BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:13 PM

The post above (01:01pm) was NOT made by me. I object most strongly that somebody is using my name and Guest tag in this way. Please could a Moderator confirm this and delete the post forthwith.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:11 PM

No I don't think this thread is bizarre;
and I'm reasonably sure a uk based mod would not think so either.

Just curious, are there any UK based mods any more ?

Not saying UK threads should ownly be moderated by UK based mods,
But on some issues and news stories, it might not go amiss.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

This would have solved the whole thing if those making complaints had followed suit.

End. Of. Story.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:55 PM

Right, I'm bored with this now. There's no reasoning with Lizzie - she's determined to keep on ploughing the same old, obsessive furrow and nothing anyone else writes makes a blind bit of difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:51 PM

Nick, that link gives me a blank Google search phrase.

MLC -if you want to understand the difficulties of prosecuting someone with indecent images on their computer when the images do not state an age of the person portrayed GO AND READ THE LINK I GAVE.

I do not believe that the Countess ever paid you such a compliment. I only remember her pointed disgust and contempt at your vacuous posturing.   

Ebbie. The Defence DID make certainly most of the points MLC makes. A quick Google will show you. Evidently the jury weighed the defence case thus made, and found it wanting.

MLC -

(1) why contact a person who did something unlawful to you? Have you ever heard of blackmail? Doh!
(2) It can be very hard to place important dates from your childhood. I was trying only yesterday to remember when my father and I first went out to try to do 100 on the M1 (failed by 1 mph according to our speedo) - and my first guess was out by 4 years. The Portsmouth issue is however quite odd - but it was very specifically brought to the court's attention by the defence that diligent searches had been made to no avail.
(3) You need to think about what is called "similar fact evidence" and how a multiplicity of weak strands when added together make a rope that is synergetically (look it up) stronger.

I can hardly believe I am paying you the compliment of putting rational points to you. You will waffle on as always. Jack has it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:39 PM

As this thread is about The UK, the link to George Davis is understood by those discussing this UK topic.

A bit ironic all the same Nick...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:36 PM

Oh, and I've just noticed you deleted my other recent resonable contribution .
Now unless you have good motive, I might begin to suspect you are getting a little bit petty and cranky ???

It's almost amusing the title of this thread is "Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread"

---

You're continuing to harp about deleted off-topic material posted by the mudcat troll. The topic is bizarre enough already, don't you think? --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Nick
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:23 PM

Next they'll be telling us that George Davis isn't innocent.

My favourite comment today is "I have found out via the internet, searching and searching and searching...One thing Diane used to compliment me on was that I had a knack of finding amazing links, bless her."

And the bit about images. Luckily I came across this after a lot of searching - AND it has an image with it which makes it that much more authentic *smug smile*

It's threads like this that remind me how wonderfully batty the internet is.

---

It's impossible to make heads or tails of what that link is supposed to be pointed to. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Jack Campin
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:41 AM

I do not want to be a member of this forum any longer

Then stop posting to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:21 AM

Question: Where, in all this, was the Defence? Were these points that LC makes brought out in court? Shouldn't the ire be directed toward the Defence team?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:41 AM

Honest, Lizzie; if I have criticised the way you write it must have been years ago. Certainly in no instance I can recall.   If I have gone on to criticise something else in a post, well that's a different matter, innit? But I have no intention of commenting, favourably or adversely, on the manner if your writing. As you say, you are the way you are and that's fine by me -- and I honestly don't mean that to sound patronising: it's just the way I write!

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:23 AM

How do I know what, Claire?   And email whom?

I have found out via the internet, searching and searching and searching...One thing Diane used to compliment me on was that I had a knack of finding amazing links, bless her.

I can often find out far more from Google Images, for instance, than I can from Google itself.

I have been checking the papers every day and I've been traumatized at the vile things they have stated in their determined, no....paranoid....efforts to turn everyone against Rolf Harris.

ALL of what I have stated in this thread and in the other one, can be checked out by any of you. I have put MANY links in, but few even bother to open them it seems.


Unlike the majority in here, I cannot believe ANY woman who states that a man abused her in a place to which he has NEVER been linked, ever, this man being a MAJOR star at that time, whom, she also claimed, was giving a concert.

I CANNOT believe a woman who sold her story for $60,000.

