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.

That all sounds very assuming to me.

..and so, after all considerations, you still have Cods, Herbert, Baron..et al saying that he will always be remembered as a kiddy fiddler.
Why have a court case at all? He was already tried and convicted in a large percentage of the public's eyes the moment the story broke.



I'd imagine that where there's smoke there's fire, however, he must have held quite a bit of admiration for a "said" victim to carry on an 11yr relationship after supposedly being abused. Not saying it can't happen, but if it did, as an adult she must've acted very irresponsibly by carrying on a relationship with him.

You don't want to discourage people who are victims of abuse coming forward, but also people can't be tried retrospectively for what was fairly average social behaviour at the time regarding the witnesses who were adults.
Nowadays, a wolf whistle can land somebody in court or make them unemployable. Times have changed and people are poo scared, just as the government would have you be.

sherri wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 8:17am:


You've obviously never been to the UK.

Nobody ends up in London, Oxford, Cambridge, or Stratford-upon-Avon without knowing it.

sherri wrote on Jun 9^th, 2014 at 8:17am:




Not knowing you had a cup of tea in Cambridge is like not knowing you'd visited the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

... Or Brixton on a Sa'dee Nigh', Guv!