he may well be a bit too free with his hands (although not unusually so for a man back in the 1970s), but I can see no real evidence against him in these 12 accusations and in particular zero evidence that he has any paedophile tendencies whatsoever. .

        Obviously I feel hope for his family, and for him if he is innocent, but most of all I feel hope that something which seems to have gone terribly wrong with justice has a chance of being fixed.

        • Pete

          Even so, I cannot see how an appeal would work in this case unless new evidence comes to light (and there is none)… else it would make a total mockery of the whole crown prosecution system. If a lot of time and money has been invested and a jury has unanimously found somebody guilty then without new evidence an appeal would be deemed as fruitless. We’re being optimistic in thinking that a) the appeal would be accepted and b) the new judge would have the wisdom, common sense and decency to highlight this case for what it was. But let’s hope I’m wrong :-)

          • Carrie

            Well I agree, but my hope is that the defence DOES have something new. Maybe they have “expert” evidence from people who know something about how the mind works. Or maybe they have solid proof that Rolf could not have been at Leigh Park during those years or that the girl in Cambridge was not at that particular celebrity event. Maybe they got hold of a letter or something from Bindi’s friend saying that she is going to get him for not giving her money or for having an affair with an ugly old woman; who knows. That would be cool. Or it may just be some legal thing, regarding the changing of dates etc, in which case I don’t suppose it would make much difference but might at least remove one or two of the cases from his “paedophile” CV.

          • Pete

            I admire your optimistic outlook Carrie :-) though personally I ‘m a bit skeptical about these so-called “experts”. i.e. didn’t the last “experts” say Bindi’s friend was suffering from attachment disorder ? I would rather that the person giving evidence was an expert in “COMMON SENSE” rather than an expert on how they think the mind works.

            Don’t get me wrong – I would love it if some strong evidence came to Rolf’s rescue – it would be fantastic, but I am not optimistic at all.

          • Carrie

            I think I come across as more optimistic than i really am :-) what I am really is hopeful. I am fully aware that he still has to get over the “right to appeal” hurdle. But this is why I am cautiously hopeful — surely the defence lawyers know that they can only appeal against the convictions if they have something new to show. They have to convince the people who allow appeals that they have a possible case. Of course, they could just be milking Rolf for more cash but hey, they do have their reputations to maintain too.

            I see that the “Portsmouth victim” woman is so keen that he does not get to appeal, and in fact that he get a longer sentence, that she has waived her anonymity:


            Her comments are weird. It sounds almost like the over-the-top histrionics that Tonya Lee produced. Remember, he was only supposed to have touched her briefly, between her legs but over her panties, when she was standing in a public autograph queue. But this has been the cause of all her problems since, and haunts her every day? Puh-leeze… She says:

            Quote — “It just seemed like I couldn’t move on from it. It’s not going to go away, he’s not going to give up.

            “I remember as a child his eyes were very cold. I felt that again during the trial. It’s almost as if he’s saying ‘you’re never going to get to me, you’re never going to stop me’.

            “I almost felt like I was in the cell with him, serving time with him. The pain I felt, it was terrible.” — end quote

            Sorry, that all sounds like total nonsense to me. I reckon that the prosecution was wrong in their analysis of the similarity of his alleged attacks. They were all very different and the only similarity I see is in the type of woman who has come forward; vicious women who have heavily embroidered his “abuse” and its effects on them.

          • Pete

            mmmm… very odd indeed. Thanks for sharing this. If the 3 second grope in the 60s had shook her up so much I wonder why she could not remember the exact date and location of where the incident took place (which would at least have been confirmed by newspaper archives and given more credit to her story).

            Ref your previous comment about “something new showing up”… wouldn’t it be fantastic if Bindi’s friend had kept a diary of events whilst she was on that holiday where the abuse started ??…. oh wait a minute – she DID keep a diary, but then jury failed to think it relevant. So I’m sure if she had written a letter saying something on the lines of “she’s going to get
            him for not giving her money or for having an affair with an ugly old
            woman” etc the jury would have ignored that too …. it’s “attachment disorder” said the “experts” so the jury just bought that line and failed to think it through any further.

            I say: It wasn’t “attachment disorder” …. it was “attachment to money disorder”

            We need the appeal to be accepted, and it to be taken on by fair judges who can think things through clearly.

          • Carrie

            Yes, OMG yes we need it to be accepted and taken on by fair, clear-headed judges. Quite apart from easing the catastrophe that has fallen on Rolf and his family, the worry that many of us have about the legal system after that travesty of a trial does need to be sorted out.

            I agree with you that whatever evidence that jury might have seen would be unlikely to have changed their minds. The trouble is that the appeal cannot rest on any evidence so far produced, nor can it rest on the fact that the jury gave the “wrong” verdict. Even if they could be shown to be a bunch of “Social Justice Warriors” or bigots. It has to be some new evidence or something that the judge or legal process did wrong. So, a letter saying something along the lines of “I’m going to make him pay for going with that old hag” would be rather splendid new evidence provided that the judge in the appeal court actually has some common sense. Or, someone in Leigh Park showing up to say that they remembered clearly and have a flyer saved of a Rolf tribute act with hairy hands in 1969 or whenever (I wonder if the witch-hunt would then go after that poor old fellow if he’s still alive. My guess is no, as he is probably not rich).

            The “experts” or counsellors who rabbit on about attachment disorder etc may well have a point when talking about the Fritzls etc of this world — people who keep their targets locked up with no input from anyone else, that surely shapes the mind weirdly — but six gropings in a perfectly open system? Come on, that is nonsense. Whereas the people who research memory and its flaws have done real scientific studies into the subject and can show that it is unreliable. For heaven’s sake, we surely all can see that memory is not reliable especially after 20-40 years. Here are some links that might interest — one is a powerpoint presentation but pretty detailed





            And yes, it’s much less “attachment disorder” than it is “attachment to money” and/or “attachment to attention” disorder. She sounds so much like the hyper-histrionic Tonya Lee, and it seems to me likely that Bindi’s Friend and quite possibly the Cambridge Woman are of a similar type that lives in some overly dramatic unreality. They can get sympathy from their family and friends whilst being able to pin all their troubles onto one minor event and/or one person

            Well here’s hoping :-)

          • Misty

            I love the bit about how cold his eyes were. He was signing autographs, for God’s sake, which means he would most likely be cheerful and smiling and chatting to people – not standing or sitting or crouching there looking like a zombie!

    • MAJR

      The things on my mind about this appeal are thus:

      1 – given the scale of the media backlash against him following the verdict announcement, and the media taking that guilty verdict as free licence to print any accusation by anyone against him whether proven or otherwise, the chances of him recieving a fair retrial in the UK are probably quite slim.

      2 – in the event of a retrial, if he is found innocent by a different jury what happens to all these people who have accused him of molesting them following that guilty verdict? Do they retract their statements or do the police just try to bring new cases against him and go for another conviction?

      • Carrie

        1) I totally agree that he cannot have a fair trial; I am dubious about the fairness of the original one too, given that there was a lot of media attention and that there was a very solid understanding that he had illegal porn on his computer. Right up to the trial, papers were saying that he would be on trial for that as well as for the actual alleged assaults, and that could well have been in the back of the jury’s mind all along. However, I don’t think that he would have a re-trial in front of a jury; as I understand it would be in front of one or more judges. Not that they are immune from gossip either, I suppose, being only human — but they would at least be better trained to ignore feelings.

        2) I would imagine that all those others would most likely just fade away if his verdicts were overturned; they would not have to press charges, and it would be up to him to decide whether to sue them for slander, which I doubt he would try to do 8-} Having said that, poor old Dave Lee Travis is having to go through the mill again with an added new accusation, but maybe that is just because he had to have a re-trial anyway in front of a jury for the unresolved counts.

        But we still have to see if Rolf will be allowed his appeal. Hopefully this shows that the defence lawyers think that they have something, since it is the actual verdicts that they wish to appeal.

      • Misty

        Bear in mind too that sections of the press have developed a nasty little habit of ditching the word ‘complainant’ and using the word ‘victim’ instead during a trial. Even if they do stick it in inverted commas, the word ‘victim’ suggests that the defendant is guilty.

  • incorrect effect on victims

    The judge said during the verdict he considered the effect on the victims with the main victim developing alcohol problems. Now the main victim chose to be a mistress between the ages of 18 to 29, about the same time I watch a mistress develop alcohol problems from hanging out in bars having males entertain her while the married man she wanted was at home with his wife. So the mistress developed alcohol problems from a life style choice of spending her Saturday nights in bars which is probably the same life style choice of the main victim and Roff Harris cannot be blamed for that. Another victim blamed Roff Harris for changing her life at about age eight, now back in the sixties a lot of effort was put into raising girls with a fairy tale sheltered life. In the sixties social values were all mixed up as a result of breaking away from strict religious values, so adults groping anyone was not such serious moral issue, which maybe the reason why no one stepped in.

    • Carrie

      Certainly Bindi’s friend chose to be Rolf’s mistress when she was not a child. The prosecution insisted that this was because he had “groomed” her when she was in her early teens, and I think that the point here is that it is difficult to see how he could have done so, beyond reasonable doubt. She did not write anything about it in her diary and she appeared to those around her to be normal and happy at the time when she was allegedly abused or “being groomed”.