I WILL NOT believe a very clever prosecution lawyer who then turned even this on it's head, stating immediately that her client would be vilified for doing so, but had been coerced into doing this by her controlling boyfriend, thus making her out to be the innocent party..Take a look at the link to the magazine photo of her telling her story, where she's standing, hands on hip, grinning at the camera...

I do NOT believe Bindi's EX friend in the slightest.....for the reasons mentioned above, many times over...

And...I do NOT believe the woman in Cambridge either who was around 5 YEARS out on her dates, over an episode which is seared into her brain....

Please, read my posts, as I put all this info down in them, as well as links to this information.

By all means you all believe that Rolf Harris is a vile, putrid, dark-sided, evil, sexually abusing paedophile if you so wish.

I choose to stand right back and look far deeper and the story I see shocks me, from the fact it even came to court in the first place, to the final chapter of it, so cleverly played out by the police and the CPS and the prosecution who left you feeling that his computer was filled with images of child porn, as were the floorboards of his house....but hey, despite this, they're NOT going to prosecute because there's no point at all and it's in no-one's interest, not even the little children they claim he was looking at...

So much for them giving a toss about child porn then, eh????

But, it makes a GREAT final chapter in their Book Of Lies.......

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:12 AM

Anybody here ever heard of Svengali ........... you perhaps Lizzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:10 AM

Hiya! I'm not v good w/ working out dates, ages etc. but affair w/ 70+ y/o man??

When we really admire someone, we *want* them to be kind, loving, caring etc. We "just know" they are (what we really mean is we hope) they're all these things even if they're not. We feel like they care about us; we look forward to "seeing" them.

To Lizzie: how do you know all this re RH ?? Do you think E Mail would be better??

To Eliza: thanks re info on prison life. I find this kind of thing fascinating. Convents, too.

I nearly went bananas when I found out; but I'm glad he's got his just desserts now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:09 AM

It is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false. To admit that the false has any standing in court, that it ought to be handled gently because millions of morons cherish it and thousands of quacks make their livings propagating it ... is to abandon a just cause to its enemies, cravenly and without excuse.

H. L. Mencken "The American Mercury" (May 1926)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:57 AM

No, Richard, it didn't...and..I've never said a thing about Gary Glitter, nor do I intend to.

So, Howard, could you please explain to me how Bindi's ex-friend, note the word EX, there, managed to overcome her shock and horror to ask Rolf for £25,000 for an apparent 'donation' for a bird sanctuary?

You see, after the things she claims he did, nothing, but NOTHING would have got her back in touch with him again, in reality, would it?


And with regards to your comments about the images said to have been found on his computer, I totally disagree. ANYONE who is found with such images should be taken to court and prosecuted for that, for THEY are The Market which drives that entire industry.

It makes NO sense whatsover that they've decided not to prosecute, other than ending this whole sordid farce of a trial on EXACTLY the note they wanted it to end on, embellished further by the NON-Story of The Plumber & The Porn.

Geez, if you saw this whole thing in a Hollywood Movie, you'd walk out over such a story of utter disbelief!!

ROLF HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ABUSING A 7YEAR OLD WHO CLAIMS HE WAS IN A COMMUNITY HALL TO WHICH HE HAS ***NEVER*** BEEN LINKED TO ***EVER*** HAVING VISITED IN ANY WAY!

What if this had happened to YOUR son or someone in YOUR family, Howard, would you deem that to be ACCEPTABLE?????

Even if he were acquited tomorrow, or outlives his sentence, he will NEVER be safe again, due to the shocking and unbelievable press coverage which turned Rolf into An Evil Monster within HOURS of his being found guilty by 12 jurors....

The judge, as far as I was concerned was on the side of the prosecution, very much so, especially in his summing up prior to sentencing....almost willing the jury to find Rolf guilty.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:36 AM

Gosh MLC - it sounded remarkably like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:32 AM

Lizzie, if you're going to review the evidence you have to review it all. As well as asking how the jury could convict on some evidence you find wanting you must ask how they could not convict when faced with other evidence. There was a lot more evidence than you've commented on - the judge's summing up took three days. You're belief in his innocence seems to be founded on faith in his good character (despite never having met him), selective choice of evidence and an assumption that all his accusers are lying.

