Rolf Harris Guilty Of 12 Counts Of Indecent Assault

[Mr_Spanky]

I mean I remember when I was little watching Rolf Harris doing his drawing and painting thing ("Do you see what it is yet"?) And knowing now what we do about him is truly sickening.

Sorry but this is a joke, the core of the paedophile ring at the core of British entertainment and politics is still going unpunished. Operation Yewtree has thrown a few of the disgusting bastards like Rolf Harris to the wolves and thats it, its right he finally faces punishment and I am glad he has but its not enough.

What about the dozens or even hundreds of people that must have either ignored or actively allowed Jimmy Saville to do what he did? He had complicity with the government and authorities on so many levels, a government which at the time had a cabinet minister which to this day continually faces accusations about paedophile activities.

Except I cannot post his name as the government and courts slapped an anonymity order on the issue and they are have even tried to sue people for using his name on social media, we know peados work in groups and rings and we know Jimmy Saville had to have had help from the government and authorities to get into those institutions like the NHS, Her Majesty's Prison system and the secure education facilities.

Then you have all the people within those institutions that either turned their backs and ignored what was going on (yeah, young girls where lead one by one for an "interview" in his caravan and any girl that got upset was punished till she shut up) and those that helped him, the authorities have made a show trial of a few of the ones that they couldn't tie to the wider ring with a hoorah about "look we did something" while ignoring the cancer at the core of the old British establishment.

It's the thing that I find most sad, disturbing and disgusting about these kind of stories post-Savile. Just thinking about how many people there are who do exactly the same kind of thing and worse who have, if not actual endorsement from higher powers, certainly a lack of interest in doing anything about it. The fact that it's still happening (and not of course just in the UK if you just glance over at the authorities of the Catholic Church) and exactly the same mistakes and lack of care is being given to vulnerable boys and girls RIGHT NOW.

I could be ok with what's going on atm if I thought that lessons really had been learned (as so many politicians are fond of saying). All that's going to happen though is that they'll get better at hiding it. After all it doesn't matter what they do - so long as they don't get caught doing it.

Tinfoil- engaged.

Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away. If the history books of the future are going to show anything (assuming it's not propagandized out of the history books) it's that it makes the problem worse.

 

[Orcboyphil]

In a way, I pity pedophiles. Pretty much every human being has a hardwired need to be touched and to sexually express oneself, so finding that the objects of your basic human need are children has to be, if not horrific to discover, then at least a lifelong struggle to contain.

This. being born a pedofile must be a hard burdenr to bear. your evolution worked millions of years to reinforce sex as a good thing and here suddenly you are being told your instincts are all wrong. That must be very challenging to overcome. Not that it excuses them from doing these crimes, but pedos rarely do it "Because their evil".

Your actually wrong on that last point. The majority of convicted paedophiles aren't actually paedophiles. They are in fact opportunistic rapists who targeted a child because they where easy to control and manipulate.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Good, now if they can just get along to arresting the people who allowed it all to happen and didn't tell the police in the first place that would be fine and dandy.

 

[Shodan1980]

*snip*

Tinfoil- engaged.

So asking why a man that people knew was a paedophile got access to secure government run institutions like Broadmoor is tinfoil hattery? Only senior authority figures could have given him access, only someone from the cabinet like the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice could have given him open access whenever he wanted (he had keys for ffs) and a fucking house on the premises.

A cabinet which at the time had a MP that keeps facing sexual abuse accusations and who has the protection of the courts to silence the accusers, yeah thats really paranoid tinfoil hattery...

It doesn't have to be conspiracy, it could just be somebody who is a fan, is told this, at the time, big celebrity wants to do charity work and is excited for the publicity it will bring for what they deem is a worthy cause. There are many accounts from nurses etc that were shocked when they found out that Saville had been carrying out abuse on their wards as they were so happy he'd been, in their eyes, helping people.

If there was a cover up, it would have been at the BBC, where apparently the parties in the Seventies that were the main focus of Yewtree happened. And that would have been due to fear about how it would tarnish Auntie's image more than a sordid desire to help paedophiles. Remember it was a different time and on one hand you have huge stars that are, as far as the BBC are aware, just having after show parties, and on the other there are, at most, unsubstantiated rumours that, if publicly investigated would destroy the brand. It's not right, but it's human nature to shy away from hard situations that may cost you your job for stirring up trouble. It's easy to employ Captain Hindsight and say some shadowy conspiracy was orchestrating it all but in reality all it needed were the blinkers of celebrity and at most two or three other people in collusion covering for them.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained through stupidity or fear.......Except in the case of Cyril Smith from the Lib Dems, that was actively covered up and ignored at the time to protect the party, but the difference there is there's ample evidence of a cover up documented in Private Eye and, at the time, the Rochdale Alternative Newspaper back in 1979.