      As for the eight-year-old, I think that even back in the sixties if anyone saw an adult groping such a young kid they would certainly speak out. Over the past century in the UK, at least, the reaction to paedophilia has had nothing to do with religious values. The biggest problems with that particular accusation are that a) it seems physically impossible and b) there has been no confirmation that such a big star appeared at such a small venue in the 1960s. I personally think that she has conflated a Rolf-tribute actor and something unpleasant that she either dreamed or that happened at another time. Rolf may have been a bit free with his hands generally, but he has never shown interest in a pre-pubescent child, so this accusation stands out as very strange.

  • Zara A

    No man is safe under British justice – FACT – no person in a position of trust is safe under British justice either – FACT. The CPS is not there to protect the innocent but to produce convictions.

  • Carrie

    I saw a comment on where someone said

    “Let an American lawyer, who followed this trial closely, add to your list:

    15. Allegedly, there was a cop on the jury, effectively putting a representative of the Crown right into jury room, and possibly making the other jurors feel that the government was looking over their shoulders.

    16. Many of the jurors did not speak English as their first language, adding to the question of whether they understood the testimony, except for the most florid, over-the-top expressions by the prosecution.”

    Does anyone know whether there really was a cop on the jury or whether any of the jurers really did not have English as their first language? If these points are true, then this would possibly have been a valid reason on which to base an appeal; the jury was not a jury of his peers and not fit for purpose. The main things you need in a jury are that they are able to understand the nuances of the language and that there is nobody in there who could appear to have any vested interest in the result. The weird questions that they asked during deliberations do point to the possibility that this is true.

    Still hoping that his appeal is allowed and is fruitful. I notice the media were saying “he has only been here less than a month, and already he is appealing!” Well yeah, Judge Sweeny said after the guilty verdicts that if he was to appeal he should do so within 28 days, so it was bound to be this soon if at all. Also of course it is “shocking that he is lodging an appeal” and “he shows no remorse” — they really are imbeciles.

    • Pete

      again thanks for sharing this…. another excellent article and very good comments on it too.

  • Misty

    I have just found this on Facebook from Lizzie Cornish of Guardian Australia. (Lizzie, I hope you don’t mind my replicating your post here, but it really deserves a wider audience.)

    “So, the 7 year old ‘victim’ now has a name, Wendy Wild and she is speaking
    out about the legal team of Rolf Harris applying for Appeal. Just one
    thing, Wendy, Rolf was NEVER AT LEIGH PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE! The police
    know it, the CPS know it, The Defence know it, even The Prosecution know
    it. The local paper knows it, having had 7 YEARS of archives searched,
    the council knows, ditto, and even the local people know it, having NO
    memory of such a concert at ALL. Even the 3 members of staff at Leigh
    Park themselves, whom I’ve spoken to know it too. So please, EXPLAIN why
    you are the ONLY person on the planet who knows Rolf Harris was at a
    concert of which there is NO record, in any way, shape or form?

    Truly, I am open to hearing your explanation………..

    You see, on YOUR story alone, more than the other ‘stories’, Rolf has
    been branded a paedophile and is now hated around the world.

    Please, EXPLAIN to us!”

    No wonder she is getting so twitchy and hysterical about his appeal.

    • Pete

      … why didn’t the jury know it too? Answer – for the same reason they did not think the Cambridge girl changing her age from 13 to 16 was relevant. THREE years out is ludicrous beyond words and should have been thrown out of court in a heartbeat. For the same reason that they did not question why the main victim (Bind’s friend) was having conceptual sex with Rolf Harris from the age of 18-29 – the therapists told them this was “attachment disorder” (Rolf was a multimillionaire for God’s sake – WAKE UP JURY – attachment disorder MY ARSE – attachment to money disorder is exactly what it was – lol). And Tonya Lee – well, I’ don’t think I need to say anything about her – her £33000 and crocodile tears interview pretty much speak for itself. Rolf – I am routing for you for a successful appeal.

      • Carrie

        Thank you, Misty! What a wonderful find you have there — and bravo to Lizzie Cornish! There was something very wrong about that jury, they seem to have been blind to all the holes in the prosecution case. It looks as if Wendy Wild and Tonya Lee are indicative of the kind of “evidence” that was all that the jury could understand — i.e. over-the-top emotional histrionics.

      • Carrie

        Regarding the silly Cambridge nonsense, what keeps irritating me about that one is that she was allowed by the judge to change her story such that it completely changed the tenor of the whole “event” — from squeezing the bottom of an under-age girl to squeezing that of a late teen young woman — whilst keeping it as a legitimate charge, and the jury drank it in. Meanwhile Rolf was quite simply “lying” when his memory was not quite accurate even though another celebrity came forward to explain how and why his lack of memory of Cambridge was NORMAL.

        I hope he is allowed his appeal, but I worry about the competence of that legal team of his. WHY did they not pick huge holes in the prosecution case? The summing-up at the end was extremely limp, especially since it came after the prosecution’s summing-up had been echoing in the jury’s minds over the whole weekend.

    • Carrie

      Yes, right now I confess that I wish her every possible discomfort while we wait to see if he is allowed his appeal. And I hope he gets it and she gets to be properly cross-examined.

      I have been looking around the FB page of Lizzie Cornish — thank you so much for the link, such a wonderful find! She links to a marvellous FB page “support Rolf Harris”

      I don’t have an FB account but am tempted to start one just to “like” that one LOL

      • Misty

        I don’t have a Facebook account either but I’m tempted to start one too!

        On the subject of Ms Wendy, I have been a little curious about her claim that she was ‘seven or eight’ when she supposedly watched Rolf Harris sing ‘Two Little Boys’ at the Leigh Park Community Centre. (OK, so if you don’t want people to become curious, don’t waive your anonymity!) I subscribe to a couple of family history sites and have unfettered access to electoral rolls, birth, marriage and death records, and so on. (By the way, ‘Two Little Boys’ was released in November 1969.)

        We know, from press reports (which are, of course, in the public domain) that Ms Wendy is 52, which gives a birthdate of 1961 (if she hasn’t had a birthday so far this year) or 1962. She has a husband and children (again, from press reports), and lives in Southampton.

        This is interesting. There are no Ms Wendys on the Southampton electoral roll (though granted you can opt out), but there are two in the surrounding area. One of these Ms Wendys is too young to be THE Ms Wendy. The other (from the date of her marriage, which would indicate a minimum age of 16) would have been at least 14 or 15 at the time of the alleged incident. Despite a thorough and protracted search I cannot find any more Ms Wendys.

        Now, sometimes things get complicated – for example, if someone marries overseas and then opts out from having their name on the electoral roll, so I’m not saying that the aforementioned Ms Wendy is THE Ms Wendy. But I certainly hope that the defence have witnessed Ms Wendy’s birth certificate, marriage certificate and passport just to check that all is in order, and that she really WAS 7 or 8 at the time of this strange and baffling incident.

        • Carrie

          Oh, nice work! As you say, this is not proof but it is an intriguing and tasty bit of information. Yes, the defence should have looked into Ms Wendy’s paperwork… The more I look at this incident the more impossible it looks.

          Meanwhile, I see that Rolf is happily making signed cartoons for the other inmates and Yewtree is now going after Cliff Richard… The world has gone crazy.

          • Misty

            IF Ms Wendy was much older than 7 or 8 at the time of the alleged incident, then that rather knocks the paedo claims on the head (even though there is no evidence that the incident ever happened). But Mr Harris will forever wear the ‘paedo’ tag, to the extent that he’s probably safer in prison than he will be outside it, largely thanks to certain sections of the media.

            I noticed that the Daily Mail was upset a couple of days ago because ‘the paedophile’ Mr Harris had been given ‘a cushy gardening job’. I went to great effort to point out that he wasn’t a paedophile, going into as much detail as I could within the letter limit allowed allowed (which was quite tricky). Did it appear? Of course not! So I tried again, and it still didn’t appear. But there were plenty of comments along the lines that this ‘vile paedo’ should be scrubbing toilets rather than doing the gardening.

            I cannot understand why the press appears to have entered into some weird conspiracy of silence over this case – pushing the paedo angle for all it’s worth and having their more rabid readers foaming at the mouth while totally ignoring the gaping holes in the evidence. I would have thought that at least one of the upmarket newspapers would have been asking some pertinent questions, but no. Even Private Eye – after all its many articles about the phone hacking case and some rather pointed comments about the jury in that one – is silent on the matter.

            And yes – they’ve gone after Cliff Richard now. I guess the attention-seekers will start coming out the woodwork any time now.

          • Carrie

            As regards Cliff, it’s interesting that the Daily Fail has had to change its negative article this morning “police raid penthouse” to a more positive “Cliff Richard denies everything”.

            But yes, the newspapers will always keep Harris firmly labelled a paedo. I have no idea why the Mail is so set against him — did you see that wonderful message on the Support Rolf FB page, where the guy phoned the Mail to give them a talking–to?

            Whatever else Rolf may have done, he was surely never a paedophile because his interest was in shapely young women. I am surprised that Private Eye has gone quiet, I wonder what is going on there

  • Misty

    I have just been reading the story of Tania Head, a fantasist who claimed to have been a survivor of 9/11 and who received extensive attention and press coverage as a result. Heading from Mail Online: “The fantasist of 9/11: The story of Tania Head’s escape from the Twin Towers captivated America and made her a heroine
    among survivors… Just one problem – she wasn’t even there that day.” Does the final sentence ring any bells regarding another, more recent, case?