You don't seem to understand the shock and trauma that abuse victims report they feel, or have any sympathy for the reasons why they did not feel able to come forward sooner. At this very moment the inquest is taking place of Frances Andrade, who killed herself after giving evidence about abuse she received as a child - reliving the memories and being grilled about them in court were too much for her. As CS points out, one of the reasons they don't come forward is the attitude of people who blame the victim. You protest about this comment, but just read your own posts.

It is reported that the CPS decided it would not be in the public interest to prosecute him for the porn images on his computer. It is difficult to see how the cost of such a trial could be justified or the public interest served when he is already in jail and may well die there.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

Right, back in 'membership' name now.

Sorry, above post came out a bit muddled...but you will get the gist.



MtheGM, I do not have *specific* instances, as I don't copy other people's posts, but you have, in the past, gone on and on about the way I write, what I write about, how I write etc..and even when you've said kind things, you follow it up with criticism about something else. I've never commented on how you, or anyone else writes, ever. Nor will I ever do so.   I write in a way which is simply natural to me, that's all and would appreciate it if I were just left alone to be me. I do not think you're a bad person, quite the opposite, in fact...but I just write the way I do, as it's natural for me to do so. I don't care about the rules or expectations of others.....


CS, how DARE you say such a thing. I'm actually one of the few folks in here who is daring to stand up for someone whom I believe has been treated appallingly.

Please, CS, SHOW me the 'evidence' that Rolf was at the community centre in Portsmouth. He was said to have just finished singing songs, so there'd have been an audience. Yet there is nothing, not a newspaper story (and they've search for years either side of the date given too), not a local person who recalls this 'gig', nothing whatsoever to place Rolf Harris in that hall. He was a HUGE star back then and without any doubt whatsoever this story WOULD have been reported on.

Tonya Lee lied. She admitted to this in Court.

I, unlike so many others, am NOT going on what the journalists say, but on what the defence said, searching out these things and finding they spoke the truth.

The local Portsmouth paper, 'The News' who had their archives searched for info on Rolf's gig, nothing being found, have told me they refuse to look deeper for any evidence, despite me asking them to, despite me asking them why they'd believe such a story from anyone, when they KNOW that Rolf wasn't even THERE.

So, you're telling me that this is RIGHT, CS?

If this were happening to your son, would you not be jumping up and down in rage?

The Cambridge witness was 5 years out in her dates. FACT
She got the programme title totally wrong. FACT
There was no-one who saw her alleged attack happen. FACT

Tonya Lee made $60,000 from selling her story. (links above) FACT
She lied to the police about this. FACT
Her boyfriend stated she made it all up to pay off her debts. FACT
She WAS in debt at this time. FACT

Bindi's ex-friend said Rolf started to sexually abuse her on holiday, yet wrote in her diary that this holiday had been 'great'. FACT

She asked Rolf Harris for £25,000 donation for a bird sanctuary AFTER their affair had ended, despite stating she was terrified of him and had been trapped in this relationship due to her terror and horror. FACT!

LOOK AT THE LINKS I'VE PUT UP.....

ESPECIALLY look at THIS!




If you don't believe me, go and look on Google, this was all stated in the trial and Bindi's ex-friend admitted to it all, stating that she approached Rolf for money as he'd told her he would always help her if she needed help. FACT.


You would NOT go NEAR someone who had been sexually abusing you for 10 YEARS ever, EVER again, would you, had you managed to 'escape' their clutches?   

Oh..and this....

I got the story about plumber wrong. He apparently was doing work in Rolf's previous home whilst Rolf was living there. He then waited over 40 years before going to the police about his allegations of child porn being under the floorboards. The police found nothing.

Again though, if YOU had gone to the trouble of hiding bad stuff under your floorboards, would you let your plumber, or anyone else, ever pull those floorboards up?

And, if you'd kept such stuff, to look at from time to time, or to add to, over the years, you'd have to continually take your floorboard up to access them, either making some kind of 'handle' for easy opening, or digging away with a screwdriver each time, in which case, yet again, the police would have noticed something...

AND, if they had this story, on TOP of their 'child porn on his computer' story, then WHY did the Crown Prosecution Service NOT prosecute him, because in my book, child porn is not only illegal, but horrific, and for any legal department to turn its head away from prosecuting those who create a market for it, makes no sense and is shockingly out of order, isn't it?

