.

The thread was not showing that is why I posted that.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:57pm:


When I first read about the charges I did wonder if it was just fallout from all the Jimmy Sevile publicity. Maybe women hopping on the bandwagon etc

But recently there was an article in the paper by a woman who works on aussie radio,and she said that many years ago, she wanted him in for a radio interview. Her co-host wasn't keen, said he had a reputation in the media as a bit of a dirty old man.
But anyway, Harris gave the interview, he came over as warm and friendly, it all went well, then he posed for photos with them. But as he was posing, she felt his hand going around and groping part of her breast, but not where other people or the camera could see it.

Now she obviously was an adult at the time, so this isn't a case of paedophilia. But I do believe everything she wrote, it had the ring of truth. She said she was embarrassed to tell her co-host till some time afterwards and didn't mention it to others.

What it suggests to me is Harris has been a bit of a groper and maybe he doesn't mind taking a risk, maybe that was part of the thrill. Men like that probably sum up their victims beforehand-are they forceful, are they likely to kick up a fuss or be embarrassed and not say a thing?

My own personal suspicion is Harris has been guilty of quite a few offences. I wouldn't call him a paedophile as such if the girls have been past puberty, but he is probably guilty of taking advantage of his position as an adult of power. There's a reason why laws protect teens under 16.
He's been sleazy and arrogant and his past is catching up with him.
One or two people you might put down to opportunism, but when you start to have a lot of different people with sleazy stories about him, well, the odds are starting to look like he is guilty to me.
And it also sounds to me as if the fact was an open secret in the entertainment industry. The media are always after priests and such who did not report abuse they heard of, but those in the media are no different.
What it comes down to is if you don't see it yourself, you probably don't report it, but you do talk about it.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:57pm:




hilarious.... what credible evidence is there usually in child indecent assault cases.

do you think the child should have had a witness... a camera perhaps..???

what sort of idiot are you??...

he has already proved he is a liar by claiming he hadnt been to Cambridge...in the 70s..
where an incident allegedly happened...

someone who was adept at touchy feely would be so quick.. and be honest who would have thought someone like Rolf would even think of doing that and therefore be watching his hands...

I dont know....I have never witnessed an assault of this kind so I would probably think I imagined it.. you would need to be on the receiving end to know what its like to have a hand grope at you...

and a child doesnt usually talk about it at the time..

Well it'll be interesting when Rolf's daughter gets charged with perjury for saying the assault that was supposed to have happened in her presence never happened.

once again Q  you seek to change the topic.

Whatever Cods did or did not say is again irrelevant.

We will no doubt have more ,  yet to come.  Hang in there.


Still,  it is really sad , isn't it.?

  The real world encroaches on our paradigms. 

Dearest Emma,

When did I say anything of the kind?

"The Saville Case has opened , boy has it opened , some pretty yuk  cans of worms.
The fact that this has enabled these women to speak up,  should not becondemned by you..  it should be embraced."

I merely look at the evidence offered to date and the requirements of Law as opposed to 'law' that seems to suggest that a complainant has some right to have a claim accepted without proof and in the face of contradictory evidence (one witness' own diary of the day  an attack was alleged), often of a substantial or at least equal nature (such as Rolf Harris' daughter and 180 degrees opposite testimony) - and point out the very real danger of 'guilt by accusation' and 'condemnation by accusation'.

After a period of years memories are not always accurate, and we retain at least some vestige of 'benefit of the doubt' and the requirement for an accuser to prove a case beyond any reasonable doubt.

I, for one, am simply not in a position to know the mind of the witnesses, but I find it bizarre that all these apparently public episodes in front of other people occurred, and yet remained unnoticed, and on top of that the primary case seems to be a sexual relationship direct - a pretty normal event for those over a certain age - and with a difference of opinion over the age and time at which this started, and how consensual it was.

Where are the media/entertainment etc people present or involved in or near an episode or 'in the know' who 'covered it up'?  Are they flooding forward to say they knew all along but said nothing?  Surely not all would be so in fear of their job etc now as to not come forward?  Surely there are many who would now come forward and offer substantial evidence rather than 'he had a reputation'.

As the late 'Hurrcane' Carter said :-  "I'm doing three consecutive life terms for murder - not for attempted adultery."  He meant that reputation has nothing to do with facts.. pretty simple really... and let me again point out that the Supreme Court here requires that an 'expert opinion' must be supported by fact proven and provable.  Red should know that if properly set in place this would cause 90% of police accusations to be thrown out of court, since 90% of 'cases' are purely on the version of events of police without substantial corroboration.  As an aside here - the number of complaints of assault BY police is significantly lower in police stations and near vehicles covered by CCTV......... (**lets that one hang out there for you all to understand).............

'Reputations' can be built on anything.... and one thing you can guarantee about people is they will not accept a story unless it is juicy and shows the person discussed in a poor light - we need to be wary of that.  Is it not bizarre that many women these days feel that they were 'oppressed' in the past through having to abide by social standards that were placed on them by near-unspoken and 'general society' "rules" and being criticised and condemned for breaches of those 'rules' - yet these same women now demand that similar "rules" be applied at their whim when they "feel" another's reputation warrants it, and the unspoken rule should be 'guilty by accusation if the accuser is a woman'?

Sorry - this has nothing to do with 'courageous women coming forward' - it has everything to do with Law and its requirements - and whether or not we should even contemplate lowering the value of evidence when the complainant is of one gender rather than the other.

The Law (and law, legislation and regulation) has little enough genuine protection for an accused as it is, and those protections provided are more proven in the abuse than in the keeping as it is - and I'm sorry to say that the very thin protection currently provided will not be thinned ever further to encompass some semi-religious, Delphic oracular, 'feminist' idea of women's oppression and rights.

THAT is why I say Harris will most likely walk - the evidence is simply not compelling, and if convicted by an emotionally driven jury, that is why I say he will win on appeal.

I'm not defending wrong or counter-accusing anyone or pointing fingers at anyone (other than the faintly absurd and laughable feminist dogma) - I do not have possession of the full and substantial by law facts and was not present at the time of the allegations - I am merely defending Right in law.