    Another point: “But, more disturbingly, she took advantage of the culture of 9/11, in a
    so-called ‘hierarchy of suffering’ that built up among the survivors.” Replace ‘9/11′ with ‘twenty-first century paedo-hysteria’. Hmm. She claimed to have lost her non-existent fiance in the attacks: “I kept thinking about my fiancé, about our wedding, I wanted to wear that white dress and swear my love for him. Something gave me the strength to get up. I believe today that it was my fiancé on his way to heaven.” Any similarity there in terms of ‘over-the-topness’ to anyone else’s statements that we might have heard recently?

    Even more worryingly (again, from the Mail Online article), she had burned her arm at some point and attributed it to 9/11:

    “Together with her big story, this was the key to the success of her imposture … a psychologist who knew her, explained to me. ‘Her right arm was scarred and burned and withered, functional but clearly badly damaged from burns, and with that look of
    her arm and what she was saying, she was on the floor where some of the plane fuel came through burning. Just automatically you’re going to look at that and assume she’s one of the people actually burned by the flames. You don’t question that.’ ”

    YOU DON’T QUESTION THAT. Like, if someone claims to have suffered abuse forty-five years ago you can only allow superficial questioning, even in a court of law, because the victim has suffered so utterly dreadfully (from an alleged three-second touching over clothing) that … well, you don’t question that.

    • Carrie

      This is intriguing. An insight into certain types who need to play out the “victim”. One thing puzzles me, how on earth did this woman’s story and fame get so far on without someone who knew her real situation coming forward?

      “You don’t question that” Good lord…

  • The Fapman

    Written a detailed case study about Rolf Harris. Check it out:

    • Carrie

      Well, for anyone who wants to have a list of allegations that there have been against Rolf, including those since his trial, the “Fapman” article does a good enough job. Unfortunately it does so in a highly emotive fashion, with very biased wording, and without any new evidence. All that it uses as evidence are the allegations themselves, the same old letter that Rolf wrote to Bindi’s Friend’s father about her adult relationship with him, and a bunch of normal public-domain photos (e.g. Rolf with Saville) etc.

      The Fapman article produces new allegations without any evidence and states them as fact. This is not good journalism.

      It’s strange to me that so many people think that the letter shows evidence of guilt. If you think it is such good evidence, if you believe it tells the truth about Rolf and Bindi’s friend, then you should consider that Rolf was telling the truth in what he wrote. If you read it all (not just the highlights taken by the tabloids) it seems to have been written by someone who is caring and saddened at not knowing that the woman had been unhappy with their adult relationship. He sounds sorrowful, stating that he did not realise that she ever thought that admiring her and telling her she looked beautiful was “just the same” as physically molesting her.

      As for the song “I touch myself”, that was him having some fun for a challenge; he did this cover of a Divinyls song for Andrew Denton’s Musical Challenge on the MMM Breakfast Show. You can read about the song at and of course conspiracy theorists now are reading all sorts of nonsense into it and into other clips. As they are also reading nonsense into Rolf being photographed with Saville and so on. Interestingly, the rather good video that Rolf produced “My Body’s Nobody’s Body But Mine” is being used by such people as an example of how duplicitous he was, what a monster of deception, because of course the allegations against him must be believed totally. Even though, as shown in this Libertatian blog’s article, there is zero corroborating evidence of any of these allegations.

      • The Fapman

        Thank you for reading, I appreciate it.

        • Carrie

          You are welcome. I can see that you are truly concerned about paedophilia and want to see children protected and all guilty parties put in gaol. I think we all agree that children should be protected. The trouble with Harris’ convictions is simply the total lack of evidence to back up the specific counts on which he was charged. In fact many of us are wondering what the jury can have found to be “beyond reasonable doubt” This makes the apparent kindness of his sentence and where he is serving it, plus his lack of remorse (he does not believe he is guilty), plus his appeal, seem reasonable.

        • Misty

          I’d love to see the work you have done on the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Birmingham Six and Bridgewater Four. Plus I’m sure you could do a nice cartoon about Timothy Evans murdering his wife and swinging from the gallows.

    • Pete

      The right to a fair trial is fundamental to the rule of law and to democracy itself. Rolf Harris may well be guilty on all charges – but the evidence I heard was severely flawed to the point where the trial appeared to be a total disgrace. … an embarrassment to the British Justice system.

      I see somebody has put a lot of work into producing this anti-Rolf Harris propaganda – along with the accompanying hateful images – but the only thing the author fails to leave out …. is PROOF.

      The article states: “The media and the justice system haven’t revealed the full story of Rolf Harris over the past few months and this has led people to sit on the fence”.
      I suppose that’s the kind of argument you might try and get away with with a child . “You’ll just have to trust me – I’m right and there’s things you aren’t old enough to know about yet.” – But I’m not a child and I have heard of a lot of people saying Rolf Harris was a true professional, a pleasure to work with and he was also very tactile. But I have heard very little about his sexual predator side. So it feels to me like a big cover up as the Operation Yewtree people were determined to get a conviction after their recent string of failures.

      • Carrie

        Well said, Pete! I had a look around the “fapman” site, and the place seems to be largely an advert for the guy’s new way for men to get rich, by channelling their “sexual energy”. Good grief, what with that and the rather unfortunate “fap” in his pseudonym, it looks as if he might have an inability to look at sexual matters in a balanced way. The following quotes from his article are also disturbing:

        “If our society is serious about child sex abuse, we have to change the way boys are socialized. As things stand, too many grow up to believe it is acceptable to sexually assault children and women.”

        (Actually, I do not know any men who grew up believing that it is acceptable to sexually assault children and women; I am 65 and have met a lot of men, plus the youngsters I see around today do not generally appear to have that kind of sociopathic view)

        “I have written such a detailed, shocking and lengthy post about Rolf Harris in order to unmask his darker side. I felt that the media didn’t really make an attempt to fully portray what a monster he truly was.”

        (That is totally laughable. From the start of Rolf’s trial, the media were hyping up the allegations as if they were fact, and they continue to keep the smears going.)

        “Its great to see the public gather the pitchforks, protest in masses and thump their chests when we discover child sex abuse.”

        (wow. just… Wow.)

        • Pete

          thanks Carrie… the whole thing is really frustrating and idiots like fatman are typical of the “non-thinking, brain dead” elements of our society. If it could be proved with proper evidence that Rolf Harris was guilty of the things he is accused of then, whilst I would be quite saddened, I would be amongst those who agree with a proportionate prison sentence. But all we seem to be doing is re-iterating the holes in the trial only for people like fatman to come along and demonstrate that he is not prepared to listen to logic or reason. I wonder if this fatman was sitting on the jury …

          Well, all we can do is hope that the appeal process is a “FAIR” appeal process.

          • Misty

            Re the “non-thinking, brain dead” elements of our society, I have seen a couple of comments on other sites (obviously not this one!) saying that ‘Rolf should not be allowed to advertise KFC any more’ … any they seem to be serious! I wonder if any of THOSE people were on the jury?

          • Carrie

            Good lord….

            And in other news, as regards the vultures now gathering around Cliff, of course the publicity has done what it was supposed to, and produced a bunch of people so that the prosecution can lump them together and say “see? They are all similar!” What perhaps the defence should look at is the similarity of the PROSECUTION behaviour in these “historical” cases.

            1. the press is tipped off in advance, and everyone in authority says “it wasn’t me!”

            2. The press splash all sorts of allegations across the papers before there is any chance of an injunction, so that the possibility of an unbiased jury is minimised. With any luck they will find porn of some kind on the raided computers and that can be “leaked” in time too, thus keeping “pervert” at the back of a potential juror’s mind.

            3. Lots of people come forward thanks to the publicity to say “he did it to me too!” The fact is that someone with millions of fans will have a significant number of whackjobs amongst them, possibly even hundreds, 20-30 of whom will come forward in this climate of witch-hunt mania. This will look like a lot of people to a jury of ordinary people, and is not something that the defence (at least in Rolf’s case) seem to be equipped to explain or perhaps understand themselves.

            4. They lump all the cases together that they can so that, given a total lack of evidence, they can say “he had a darker side, see? This huge number of people cannot all be lying. And look, their stories are all so similar (although not really).”

            Gah. I am sure there are more similarities but I need to stop this and wash my mind out with a nice hot cuppa.

  • Carrie

    I think this is rather sweet — and shows that many prison staff and prison inmates have more humanity than many Daily Mail readers…

  • Misty

    For those who might have missed it, here is Ms Wendy:

    I wonder why she has given up her right to anonymity but won’t face the camera? Is there a lucrative magazine deal about to come out? Maybe we will learn a bit more about why (as Lizzie Cornish wrote elsewhere) she is the only person on the planet to remember having been at a crowded Rolf Harris concert in a 150-seat hall on a council estate in Havant in 1968 or 1969. Or is she concerned that she will be recognised and that someone with information about the total lack of a Rolf Harris presence in Havant will come forward?

    Ah! Here is an article that says Ms Wendy turned eight in October 1969:

    “In a breaking, nervous voice behind a drawn curtain, a woman in her early 50s said that, about the time of her 8th birthday (October 1969), she went to a community centre near her home in the Portsmouth area, where Harris performed Two Little Boys for the gathered children.”