Give me answers to my questions, evidence..and hey, I'll be as quiet as a mouse..but at present, to me, this all stinks to high heaven and far beyond...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 06:16 AM

Whenever people whinge about society going to the dogs and getting it all wrong, Lizzie Cornish serves to remind us that they get a hell of a lot right too. If her logic is offended, it generally means things are working.

Criminals behind bars who in earlier times would get away with awful abuse on account of their celebrity or establishment links shows that we can get it right sometimes too.

Child abuse has to stop. Full stop.
Abuse of vulnerable adults too.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ed T
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:35 AM

""The Hard Question: why do smart people believe weird things? My Easy Answer will seem somewhat paradoxical at first: Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.....Rarely do any of us sit down before a table of facts, weigh them pro and con, and choose the most logical and rational belief, regardless of what we previously believed. Instead, the facts of the world come to us through the colored filters of the theories, hypotheses, hunches, biases, and prejudices we have accumulated through our lifetime. We then sort through the body of data and select those most confirming what we already believe, and ignore or rationalize away those that are disconfirming."" Michael Shermer

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:12 AM

Lizzie people like YOU are the very reason that those who have been abused at work by their peers or bosses, or by parents or friends of parents, or anyone with a veneer of social respectability are afraid to come out and tell the truth of what happened to them.

Thank heaven's your victim blaming mentality is no longer the norm. Hundreds of thousands of women children and men, have lived in silence often for their entire lives, because of the fear of how loud, ignorant, condemnatory voices like yours could damage their lives further.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:12 AM

But have you "advanced liberty", Lizzie, by going on, and on, and on, and on and ... at us?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:31 AM

CS (as so often) nails it. All MLC has is fact-light posing ranting and verbal diarrhoea, and her usual total lack of self-discipline.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:53 AM

Give it up, Lizzie, you're endless rants are convincing no-one! I will concede, though, that you're more concerned about this case than anyone else in the known Universe - just like you're more concerned than anyone else about all of the other causes that you're concerned about.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:30 AM

Reminds me of the old chestnut about the Boy Scout Troop marching through the town on Remembrance Sunday, and the proud mum pointing out her little cherub to the people around her, and exclaiming, "Oh look, they're ALL out of step except my little Johnny!".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:19 AM

This thread could be summed up thus:

LizzieCornish - on having read bits of the evidence, repeated by journalists in the media - believes that all of Harris' accusers are lying through their teeth.

The Jury - on having heard all of the evidence, in a courtroom under oath, including that presented by experts - believe that Harris' accusers are telling the truth.

The rest of us suppose that the Jury are much more likely to have got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:23 AM

And still no answer, Lizzie, to my IMO perfectly reasonable question, now twice put, as to the basis for your accusation that I "tried to control the way you write".

I think I should be told.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:00 PM

Lizzie, you seem very sure that Rolf is a kind, loving, caring man - based on what? You admit you've never met him. Besides, it is quite possible he is all these things and still guilty.

The examples you and the blog you link to are just a few of the hundreds of pieces of evidence which was put before the jury over several days. Their decision will have been based on all of this evidence. We do not know what evidence they based their decision on, and what they thought was too weak. In particular the claim that the question of whether or not he was in Cambridge was decisive is pure fantasy - the blogger cannot know what view the jury took of this.

I agree that uncorroborated evidence must be viewed with caution, however without a lot of sexual offences would never be convicted. The overall accumulation was sufficient to persuade this jury. Any case involves weak evidence as well as strong, evidence which can be rebutted and which cannot. A jury has to evaluate all the evidence and decide.

Like you, I am shocked and find it hard to believe that Rolf Harris could have committed these offences. However, given his previous reputation and the weaknesses in some of the evidence, it seems to me that if a jury were going to make a mistake it would have been more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:56 PM

See, I am NOT the only one!

Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Blog



Howard, that letter proves NOTHING other than Rolf wrote to his friend, the father of this woman to apologize, as he was distraught after she'd told him she'd hated him for much of their affair.

It is NOT an admission of guilt that he had been grooming her, nor that he was done ANYTHING out of order. He states she was over 18 and that he had thought their relationship came from a place of love.

He would have been really cut up about hurting her. Rolf Harris is a GOOD man!!