 

[J Tyran]

*snip*

Tinfoil- engaged.

So asking why a man that people knew was a paedophile got access to secure government run institutions like Broadmoor is tinfoil hattery? Only senior authority figures could have given him access, only someone from the cabinet like the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice could have given him open access whenever he wanted (he had keys for ffs) and a fucking house on the premises.

A cabinet which at the time had a MP that keeps facing sexual abuse accusations and who has the protection of the courts to silence the accusers, yeah thats really paranoid tinfoil hattery...

It doesn't have to be conspiracy, it could just be somebody who is a fan, is told this, at the time, big celebrity wants to do charity work and is excited for the publicity it will bring for what they deem is a worthy cause. There are many accounts from nurses etc that were shocked when they found out that Saville had been carrying out abuse on their wards as they were so happy he'd been, in their eyes, helping people.

If there was a cover up, it would have been at the BBC, where apparently the parties in the Seventies that were the main focus of Yewtree happened. And that would have been due to fear about how it would tarnish Auntie's image more than a sordid desire to help paedophiles. Remember it was a different time and on one hand you have huge stars that are, as far as the BBC are aware, just having after show parties, and on the other there are, at most, unsubstantiated rumours that, if publicly investigated would destroy the brand. It's not right, but it's human nature to shy away from hard situations that may cost you your job for stirring up trouble. It's easy to employ Captain Hindsight and say some shadowy conspiracy was orchestrating it all but in reality all it needed were the blinkers of celebrity and at most two or three other people in collusion covering for them.

Never ascribe to malice what can be explained through stupidity or fear.......Except in the case of Cyril Smith from the Lib Dems, that was actively covered up and ignored at the time to protect the party, but the difference there is there's ample evidence of a cover up documented in Private Eye and, at the time, the Rochdale Alternative Newspaper back in 1979.

I would agree yet why are the courts protecting an MP, an MP that had the influence within the government to get him that access. There has been no thorough investigation with the new evidence and accusations in the wake of operation Yewtree and the court order prevents anyone from even calling for one, people that do end up in court. Not just sued either, breaching a court anonymity order can be treated as a prosecutable offence (contempt of court).

Then you have the accusations from the victims that staff at these institutions actually knew what was going on and worked to both silence the victims and facilitate his abuse, there have been no arrests and little investigation. No-one has been charged with conspiracy to cause child abuse and no-one has been in court, either way the investigation is a joke. Those accusations have not been treated seriously enough, Jimmy Saville is beyond justice now but many of the people that helped him and/or turned a blind eye because of the money and influence he could bring are not. Its not a witch hunt either, a proper and balanced investigation would reveal the truth and anyone accused would either be able to defend themselves in court and establish their innocence or the court would reveal their guilt.

They are either deliberately skirting around the wider issue or they took the lazy route to grab the low hanging fruit just to shut the public up and make it look they are doing something, either way its a terrible joke.

 

[Me55enger]

Great write-up.

Yewtree honestly looked like it was going to be am utter farce, what with the only guy they had pinned it on a year ago escaping them by leaving the mortal coil. It's good this is finding some traction.

That being said, it's a shame that a lot of probably innocent folk from that era of entertainment are being swept up with it. With a witchhunt like this, innocence after accusation is irrelevant. For example, radio DJ Paul Gambochini was arrested mid last year, not a word on him since. But the BBC pulled his show.

 

[black_knight1337]

Not sure how he ended up being guilty. Can't see why seemingly baseless claims are actually holding any weight. Especially when several of the cases were supposedly in public in front of dozens of people and yet no witnesses came forward.

 

[Rellik San]

Jake the Peg has a suddenly disturbing and dark undercurrent.

With his "extra leg" indeed.

Not to make light of a terrible situation of course, but is there that can be said that hasn't already, justice has been served in this case, but there are still the wider implications of whom allowed what to happen and how many times, who's truly culpable and why aren't they being called up as accessories to this abuse?

 

[Albino Boo]

Not sure how he ended up being guilty. Can't see why seemingly baseless claims are actually holding any weight. Especially when several of the cases were supposedly in public in front of dozens of people and yet no witnesses came forward.

His daughter corroborated some aspects of the evidence, there was also a contemporary written diary by one of the victims. Harris lied in when giving evidence by saying he hadn't been to Cambridge when there the TV of recording of him being in Cambridge at the time. In short the jury did not believe a word Harris said in his defence and even his own daughter thinks he did it.

 

[nickpy]

I must confess that I have not particularly followed the case, and I trust that the police and judicial system have done their job and I trust in the final outcome, and therefore I believe he almost certainly is Guilty. Obviously these are very heinous crimes and I have much sympathy for the victims, however, what truly saddens me personally (and why I really hoped he would be found innocent) is that now all his work will be permanently tarnished and wilfully wiped from history which frankly I don't think helps anyone.