    Er, Wendy … ‘Two Little Boys’ was not released until November 1969. He MIGHT have sung it at a concert prior to its release, but you – a seven- or eight-year-old at the time – would not have remembered it because you wouldn’t have heard it before.

    Afterwards he signed autographs. She went up to him, he turned to her and said “hello what’s your name” and signed “best wishes” on a piece of paper for her. She
    then felt his hand “out of nowhere” go down her back and up between her
    legs, “aggressively and forcefully”, she said. “I knew it wasn’t an accident … I understood that was wrong.”

    Er, Wendy … ‘he turned to her’ means that HE WAS FACING YOU! To do what you describe in front of a crowd of autograph hunters, when HE WAS THE FOCUS OF ATTENTION, he would have had to lean over you and struggle with your clothes left handedly (as he would have had the autographing pen in his right). And all this from a crouching position! Hey, Wendy – I got one of my daughter’s large dolls and pretended to be a groping Rolf Harris. And you know what? What you describe is IMPOSSIBLE.

    “She was too scared to cry out, she said, and Harris carried on as if nothing had happened. Sobbing, she said she “wasn’t the same child” after the experience.”

    I do sympathise. I guess I would never have been the same child if I had been groped at a concert that never took place. My mother would have been very worried indeed.

    SO … this does seem to have narrowed the time frame to around October 1969. I have been through the Trove Australian newspaper archive but unfortunately can’t find any articles regarding where Mr Harris was at the time … but I’ll bet my bottom dollar that it wasn’t the Leigh Park Community Centre!

    And here is Tonya Lee expressing a strange sort of delight over the ‘guilty’ verdict, if you can bear to watch it.

    • Carrie

      I have to giggle at the mental image of you trying to be a Pervert Rolf to one of your daughter’s dolls… Yes, completely impossible, for sure.

      And yes, it’s interesting that Wendy doesn’t let us see her face. Maybe that’s just as well for her, since Tonya Lee gives a lot away that is not good in her face. That video of Tonya is downright horrible, I saw it a while back and could not watch the whole thing, she was grotesque in her surprised joy.

      I think that if Rolf is not allowed his appeal, and his defence do not then blast her story into smithereens, there will have been a cementing of one of the worst miscarriages of justice. The more we look at it, the more we can see wrong with it. He never had hairy hands, “Two little boys” had not been released by the time in question (though judging by Cambridge Girl, Wendy is at liberty to change the date by years), and there is zero evidence that he was ever in Leigh Park but every indication that he was NOT. Oh, and he had to have turned himself into a pretzel in full view of a waiting queue without anyone noticing. To think that he is labelled “paedophile” on her case only makes me mad.

      As for where Rolf was at the time, if I recall aright his defence was that he was in Australia for some filming or tour where he had watched the moon landings through a shop window (her original testimony was that it had been “around the time of the moon landings”). So in July he could presumably be proved to be in Oz, but goodness knows where he would have been in October. It would be great to pinpoint him halfway around the world at that time.

      As for the weirdness of what Wendy said happened in her testimony: from the Telegraph coverage of her allegations:

      “The woman told Southwark Crown Court that when she got to the front of the queue Harris crouched down, signed her piece of paper and put his hands inside her underwear.

      “He was looking at me, smiling, and I was smiling, looking excited, and suddenly out of nowhere I felt his hand go down the back and up between my legs,” the woman told the court.

      She said she initially thought it may have been an accident, but described this taking place “aggressively” for a second time.

      “It was very quick,” the woman said. “In fact so quick that I thought, ‘what’s happened?’. The first time I thought, no, not deliberate. I thought, ‘what’s going on?’, because there were a lot of people around and I didn’t process what had happened.”

      So he did the impossible TWICE and incredibly fast??? And she says it was under her underwear but the judge’s summing-up says it was over her panties? How much underwear was she wearing I wonder.

      In amongst all these poor women who were so dreadfully abused by the Celebrity Rolf back when they were soooo young, I do wonder why the Painter Rolf is so squeaky clean? Note that none of the pretty women who sat for his nude paintings apparently ever suffered abuse from his predatory octopus hands. Weird, eh?

  • Misty

    What’s THIS? “Woman who accused Bright Eyes singer Conor Oberst of rape admits claims of assault were fabricated.” (Thanks to Lizzie Cornish for finding this one, which has been highlighted on another site.)

    • Carrie

      heavens, a “victim” actually lying about rape? Whatever next… Thanks for the link!

  • Murray Rothbard

    At least for Cliff Richard, some in the media are starting to question the whole charade.

    • Carrie

      Thank goodness someone in the media is starting to question these appalling behaviours. If there is starting to be a slight change — and the over 2,000 “strongly agree” reactions implies that the public is starting to rub some brain cells together too — then it might be helpful as regards Rolf’s application to appeal. Hopefully the judge will see that the whole trial and convictions were unsafe. Maybe there is hope for our men yet.

      “They also claimed “a number of people” had come forward with more information after seeing coverage of the operation – which leads one to suspect that this was the improper purpose behind leaking the operation in the first place.” THIS — this publicity also ensures that there is unlikely to be an unbiased jury if any accusations make it to court.

      Thank you for your blog post, you laid out clearly the difficulties with the “evidence” that were disturbing me.

  • Carrie

    It’s gone awfy quiet in here. Does anyone know yet if they are going to allow Rolf’s appeal? I wonder how long it takes a judge to bother to look at his papers and make a decision… I suppose they must have a lot of people filing papers to appeal, but I just hope that someone in authority finally sees what a nonsense his trial was.

    Interesting things to note too; nobody who was in contact with Rolf during his painting phase (none of his nude models for instance) and nobody who worked with him on Animal Hospital (and he hugged a lot of people there) has come forward to claim abuse. Is it possible that fantaising about sexual contact with a star is something that is prevalent only amongst the fans of entertainers, perhaps? Or is sexual abuse something that tends to happen only when the perpetrator is in his “entertainer” hat? Hmm?

    • Pete

      I still sense that you are more optimistic about his appeal than I am Carrie. The police, the media, the public and the CPS all have him down as guilty. And once the media have gunned for you – you’ve had it – as most people don’t read between the lines and just accept what they read/hear from media sources.

      *IF* an appeal went ahead and the a high-class lawyer pulled it all apart (as it should be pulled apart) even with fresh evidence we’d probably just end up having a “fapman” as the deciding judge.

      • Carrie

        *smile* well I still hope. Pete. While there is life… Although I agree that everyone is gunning for him and his chances are slim.

        What a terrible thought though, having someone like that “fapman” as the judge! Eeeeek!

  • Carrie

    I don’t know if you will all have seen this? It’s on the Support Rolf facebook page and might be a way for us to at least try to help

  • Pingback: Democracy: The Hanging Judge « Attack the System()

  • Pete

    I have performed at events where there are a lot of children – If it ever entered my head to put my hand up between an 8 year old’s legs and I suddenly could not resist doing it – I can guarantee that several things would happen a) the girl would run off and tell her dad, b) I would spend that afternoon being arrested by the police, and there would be enough witnesses to throw away the key, c) my whole life/reputation would be in total ruins, d) I’d lose my job. For Rolf Harris to risk throwing his life away shows a man seriously out of control – this means he would certainly have touched other per-pubescent girls at other events during his long career. But… other witnesses say he was a pleasure to work with, a true professional and had never seen him make any assaults like this. It JUST DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.

    Oh, and the fact that there are no records ever indicating that Rolf Harris has ever been to Leigh Park community center only go to back up the above.

    Wendy Wild – if you’re reading this – please feel free to contribute to this discussion.

    • Carrie

      YES that is exactly what would happen. People would have seen you doing that, and even though this was supposed to have been in the late 1960s (when some behaviours were sort-of acceptable that are not today), things were no different as regards inappropriate behaviour towards pre-pubescent children. It totally makes no sense at all, and I think that our dear Wendy should ‘fess up to the fact that the tale as she tells it is, in fact, impossible.

  • Misty

    Here is another interesting blog on what might be described as Rolf Harris’s trial in the kangaroo court:

    • Pete

      Yes that’s spot on. It is so frustrating that so few people seem to be able to see this.

  • Carrie

    Looks as if what I said about Rolf’s lack of interest in pre-pubescent girls is reasonably accurate, at least according to an interview with him in the Birmingham Mail a few years ago (May 2010):

    “I’ve been painting nudes for around 10 years.”
    So how does someone as famous as Rolf find his subjects?
    “You pluck up the courage to ask someone if they’re prepared to do it,” he says. “Some won’t, some agree.
    “You have to make sure they are of an age to consent and I paint them at home.
    “I’m not really interested in painting (nude) men or nymphets, the young teenage years.
    “That doesn’t grab me really because I like a woman’s shape.

    Also, I don’t believe that we have heard of any abuse by him from any of his nude models. Surely they would have been the ideal targets for such a terribly “opportunistic predator”, hmm?

    I see that the “support rolf” facebook page is gaining momentum and “likes”, bravo!

  • Misty

    I see Mail Online is winding up its rabid, illiterate readers again, This time it’s because Rolf has apparently lost weight because the prison food doesn’t agree with him:

    Note that THIS (at the time of writing) is the WORST-rated comment: “What kind of sour country convicts an 80 year old man on say so evidence
    with no collaborating physical data, he most probably is not guilty of
    anything apart from being rich and old.”