When he found out that he had hurt his wife, purely be accident one day, after finding the remnants of her diary, which she thought she'd burned, again, purely be accident, as part of it hadn't burned at all...he read her words saying how lonely she was, so very, very lonely and at times, she'd wanted to die from boredom and loneliness...He then realized with shock, how bloody selfish he'd been, assuming she was happy being on her own whilst he went around the world following his career. She doesn't like travelling excessively. He also began to realize that he'd let Bindi down badly too.

If you noticed, his daughter and his wife were BOTH there, his daughter EVERY day, Alwen on the days she could manage to stagger into Court on her old, wobbly legs, bless her...

That horrible prosecution lawyer even tried to twist that into foulness though, saying that it was all for the cameras, all for show, nothing else...Alwen can hardly WALK! Rolf is her Carer....

He is a kind, caring, loving man..and yet, in a matter of days the British Press have turned him into someone even more foul than Savile and you have all gone along with it!

Geezus!

My opinion is that this girl knew EXACTLY what she was doing and that she may well be a narcissist, one who seeks attention and pity...Whilst she was with Rolf, as his mistress, I think it made her feel important, loved etc...but when he ended it, feck, all hell broke loose.....

Trust me on this one, you can NEVER cross a narcissist, for if you DARE to finish with them before THEY are finished with you, or dare to stand up to them, or criticize them in ANY way, then they will turn on you like an entire pack of wolves, all rolled into one Killer Wolf..

Rolf COULD have said some vicious things about her. He said nothing other than she had asked him for money.

She had. £25,0000 for a 'donation' to a bird sanctuary. She had a new boyfriend by that time, odd, for a woman who has been so horrendously sexually abused, but she'd managed to find another relationship....and, she'd also found the 'courage' to approach the very man who had kept her trapped in that relationship, due to his wicked ways and evil persona....because she wanted money....

Oh, purleeeeeeeeeze!!!

Meanwhile, Tonya Lee has already given another interview, this time laughing with joy that 84 year old Rolf is in prison..(see above for link to that)

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:08 PM

There is of course nothing wrong with "no frills sex" - so long as the other party is over age and consents and the grooming offences do not apply - which they didn't then.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Henry Piper of Ottery
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 05:06 PM

Regarding Lizzies comments about the Stash of Porn found under the Floor of Harris's Former Home.
In my then occupation as an Estate Agent, the firm I worked for at the Time In Beckenham, was given instructions to put the house in Sydenham on the Market, and I was sent to measure up the property and to prepare Particulars. when I visited the house Every Room was Stuffed Full of Paintings, by R,H and his Wife,also an Artist, Probably several hundred in total, when I again visited the House a week later, all the Paintings were Gone. We were told they had been moved to the Harris's new home.
If you could move several hundred paintings why not a clutch of porn? could that be the reason nothing was found.??

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:58 PM

Obviously it would have been preferable if the allegations had been made sooner, not least because the memories of both prosecution and defence witnesses are likely to be less reliable after a long period of time. However a long delay in making the allegations does not mean they are untrue.

Lizzie has identified some claims made in court which she believes do not stand up. If true, that does not in itself undermine other more convincing evidence. We do not, and cannot, know what weight the jury placed on that evidence. We do know that the jury decided there was sufficient evidence to convict, even taking into account the time which has elapsed.

Lizzie is entitled to her opinion, but like so many of her opinions it doesn't seem to be founded on the evidence, just on her feeling that something isn't as she would like it to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Nick
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:57 PM

There seems little comment on this thread about the jurors.

They are the ones who, in the light of the evidence and its presentation, either got it dead right or dead wrong.

The one thing that I remember from my time doing jury service was how very seriously everyone took it. They were very aware of how major it is to judge someone and to live with the consequences of that decision - especially if it entails removing someone's liberty.

I would guess that they, like many people who have offered views in the media and here, would have been enormously aware of the reputation and image of the defendant. I dare say that if they are a cross section of the population that a number of them will have previously had warm feelings towards him. I would think that is an even greater reason to weigh the evidence and be as sure as they could of the decision they came to.

They also have the benefit of being there in person and seeing the defendant - their body language, their gestures, their tone of voice. None of which come across unless you are there.

I'm guessing that Rolf Harris also had a decent legal team who presumably had some clue of what of they were doing.

Personally I have no real idea whether he did or didn't do it. I didn't follow the trial that much. I know from personal experience that going to the police in matters of indecent assault is not something that you'd do lightly. In the case of accusing someone in the public eye I would think it even harder as the scrutiny you are likely to come under is that much higher if the complaint fails. It is not something that you'd do lightly.