It is, afterall, possible to be both a pedophile and a good cartoonist/entertainer. The same thing happened with Gary Glitter and his music - just because Glitter himself was a pedophile doesn't mean that the music he created is bad music, and yet no-one every plays it anymore, no-one sells it, and it was actively removed from a lot of compilation albums of the time.

In fact I would say that, on balance, it would be superior if the good work they did was not shunned - that way something good came out of them, rather than nothing at all. Obviously their works cannot make up for what they did wrong, but something is better than nothing, right? Maybe the courts could assign the copyright for all the works in question to the victims: would give them some financial support.

 

[Lieju]

I used to stay up late with my mum and sister to watch Animal Hospital every Wednesday... gawddammit...

That's where I knew him from.
Well, better for this to come to light...

 

[LaoJim]

Wow, another important element of my British childhood, turned to ash and tinder.

I mean, it's good that all these people are coming forward about being molested, and it's good that they're getting the help they need now, but I think I'm just going to have to admit to myself that my entire childhood I've looked up to disgusting pedophiles and everything I've ever loved and idolised is a hollow lie.

I think there will be a slightly different reaction to Harris' conviction than to the revelations about Saville. As a child I loved the concept of the show Jim'll Fix It, but never particularly liked Saville himself and when the revelations came I, and I think a lot of other people, felt that our unease with his character was explained in some ways. In contrast, I had a genuine fondness for Harris as a child, and am genuinely surprised by the outcome.

(On a probably inappropriate side note, that title's a bit weird. I saw it and thought "What the hell's indecent assault? I know of indecent exposure and I know of sexual assault, but this? Did he strip naked and punch someone or something?)

Indecent Assault is a common legal term in England and Wales, I hadn't realized it wasn't elsewhere. Basically its any sexual assault that doesn't include rape.

When I was in primary school kids used to make lewd jokes about his songs 'Two Little Boys' (with their two little toys) and 'Jake The Peg' (with his extra leg). Now I regret it.

I wouldn't worry about it. Many years ago I used to work in Maidenhead where Harris lives and we used to see him around the town semi-regularly. One of my colleagues used to have a story about the time he was in the pub and met Harris at the urinals. "Now obviously its a huge faux pas to look at another man's junk, but the guys been singing about how he's got an extra leg for decades, so I figure its fair game...". You can bet he's going to stop telling that story in a hurry.

Eh, I'm surprised that nobody (yet) has gone the other route, claiming he must be innocent cause they liked him when they were young.

Unfortunately the number of children's presenters in Britain who have been shown (with pretty damning evidence) to be pedophiles/sexual predators is now so high that we're well past the point where anyone can still reasonably hold such assumptions. I think many people were genuinely surprised when Bill Roche, the Coronation Street actor, was found innocent. While I'd like to think these assaults didn't in fact occur, given the jury reached a guilty verdict on all twelve and the evidence presented in the article, it doesn't seem very realistic.

In some ways this attitude is quite sad. If you read the history, its a bit like the Oscar Wilde trial. In the 19th century it was quite common for two men to hold hands in the street or kiss each other on the cheek, then after the trial behaviour changed completely because men suddenly were worried if their behaviour would be construed as homosexual. These days, I think increasingly, men are worried about if and how their interactions with other peoples children might be interpreted. Who is going to want to be a children's presenter if everyone believes that they are all pedophiles?

(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the heightened awareness of this issue and for molesters to get harsh prison sentences)

Not to make light of a terrible situation of course, but is there that can be said that hasn't already, justice has been served in this case, but there are still the wider implications of whom allowed what to happen and how many times, who's truly culpable and why aren't they being called up as accessories to this abuse?

Agreed, we don't necessarily need a witch-hunt, but we do need to know clearly what information was available to the BBC and other organizations and why it wasn't acted upon. In the Saville case it was pretty clear that he was getting special treatment and his behaviour covered-up by many organization (including hospitals and his charities). Now it may be that the BBC wasn't aware of Harris' behaviour (the central allegations are about a friend's daughter and so presumably part of Harris' private life), but if they had any information or complaints then the case against them gets more and more damning.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Urgh. Just urgh.

There's innate feeling of grossness when someone's whose work you enjoyed as a child turns out to be a paedophile.

 

[black_knight1337]

His daughter corroborated some aspects of the evidence

A hug is hardly evidence of anything, same as complimenting someone. Still doesn't account for many of the other charges that supposedly happened in front of dozens of people.

there was also a contemporary written diary by one of the victims.

Which is still just "he said, she said".