    Yet the comment is so true! And, a little further down, this site gets a mention of sorts:

    “jenny ex-pat how right you are , no evidence at all, people should
    read on the internet ,rolf harris beyond reasonable doubt , big travesty
    of justice .”

    I guess, because of the poor English, the Mail moderators didn’t realise that that this post should have been binned in accordance with their rules about supportive comments on Rolf Harris. I’ve tried several times to get my point across but – guess what? – they’re not printing anything from me.

  • Misty

    Can someone with a Facebook or Twitter account (I have neither) please contact Lizzie Cornish (who is doing a lot of excellent work on this – look her up) and point her in the direction of articles about Tania Head, who became very well known as a victim of 9/11 … until it was discovered that she wasn’t even there. There are strong similarities between Tania Head and … er … certain other people. I think she might find it very interesting. Thanks.

    • Carrie

      I meant to say a while back but Life got in the way — a good pal did the job, she is as annoyed as we all are and thinks your posts are brilliant *smile* and Liz was delighted as you may have seen already. I am glad to see that one of the regulars there, Pat, is creating a web site which sounds as if it is going to really lay out the facts. It is still unfinished but she is working on it

  • Pete

    is it true that Wendy Wild said she had been touched by Rolf Harris about the time of the moon landings, and yet Rolf’s autobiography said he was in Australia for most of 1969 (and he mentioned stopping to watch the moon landings at some cafe in Australia). Is this definitely true? If is true then that would be hilarious – if it were not so tragic.

    • Misty

      Have a look at this one, Pete, from the Sydney Morning Herald:

      I quote: “In a breaking, nervous voice behind a drawn curtain, a woman in her
      early 50s said that, about the time of her 8th birthday (October 1969),
      she went to a community centre near her home in the Portsmouth area,
      where Harris performed Two Little Boys for the gathered children.” Well, that narrows the time frame down a bit, doesn’t it?

      ‘Two Little Boys’ was released in November 1969, so she wouldn’t have been aware of this song before supposedly going to the Leigh Park Community Centre during the previous month (and, of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that Rolf Harris was ever there). If you are not aware of a song, you don’t tend to remember it, especially if you are only seven or eight. Presumably (in the hypothetical event that he had been there) he would have sung other songs as well, so this unknown song would not have stood out.

      What staggers me about all of this is that not one mainstream newspaper has publicly questioned the ‘evidence’. Whatever happened to investigative journalism? I’m beginning to think that denouncing ‘filthy paedos’ (even if they’re not) is now part and parcel of running a newspaper.

    • Carrie

      Sorry for the delay replying, life has been hectic these past few weeks. Yes, she is reported as having said that it was about the time of the moon landings, but also in some instances as being near her birthday. Here is the moon landing quote from the telegraph

      “He was looking at me, smiling, and I was smiling, looking excited, and suddenly out of nowhere I felt his hand go down the back and up between my legs,” the woman told the court.”

      She said she initially thought it may have been an accident, but described this taking place “aggressively” for a second time.

      “It was very quick,” the woman said. “In fact so quick that I thought, ‘what’s happened?’. The first time I thought, no, not deliberate. I thought, ‘what’s going on?’, because there were a lot of people around and I didn’t process what had happened.

      “He seemed such a nice man, I thought probably it was just an accident.”

      But she said when the 84-year-old children’s entertainer touched her again, it was done forcefully.

      She added: “It didn’t matter if it was going to hurt me or not. It felt very agressive and I knew that it wasn’t an accident.”

      The woman, who is now 52, said the incident took place between 1968 and 1970 as she waited for an autograph at a community centre near Portsmouth.

      She said she remembered the alleged incident taking place around the time of the moon landing, and that Harris had performed Two Little Boys at the event.

      She recalled Harris having “big hairy hands”.

      The court heard that the woman told her family, husband and friends about the claimed abuse.

      She said: “Whenever Rolf Harris was on the telly I couldn’t watch it, so people in the room had to know why and I would tell them why. My children grew up knowing why and my husband knew and my friends knew why.”

      (end of quote)

      So, he did this impossible action TWICE in front of everyone, in a place that there is no record of him ever visiting, where he sang a song that had not yet been released, at a time when he was actually in Australia. The jurors must have been insane.

    • Cloudberry XXX

      It is true he was in Australia at the time of the moon landings. This article from 25 July 1969, five days after the moon landing, reports that he has just arrived in Sydney after spending six weeks in the outback:,8493699&hl=en

  • John Marsh

    Amazon Kindle book “Rolf Harris Why I Believe He Is Innocent” by John Marsh

  • frenchbeauty

    I am gobsmacked by the misuse of the English language by so many of you. Calling people insulting names because they have a view you don’t agree with is really immature. Saville was clearly guilty – there has been so much real proof and witnesses other than the accusers who have comfirmed the truth. However Rolf Harris’ guilt, at his own admission, was that he was at times prehaps more touchy/feely as one was in those days. It was more accepted then, but has now become unacceptable. I don’t believe he his is a paedophile, but a scapegoat used ‘to set an example’ to others. I find this very sad for a man of 84. He admitted he had an affair with his daughter’s friend, and reading the details of her evidence, there are definately holes in it. The other witnesses’ evidence is clearly suspect when summarised like this – I’m 56, but I could not remember details like this. I was infact abused as an adult (not by anybody famous – so no 33,000 pounds for me!!) but I can not remember any of the details because of the trauma – black it out, although I know it happened. Times have changed, and the sad thing about the Savile case, is that many innocent men have since been accused, for what were innocent ‘friendly’ gestures that were acceptable 20/30 years ago. Those men, Rolf Harris, included, cannot change what happened then when it was acceptable, just because people have decided now, it isn’t .

    • John Marsh

      frenchbeauty states – “Saville was
      clearly guilty – there has been so much real proof and witnesses
      other than the accusers who have comfirmed the truth.”
      Suggest you do not get hooked into believing anything until you personally review thereasons given for guilt. Like how is Jimmy Savile clearly guilty? I have put that question every time to myself when I read, for example, someone say “ we now know…” I say in my head how do we now know? No inquiring questions for confirmation were or are ever asked. Like, for example, what BBC staff were questioned about audience members in dressing rooms in TOTP and where were the alcoves? If people started thinking, reasoning and proposing confirming questions that needed asking and other witnesses who needed to be asked then you will notice the huge lack in questions, in investigating and so forth. So “no” we do not know.

  • Dawn

    I too agree with what has been written here as my dad came to England with Rolf they were on the ship the Oceania and having met Rolf and his lovely wife Alwen there is no doubt in my mind that he is innocent of all of this and I believe he has been let down by the justice system! I think he should be released and if necessary it may give him a understanding of how he can help others so they don’t suffer in the same way as he has! My thoughts are with his family right now!

  • Misty

    It all seems to have gone a bit quiet on here as we wait to hear if Rolf’s appeal is going to be allowed. Meanwhile, I have been thinking a bit about Tonya Lee sitting on Rolf’s lap, in a pub that has tablecloths, in her duffel coat. The obvious question, which is so obvious that it has eluded me until now, is WHY would a 15-year-old girl sit on the lap of a man (even a famous man) that she had just met? Most girls of that age would be in awe of someone famous, but not Tonya – she plonked herself on his lap! Why did the woman supervising the group not tell her to get off his lap and sit somewhere else? I’d have been horrified if one of my charges did that!

    And when she sat on his lap, she says in so many words that he moved around in a sexual sort of way and moved his hand up her leg. IN FRONT OF EVERYONE? Putting it bluntly, maybe he was concerned that it would prove to be a turn-on (men are not robots) and was trying to ease her into a more convenient position, being too polite to tell her to get lost. He couldn’t easily have avoided touching her. If someone is on your lap, do you put your hands in the air? As for following her to the toilet, he was the centre of attention!

    Meanwhile, have a look at this:

    • Carrie

      Yes the place has gone too quiet. I agree, Misty, it makes no sense no matter how you look at it.

      And now he has been reused permission to appeal — but there is still hope ifhe tries for the next stage in front of 3 judges

      I cannot understand it, and it depresses me hugely.

      Thanks for the link, that was great! A perfect take-down of the mercenary woman

  • Lorna

    The reason nobody was charged with making false accusations in the cases of Michael LeVel, Bill Roache etc was because it was not proven that they were lying. It was decided there wasn’t enough evidence to find anyone guilty. If you’re supposed to be a journalist you should at least educate yourself on the difference between a “Not Guilty” verdict and being proven innocent.

    • susanna

      actually lorna in the DLT case it was proven that the accuser in his case was lying yet she never got charged with making false accusations so thats just blown a hole in your summing up

  • Adam Ehis

    When am counting my blessings in life i start with the blessing from Dr AISHA ADAM the spell caster who helped me get conceive for my husband after 5 years of marriage , i am Kendra Smith i get married to my husband smith and we were living good but due to my low fertility of bearing child i went for a surgery to high my fertility and this lead to the block of fallopian tube and at this time my and my husband was lost and depress because there was no way i can be able to conceive again and we were like this one day my friend EDWINA told me about this man called Dr AISHA who helped her conceive at this time my husband parents were planning for a new wife so i say to her i need Dr AISHA help too and when i contacted him via or call +2348148345303 for pregnancy help/solution he told me what to do and i did after 4 days and on march 20th this year i went for check up and the same doctor who said i can not get conceived again confirmed that i am pregnant so am happy today thanks

  • Anthony Clark

    A very well thought out and presented overview of this sad miscarriage of justice. If only Mr Harris had you as his defence lawyer, then we would not be having this discussion today. As you so rightly point out in your analysis, this is nothing to do with whether or not Mr Harris is guilty (I for one, do not believe he was) it is about whether or not there was sufficient evidence for him to have been convicted on all or any of these charges. Clearly there was not. The reason why the prosecution was successful is twofold. Firstly two or three women made (false) allegations and the jury followed a “there’s no smoke without fire” principal and they analogy you used of multiple reportings of alien abduction is spot on. Secondly, because of the mass hysteria that has been whipped up by both the media and the Crown Prosecution Services following the allegations against Jimmy Saville. From the polices point of view, a case like this boosts their standing in eyes of the public no end. From the Government’s standpoint, it begs the question “What is it that they are trying to divert our attention away from now?” Rolf Harris is no spring chicken and I sincerely hope that he is able to clear his name before he dies.

  • Lizzie Cornish
  • Lizzie Cornish
  • Chizzy Peace

    Hello I am CHIZZY PEACE ,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how I got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another girl last month, But when i meet a friend that introduce me to DR ADAGBA the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Dr Adagba about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 2 days,My love called me on the phone and was saying sorry for living me before now and also in the next one week after my love called me to be pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact DR ADAGBA at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him direct on: and get your problems solve like me….. ONCE AGAIN HIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS:

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris | mra-uk()

  • Prof. Peabody

    I think it’s beyond doubt that Rolf Harris was a typical “dirty old man,” and a thoroughly nasty character, but the evidence is definitely thin for the conviction gained in this case.

    These sorts of cases could benefit enormously if we were all more honest and straightforward about what exactly happened instead of using terms like “sexually assaulted” to cover a range of activities from inappropriate “over the clothes” touching, through to fondling, and full-on rape. I’ve read many articles on this case and still I am unsure of exactly what happened in each situation because of this habit.

    The sentencing should also vary with the degree of assault and diminish as the assault recedes into the past. To put an 85 year old man, however despicable, in jail for 5 years (possibly the rest of his life), for doing things that 30-40 years ago that were extremely common behaviour at the time does seem a bit over the top on the face of it. Surely, if Rolf Harris needs to go to jail for this, then literally hundreds of thousands of other old men currently walking the planet should also be.

    • Hzle

      “These sorts of cases could benefit enormously if we were all more honest and straightforward about what exactly happened instead of using terms like “sexually assaulted” to cover a range of activities from inappropriate “over the clothes” touching, through to fondling, and full-on rape. I’ve read many articles on this case and still I am unsure of exactly what happened in each situation because of this”

      Well, of course this is true. I thought this was all quite deliberate

      The journalists involved know perfectly well that if they reported “Rolf Harris has been convicted (on useless evidence) of several accounts of pinching bottoms 40 years ago” people would soon twig that maybe the law is overdoing it. Honest use of language would never do!

      Instead journalists can brand someone as guilty of “sexual assault” (which sounds horrendous), when in actual fact they may have just pinched someone’s rear end – or might have done something quite a lot more serious. The Times was talking about a “40 year campaign of abuse against women” as I recall. Tabloid level journalism, at best

      The next piece of blatant lying is when people try to persuade themselves (and others) that there is no distinction between the different acts. To do so they have to believe that bottom-pinching is morally equivalent to rape

      You’d think one would need to be slightly barmy to engage in this amount of self-deception – but in fact this sort of silliness is rampant. Whole careers depend on it.

      • Misty

        The charge relating to the Cambridge woman was:

        “Count 2 – Indecent assault contrary to section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956

        Between the 1st day of January 1975 and the 1st day of January 1979
        indecently assaulted a female person aged 12 to 16 years, by rubbing her

        Once the sentence has been broken down it becomes apparent that Rolf Harris was jailed for six months for (allegedly) rubbing buttocks, in public, over clothing.

        Not a lot of people seem to realise that. Six months’ jail for a sexual assault rather implies quite a bit more than … er … rubbing buttocks.

        And Rolf Harris appeared at Star Games, not It’s A Knockout, which puts her age at around 16 if she was waitressing at Star Games at all, for there is no proof that she ever was.

  • jakemaverick

    thanks for taking the time todo the research and type this up. EXACTLY what i have been thinking……so many other cases as well… numerous to mention, but firmly of the view that 80-90% of folk in prison shouldn’t be there….and those that should be locked up of the remainder are mostly the staff.

  • jakemaverick

    the other side of it of course is ‘Ben Fellows’…

  • FoolsGold

    How many seven or eight year old line up in an orderly fashion? Wouldn’t there be parents and other adults there who were alert and observant? And what exactly does an eight year girl have that would make even a pervert want to paw at her? Take photos of his hands at various shows at that time? Were his hands hairy?

  • FoolsGold

    I believe an undated handwritten letter was introduced into evidence. Was the ink or paper ever forensically analyzed as to when it became generally available?

    • Misty

      Rolf Harris is so often accused of not showing remorse. HE DID SHOW REMORSE – IN THAT LETTER! That letter is full of remorse! Essentially he is in jail because he tried to make amends for something that he felt he did wrong (but NOT something that was a crime, I hasten to add). If he hadn’t shown remorse for what he BELIEVED were the effects of his affair-of-sorts with that woman there would not have been that damned letter and he might well have been acquitted!

      Where did she get ‘shedloads of gin’ from anyway? Hmm.

      So many people view that letter as ‘proof of his guilt’ when it was NOTHING of the sort. There was NOTHING in that letter to suggest that any under-age sex took place. It was NOT proof of a crime but the unthinking masses believe that it was!

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris & The Court of Media-led Opinion | Nick Summers()

  • David Brown

    i looked this up due to story in Daily Mail 09-05 -2015 his daughter protest this case . The police originally investigated him after a plumber reported Harris had a stash of child porn. A minor item in his trial it was stated that his internet searchs where for site with woman posing as young girls. Not illegal . PS may i post off topic blog i comment on www, it is not surprising that the CPS has only gone showbiz entertainment related famous people while covering up foe every famous political suspect.

  • Pingback: Is Rolf Harris Just a 'Prize Prisoner' for the Feminists and Crown? - TruthJuice News()

  • John Matthews

    There are a number of issues which make me uncomfortable about this conviction. Most of the underage victim claims involve a bit of ‘groping’, yet all of it outside of clothing and none of it persistent. These claims make a mockery of the many out there who have suffered serious sexual abuse, involving rape and physical harm.

    The only victim claim which in fact involved sex is that of his daughter’s friend. Here there is a difference of opinion as to the age it started. Rolf Harris claims 18, she says younger (but admits that at 13 it was simply Rolf Harris making an admiring comment about her in a bikini). There is between them no proof that she was actually underage when it started. But what gets me in all of this is IF she felt some abuse had taken place, why did she continue to visit the Harris home and continue to go on holiday with them each year? This would tend to hint at consensual sex of a non-violent nature.

    Indeed we had Ronaldo and a colleague accused of raping and abusing two girls a couple of years ago. Ronaldo admitted having sex with the girl, but said it was consensual, not rape. Luckily for Ronaldo, the girl was seen on CCTV leaving the hotel room where the rape was alleged to take place and then going on to another club with Ronaldo (seen also as entering the club on their CCTV). It was therefore judged that the last thing you’d do is go on to another club, in apparently harmonious companionship, with someone who had just raped you.

    So the same holds for Harris – why would this girl keep returning to the Harris home and go on holiday with them if something abusive was going on? And the daunting question of why one legal yardstick was used with Ronaldo but not in the Harris case.

  • jakemaverick

    something wrong here….got several emails for the new comments posted….log in here to view them and they not here….the ‘newest’ is from 15 days ago, although people been posting last couple of days….?

  • Gammy

    It does seem scary and the evidence seems very shakey to be honest. A lot of evidence was mentioning about Rolf touching people in a inappropriate way. I’m wondering whether the news or the TV has influenced the juries decision I guess we need to be careful to what we say but I found many of the counts he was charged with not that believable.

    I don’t know what to think sometimes. hmmmmmmmm

    • Misty

      Just look at the Cambridge case! The charge was ‘rubbing buttocks’. There was no evidence and the complainant changed her story during the trial but he was found guilty anyway. On that count he was jailed for six months – for rubbing buttocks (with no evidence)!

      Of course, the masses don’t think of him rubbing buttocks (over clothing and in public) as the charge was too ridiculous for words. They assume that he raped her or something, and the media is happy to play along with this, hence the lurid headlines.

      Who on earth gets jailed for six months even if they did rub buttocks?

      The main ‘victim’ claimed FIVE counts of digital penetration, yet they were having an affair of sorts. Surely for many couples digital penetration is part and parcel of having sex?

      He was never at the Leigh Park Community Centre so could not possibly have groped an eight-year-old girl there (who went bankrupt in the same year that she filed the complaint about Rolf Harris, by the way).

      Tonya Lee was, in my view, the flakiest witness imaginable and admitted in court to lying to the police. In her TV interview on A Current Affair (Australia) it was stated prior to the interview itself words to the effect that she had checked herself into mental health facilities several times.

      Yes, great conviction! All done and dusted … with no evidence!