Harris lied in when giving evidence by saying he hadn't been to Cambridge when there the TV of recording of him being in Cambridge at the time.

Or could it be that he may have forgotten? I'm sure after travelling as much as he has he wouldn't remember every single trip.

In short the jury did not believe a word Harris said in his defence and even his own daughter thinks he did it.

I thought we lived in a world where you're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Unfortunately the number of children's presenters in Britain who have been shown (with pretty damning evidence) to be pedophiles/sexual predators is now so high that we're well past the point where anyone can still reasonably hold such assumptions. I think many people were genuinely surprised when Bill Roche, the Coronation Street actor, was found innocent. While I'd like to think these assaults didn't in fact occur, given the jury reached a guilty verdict on all twelve and the evidence presented in the article, it doesn't seem very realistic.

True, although if you are suitably invested in something, you can still manage to overlook all sorts of evidence. Sexual abuse is one of those things people like to think doesn't happen, like you say, and not everyone is concerned with whether or not that is realistic.

In some ways this attitude is quite sad. If you read the history, its a bit like the Oscar Wilde trial. In the 19th century it was quite common for two men to hold hands in the street or kiss each other on the cheek, then after the trial behaviour changed completely because men suddenly were worried if their behaviour would be construed as homosexual. These days, I think increasingly, men are worried about if and how their interactions with other peoples children might be interpreted. Who is going to want to be a children's presenter if everyone believes that they are all pedophiles?

I disagree, there's always lots of complaints about people being falsely accused and all, but mostly this seems to be another part of not wanting to look at the real issue. I don't see anything much changing in reality.

Agreed, we don't necessarily need a witch-hunt, but we do need to know clearly what information was available to the BBC and other organizations and why it wasn't acted upon. In the Saville case it was pretty clear that he was getting special treatment and his behaviour covered-up by many organization (including hospitals and his charities). Now it may be that the BBC wasn't aware of Harris' behaviour (the central allegations are about a friend's daughter and so presumably part of Harris' private life), but if they had any information or complaints then the case against them gets more and more damning.

Yeah...I daresay a lot of people either knew, or didn't because they chose not to knew. How many and who, however, probably won't ever be known. Turning a blind eye is always going to be easier.

 

[Uncle Comrade]

In short the jury did not believe a word Harris said in his defence and even his own daughter thinks he did it.

I thought we lived in a world where you're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Isn't that what a trial is for? Y'know, where the jury - having examined all the evidence and testimony - decide whether someone did the crime or not.

 

[Albino Boo]

His daughter corroborated some aspects of the evidence

A hug is hardly evidence of anything, same as complimenting someone. Still doesn't account for many of the other charges that supposedly happened in front of dozens of people.

there was also a contemporary written diary by one of the victims.

Which is still just "he said, she said".

Harris lied in when giving evidence by saying he hadn't been to Cambridge when there the TV of recording of him being in Cambridge at the time.

Or could it be that he may have forgotten? I'm sure after travelling as much as he has he wouldn't remember every single trip.

In short the jury did not believe a word Harris said in his defence and even his own daughter thinks he did it.

I thought we lived in a world where you're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

OH for god sake man ITS THE JURY THAT DECIDES IF YOU ARE INNOCENT OR GUILTY. Its their job to to say which witness is more believable than the other, thats the whole point of the trial. I really don't care about what reason that you come up with to rationalize your dislike of the verdict but at least bother to have some basic understanding of the legal system.

 

[TheEvilCheese]

I'm not trying to defend him...but when the whole thing with Woody Allen blew up a bunch of people talked about how he "looked like a pedo/skeevy" and I'm like....is my pedar broken?

If you meet him in person, he does seem very much like an... inappropriate old man. One of his grandchildren(?) was a friend of my brother and Rolf came to speak at their school leaving party. He was creepy as fuck and everyone could see it (like openly staring at 16 year old girls' chests). This was just before he was publicly accused of all this.

He certainly had a public persona, but when he dropped it was not a pleasant man.

 

[Strazdas]

In a way, I pity pedophiles. Pretty much every human being has a hardwired need to be touched and to sexually express oneself, so finding that the objects of your basic human need are children has to be, if not horrific to discover, then at least a lifelong struggle to contain.

This. being born a pedofile must be a hard burdenr to bear. your evolution worked millions of years to reinforce sex as a good thing and here suddenly you are being told your instincts are all wrong. That must be very challenging to overcome. Not that it excuses them from doing these crimes, but pedos rarely do it "Because their evil".

Your actually wrong on that last point. The majority of convicted paedophiles aren't actually paedophiles. They are in fact opportunistic rapists who targeted a child because they where easy to control and manipulate.

oh, i didnt knew that one. Those wouldnt be the real paedophiles though, as it requires the need to be sexually attracted to children.