  • Jarijari

    Please consider this. OK it’s from the Mail, which usually can’t be trusted. But all major news organisations consider it authentic, It has a verified signature, etc. And how could you have ignored the overwhelming weight of court evidence. Harris IS undoubtedly a pedophile with not a slightest hint of remorse, time to move on to someone more deserving of your estimable attention.

    • Misty

      I have considered it. The letter is authentic. That is not in dispute. That the latest one starts ‘Dearest Bear’ is a little heartbreaking. Rolf Harris loved this man like a son, and it seems that that ‘son’ has effectively stabbed him in the back. One might wonder WHY. If Rolf was the monster that Mr Judas claims he was, surely he would have moved out long ago. Or was it easier to take the Harrises’ hospitality and live in the ‘Bear Cave’ (the basement flat) for around 11 years (rent-free, I have heard, but I can’t prove that). Could the latest developments have anything to do with money, by any chance?

      Maybe you could tell us what the ‘overwhelming weight of court evidence’ actually was? The evidence was very sparse indeed, and comprised:

      – a diary belonging to Bindi’s friend, in which she had written what a ‘great time’ she was having on holiday with Rolf and his family (which should have been in Rolf’s favour);

      – a diary belonging to the tour leader of Tonya Lee’s theatre group that proved that Tonya Lee had got her dates wrong and that Rolf could not possibly have been responsible for her weight loss (bear in mind too that Tonya Lee was accused by the defence of telling a ‘bare-faced lie’ in court, which she admitted) – and which should have been in Rolf’s favour;

      – Videos showing that Rolf was NOT at ‘It’s a Knockout’ in Cambridge, where he supposedly assaulted a 13-year-old waitress, but that he WAS at ‘Star Games’ three years later, when she would have been around 16 – but there is no proof that SHE was ever at Star Games. Bear in mind that this charge was ‘rubbing her buttocks’ (over clothes and in public) nearly FORTY YEARS earlier and for which there was no evidence. HE wasn’t allowed to forget, at the age of 84, that he had appeared in Cambridge (and was vilified in the press), but SHE was allowed to forget the location, the programme and how old she was.

      – Two people who said they remembered Rolf being in the area around the time of other celebrities having appeared in the Leigh Park area (not the Community Centre itself). Sid James appeared there in the mid-1960s and Diana Dors opened a bingo hall in the mid-1970s. None of these dates tally with 1969 or the years immediately either side (she said the assault happened at the time of the moon landing or around the time of her eighth birthday, both of which happened in 1969 – and Rolf was in Australia at the time of the moon landing anyway).

      So, come on – WHAT evidence? He was wrongly convicted and the powers-that-be are turning a blind eye to it – just as they did with Timothy Evans and in so many other cases.

      • Carrie

        Yes exactly, Misty. What evidence?

        Also, do you know if it’s true that the jury contained a police officer and some English-language-impaired people? If so, why did his lawyers not insist on a change? I have to say, either that rumour is untrue or his lawyers were inept or worse. The weird verdicts and questions from the jury would certainly be more easily explained if that is true.

  • Jon Miller

    It turns out that one of the jury in the Rolf Harris trial was a police officer on the Operation Yewtree force and two others had a limited command of English. A gross miscarriage of justice – the question is, what to do about it?

    • Cloudberry XXX

      The rumour that I have seen is that he was a member of the Metropolitan Police (which according to Wikipedia has tens of thousands of members) rather than of Operation Yewtree. I don’t know who the source of the rumour is or how reliable it is.

  • RationalThought

    … and I think the modus operandii for Operation Yewtree is documented and we need to think about the conviction in this context – see:

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris – a serious Miscarriage of Justice | rationalthoughtprocess()

  • Lizzie Cornish

    From Chris Brosnan, from last year. Deleted very, very recently, due to his ‘Thirty Pieces of Silver’ story he’s now sold to The Daily Mail about Rolf: Please READ, for THIS is the truth!

    “I know this as fact; Rolf Harris has been my close friend for over 17 years, in that time I have presented with, and supported him in literally hundreds of “gigs”, I have seen him sign autographs for literally thousands of people, of all ages and sexes. Never once, NOT ONCE, have I ever seen him abuse, or be inappropriate with ANYBODY and this is with me working closely with him, on stage, back stage, driving him, body guarding him, and sharing part of the same house with him for over 12 years.

    Something in his recent “conviction” is very, very wrong. His trial was supposed to present evidence to convict, “Beyond reasonable doubt.” Well, sorry, there was so much “reasonable doubt” that the case should have been thrown out before it even started. The Judge in his summing up was no where near, “Impartial” and the media have done their best to bring on that “conviction” prior to the trial and needed a “soft target,” they got it in Rolf. A household name celebrity, loved by the people for being exactly who he is, a warm, open hearted, loving man. British justice has just left the building with this disgraceful verdict.

    “The powers that be” have needed a “patsy” a “Scape goat” because of the debacle around Savile, (a total psychopath, sexual predator) to put the spot light on some other poor soul to keep the “Sheeple” of the world appeased and in fear, while the real pedophiles of the UK go untouched and remain cloaked and protected by the insidious perversions of the very establishments that have just “convicted” my dear friend.

    So that you know, Rolf has totally supported me, a sexually abused, runaway kid, who had no real parents, no home and no sense of self worth until Rolf came in to my life. I will always love him very dearly and stand by him 100%.

    To the justice system of the UK, shame on you, shame on you.

    To Mr. Rolf Harris, you are my dear friend, I love you very much, I hold the vision of you safe return home ASAP to the arms of your beloved Alwen.

    I say this in all truth.

    Chris “Shining Bear” Brosnan”

    • Murray Rothbard

      Quite right to highlight this, I have added a post:

    • Carrie

      Thanks for highlighting this, Lizzie. I am horrified that any “friend” can do such a thing to someone who has been so kind and helpful to him. And I am disgusted at the way in which the DM has consistently poured hate onto Rolf and stirred up its readership; I don’t think there has been anyone else that they have targeted so consistently and for so long as they have with Rolf. Not even Savile.

      • Lizzie Cornish

        Thank you, Carrie..and to Murray for posting this comment in a new blog too, here:

        I’ve been blocked my personal FB for 3 days and from my Support Rolf Harris FB page, all posts about Brosnan having been deleted by FB, I can only assume at his request. I’m seethingly angry with what he’s done, I truly am. There is not an excuse under the sun for this..And, just like the four main claimants, he’s come out with things which, in the main, only HE can verify, no-one else…and of course, Rolf is NOT able to answer at all. I think his comments about Rolf telling he was sexually abused are very clever, because already the ‘experts’ are out there in newspaper articles saying this is probably why Rolf abused others…(which of course, he never did, despite the wrongful verdict)

        There WAS a Met Police Officer on his jury too, which has now been officially confirmed…and you can find the details on the photos on my Rolf page, here:

      • Lizzie Cornish

        Carrie, I think I’ve just posted the incorrect link in my earlier post to you. THIS is the new blog post Murray put up today, with Brosnan’s original words on:

        • Carrie

          Thanks for all the info, Lizzie — and for your tireless work. I had difficulty believing that anyone could be so base at first, but I have done my catching-up now and am simply horrified that Rolf and Alwen and Bindi have had to be put through still more sadness.

          I actually remember Brosnan’s words from when he posted them here originally, which is why I have been so stunned by this. I have had a good read of your Support Rolf page too, and am glad to know for sure about the jury. That is disgraceful, not only that such a probably-biased person would be allowed on a jury but also that Rolf’s counsel did not pick up on it and demand a change of jury. The whole thing smells more and more fishy (although there was always a strong stink of halibut) , and the frustrating thing is partly that I cannot imagine why everyone involved in this, even those who should have been working for Rolf, seem to have been working against him.

          And why does the Daily Mail hate him so?

        • Murray Rothbard

          Hi Lizzie, did I see in one of your comments that your brother used to be Rolf’s PC technician or am I confusing you with someone else ? I am considering writing a book on this miscarriage of Justice and anything first hand to counter-act the “child porn on his PC” smears would be very useful

          • Cloudberry XXX

            I hope you do write a book about it.

      • Misty

        Not only that but the comments on anything to do with Rolf Harris are always moderated. That means they can sling out most of the supportive ones and let through the most vile ‘rot in hell’ ones. I have tried and tried – but failed – to get well-balanced comments on that site about the lack of evidence and so on (and I know of someone else who is in the same boat). However, I HAVE been successful in finding unmoderated threads that have nothing to do with Rolf Harris and commenting about Rolf on them! I suggest that other people do the same. It gets the word out.

        I really don’t know what the Mail’s agenda is. It’s like they are grooming their ignorant readers (yes, GROOMING them) so that Rolf is turned into the biggest hate figure of the 21st Century.

        Several posts about Chris Brosnan were removed from ‘Support Rolf Harris’ but it seems the Mail can report what it likes. That recent letter wasn’t remarkable at all – he congratulated Bronson on the birth of a baby but did mention that the prison food was ‘so awful’. The Mail swooped on that bit and accused him of self-pity. If he’d said the food was very good, no doubt they’d have swooped on that because it showed that he was getting soft treatment.

        The god-awful thing about all this is that the most of the rabid rabble who read the Mail are eligible to serve on juries.

        • Carrie

          Yes I have tried to post positively too, and never got through no matter how politely I frame the comment. The mail’s policy is to hate him and to foster hatred and I cannot imagine why, they would get just as many “clicks” if their posts about Rolf were more positive. Grooming — hah! Yes, that is just what it looks like.

          As you say, whatever Rolf had said in his letter, it would have been presented in the worst possible ligjht in order to get the rabble to be as rabid as possible.


          • Cloudberry XXX

            I have tried the same, but the posts never get through.

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris & Chris Brosnan | Libertarian View()

  • Pingback: Friend claims Rolf Harris was a victim of childhood abuse | | Sex Offender Alert Registry()

  • Anon

    Well, this person says he does she/he does not know if the victim was telling the truth or not in the first place. Whether they are legally trained or not, one day you will suffer trauma- too late for you to get a taste of child abuse. I was have been touched up as a child, like my late Mother- but luckily nothing REALLY APPALING. I am resilient but it is a shame you cannot BEGIN to know that these victims are still suffering and JUST WANT JUSTICE FOR WHAT THEY SUFFER NOW. Yes, I am still very sad about Rolf, a part of my childhood destroyed- THAT GOES FOR Jimmy Saville too- never ending un-thinkable acts from a man I tried to get on a show with

    • Misty

      No-one is saying that people who genuinely suffer abuse as a child don’t suffer as a consequence. This thread is about Rolf Harris and the miscarriage of justice that HE has suffered. Maybe you can explain how (when his sentence is broken down) he received nine months’ jail for sexually assaulting a 7/8-year-old girl at a place that he had never visited?

      There was no record in the local press of a visit by Rolf Harris. The police found nothing at all, and I know too that he was never there because I sat for hours on end going through local papers from that era. Are you telling me that an international star beloved by millions visited the community hall on the local council estate and the local press weren’t the slightest bit interested?

      The police found no mention of a visit by Rolf Harris in the council’s records or the community hall’s records. A woman who grew up on the Leigh Park estate has stated categorically on the ‘Support Rolf Harris’ Facebook page that he NEVER visited it. People working at the community hall have been contacted and are on record as saying that they don’t know what’s going on as he NEVER VISITED the Leigh Park Community Centre.

      Rolf Harris was a world-famous entertainer at the time. Do you really think that his agent would have slotted in a booking at a community hall on a council estate alongside bookings for the Royal Albert Hall, the USA and Australia? His fee for appearing would have been too high for such a modest outlet. They would have had to sell hundreds of tickets just to break even, let alone make a profit – yet the hall holds only 150 people. The ticket prices would have been astronomical to have enabled them to cover their costs, which would have put them out of reach of the people on the estate, who in the main were at the bottom of the socio-economic heap. Don’t forget too that Rolf Harris supposedly appeared at a Saturday morning children’s disco. Parents would not have had the money to buy tickets for two, three or four children.

      The complainant stated that he sang ‘Two Little Boys’, which was in the ‘hit parade’ – yet it had not even been released at the time of the Moon Landing, when the supposed assault happened. Moon Landing? But Rolf Harris was in Australia for weeks on end at that time (for which there is indisputable proof). Er … well, then – it must have been around the time of her eighth birthday (October 1969).

      The police had no witnesses whatsover to this event and had to resort to putting letters through people’s doors just a few weeks before the trial to ask if anyone remembered it. Out of the entire area leafleted, two elderly men came forward (one who had to be wheeled in and who gave a ‘rambling testimony’). Both said that they recalled seeing him ‘in the area’ – but NOT at the Leigh Park Community Centre. Moreover, Rolf Harris supposedly appeared around the same time as Sid James and Diana Dors – but their visits were around 10 YEARS APART.

      Moreover, NO PHOTOS of the event have ever appeared. If the children had been clutching autograph books (as the complainant stated) their parents would also have been there clutching cameras. That the children had autograph books with them (supposedly) means that they would have known in advance that Rolf Harris had been going to appear. YET NOT ONE PHOTO of this event has been sold to the press, who, given their morbid fascination with Rolf Harris’s incarceration, would pay a fortune for such a photo.

      The complainant was embroiled in bankruptcy proceedings at the time of making her complaint to police, so she had a financial motive for making an allegation (which, incidentally, was made in the same month that Stuart Hall’s conviction was made public and it was stated that victims were going to sue for compensation). She has subsequently been awarded £22,000 in compensation (which Rolf Harris paid because he had to as he had been found guilty – not because he had admitted guilt).

      I am sorry that you had such a very bad time when you were young, but please remember that you too could one day be accused of sexually assaulting someone at a place at which you had never appeared. Just like Rolf Harris. What then?

  • Anon

    Rolf Harris denied he was at the “It’s a Knockout” in Cambridge but then they found evidence that he was. Pictures and footage were shown in court. He had a reputation in Australia. The witnesses in the Documentary are enough for me. I think the 8 year old did well to remember what she could. Of course no-one knows what is or is not true and there probably are greedy people after money which is equally disgusting and appalling. There is only one judge in the end

    • Misty

      Rolf Harris, at 84 (when memory isn’t at its peak) did not remember visiting Cambridge and was called a liar.

      The Cambridge complainant could not remember how old she was, which location at Cambridge she was working at, and which television programme was being filmed – and was not called a liar but a ‘brave victim’.

      It was asserted at the trial that she was 13 and working as a waitress during the filming of ‘It’s A Knockout’ at Parker’s Piece (a large green area in the centre of Cambridge). The film was located and it was proven conclusively that Rolf Harris NEVER APPEARED at this event. The prosecution tried to ‘prove’ that he had been there by suggesting that he was the surprise guest who would make his appearance at the end of the show (which presumably would not have been filmed).

      During the trial a video of ‘Star Games’, filmed on the outskirts of Cambridge in 1976, was produced. This showed Rolf Harris and proved that he HAD visited Cambridge, after he had said that he hadn’t been there. The prosecution was quick to seize on this. However, the video did NOT prove that the complainant had been at this particular event.

      Star Games had been filmed at Jesus Green, a large open space to the north of the city that is not surrounded by punts and ancient architecture. It could be anywhere. His engagements at that time would have meant whizzing from one place to the next, as he pointed out in court. Another performer at that particular Star Games came forward in support of Rolf Harris to say that she had forgotten about it as well.

      So, the complainant forgot that she was 16 and not 13 (which is quite a huge gap for a young person), that she was waitressing at Jesus Green (outside the city, where there is a swimming pool) rather than at Parker’s Piece (in the city centre, where there is no swimming pool), and the name of the TV programme.

      There is no evidence that the ‘sexual assault’ (the charge was actually ‘rubbing buttocks’, over clothing, for heaven’s sake) ever happened. Rolf Harris was convicted solely on the basis of a supposed memory of almost forty years earlier.

      Roll on the compo.

      That is not justice. I hope it never happens to you, I really do.

  • Anon

    You were very quick to delete my comment! Wow. Not very biased are we? Coming from someone who was touched up a child. VERY DANGEROUS. In fact, I might share this just to warn others

  • Anon

    You make me laugh. 3 fair comments deleted in seconds 😀 Okay, well biased people only interested in themselves are the loneliest people around. Good luck to you!

    • Anon

      (You might want to delete these two comments!)

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris v Women Sex Offenders | mra-uk()

  • Pingback: Rolf Harris v Women Sex Offenders - SecuritySlagsSecuritySlags()

  • Pingback: Excellent article on the charges in the Rolf Harris case - Link with people who've been falsely accused of rape or another serious sexual offence()

  • Sygnet

    From memory, didn’t the chief prosecutor say that he would not have had a guilty verdict if the charges had been tried separately. All the charges related to events before 1995 so the compacting of charges permitted by1995 rape act should not have been allowed. There is also a precident from prosecutions against the police that old accusations without corroboration should be dismissed. So, yes I think Harris got a raw deal.

  • Cloudberry XXX

    Thank you for this superb analysis of the trial, Libertarian View. It is very interesting and thought-provoking.

    I would be interested to know what your opinion would be of the following observations regarding Tonya Lee:

    (1) In their TV interviews, both Tonya Lee and Caroline Robinson (whose TV interview was uploaded to YouTube seven month’s before Tonya Lee gave her TV interview) seem to describe the same lap-groping scenario regarding Rolf Harris/Jimmy Savile:
    sat on his lap, wore a skirt, legs either side of his legs, felt him moving around, was groped, in a room with other people, they didn’t notice, got scared, went to the toilet.
    Both interviews are on YouTube ( [viewable outside the UK], The transcript of Tonya Lee’s first interview is available here ( as well as her Woman’s Day magazine interview in which she said that she became “fixated” on child sexual assault cases.

    (2) In her post-trial TV interview (, Tonya Lee said in response to the guilty verdict that she was “incredibly gobsmacked”, “I can’t believe it”, “just amazing” and when asked “Was there a sense of relief?”, laughed and exclaimed “that came later!”. It seems curious that a victim of crime, who would already know from personal experience that the defendant was guilty, should express such astonishment at a guilty verdict. After the trial, she also obtained a transcript of her evidence (

    (3) The second part of Tonya Lee’s allegation (intimately groped outside the toilets at 14 after Rolf Harris lay in wait) seems to very neatly corroborate one of the most serious allegations (perhaps the most serious) from the main claimant (intimately groped outside the showers at 13 after Rolf Harris lay in wait). Tonya Lee’s lap-groping claim also echoed a lap-groping claim by the main claimant. So it would appear that Tonya Lee’s evidence would have been key, helping to confirm a “modus operandi” and corroborate the main claimant, while chiming with the claims of the other two accusers.