A unanimous decision on every count is quite a measure of certainty where the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. On a such a high profile trial I am tending to favour the jury as they were actually there.

To quote a newspaper article, I'm thinking that this would have a pretty strong effect on me as a juror. It's also probably not the brightest thing to commit to writing -

QUOTE
"There was one key that unlocked the complex child sex abuse case against Rolf Harris and led to his conviction and probable jailing.

It was a letter Harris wrote to the main victim's father in 1997.

"This is a confession of child abuse," prosecutor Sasha Wass QC told the jury in her closing address.

Seven of the 12 indecent assault charges related to the main victim.

She was a childhood friend of Harris's daughter Bindi. The two girls were like sisters.

The victim was abused from the age of 13 until she was almost 30.

In the letter, Harris talked of being in a "state of abject self-loathing" and being sickened by himself "when I see the misery I have caused".

The prosecution argued, successfully, that didn't make sense if, as Harris claimed, his daughter's friend instigated sexual contact after she was 18.

Harris had effectively "nailed his colours to the mast".

"You've given away rather too much in this letter," Wass told Harris when he moved from the dock to the witness box.

The crown went on to prove the star targeted, groomed and dehumanised his daughter's friend until she performed "like a prostitute" in her 20s.

The letter meant Harris couldn't deny sexual relations with the complainant.

And explaining how he had a 10-year "affair" with someone to whom he barely spoke proved difficult.

Wass was withering. There'd been no passion, no love, no friendship - just "no frills sex".

When pressed on the detail of his sexual encounters, Harris was reticent.

At one stage, he told the court his daughter's friend once performed oral sex on him in public. He couldn't remember specifics but noted it was "very enjoyable".

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:32 PM

"Paedophilia" is often said when the speaker intends to mean ephebophilia (or intends to blur the two in order to denigrate).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:29 PM

Hearsay is a statement that is not made in court (ie under oath) that is repeated in court.

So if I were to say in court "Fred told me Bill killed Brian", the assertion that Bill did that is hearsay, because Fred was not under oath when he said it.

The weight to be placed on hearsay these days is to be determined by the court. It is no longer inadmissible as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_English_law

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:24 PM

It is not necessary, under the Protection of Children Act to "prove" that the person depicted was in fact under 18.

"Where the age of the subject of a photograph is uncertain (i.e. where the identity of the subject is unknown), the subject's age shall be determined from the photograph.

Section 2.-(3) provides that a person is to be taken as having been a child at any material time if it appears from the evidence as a whole that he was then under the defined age of a child."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_Act_1978

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:45 PM

There have been speculations over the years about the hidden lives of Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll, author of the 'Alice' books) and JM Barrie ('Peter Pan' author) although no definite evidence has ever been found. I still enjoy these works and find them interesting and strange. I suppose one can continue to take pleasure in the Arts and divorce it in one's head from the possibly immoral creators of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:35 PM

Hiya !! It's sad. RH is also part of the backdrop to my life. Watching his animal shows w/ parents & wanting to adopt every cat/dog on there; being treated to a rendition of JtP by parents while walking stiffly in hellishly painful callipers – my extra legs -- ; turning plastic into a wobble board in design tech lessons (we all did it) his cartoon club; nearly weeing myself @ his songs. & of course we'd got Jake the Pig, who spent his life convinced he was a dog.

I had a support worker who lived in Australia for a while. She taught me trad songs & sent me lots of books. I loved koalas & always wanted a real one, so mum got me a toy koala. I called him Blinky Bill after one in 1 of said books, & was forever trying to feed him w/ leaves, in the hope he'd come alive. I've still got him.

As sad as it is, RH wasn't the entire backdrop to my life, so I'll live. It doesn't stop me enjoying said songs.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:12 PM

And I agree that the Esther Rantzen extract was most interesting in itself: but do not quite see its bearing. Of course we all know that enormous fear has been generated of being thought to be a pædophile if one addresses a strange child in any circumstances whatever. But what has this to do with the jury's finding as to what they believed one individual had done to certain children [and others] known to him, not casually met in a public place, over a period of years in the 1980s?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:00 PM

I don't think anybody is trying to "paint you dark", as you put it Lizzie. Most just seem to be saying that they find your arguments [which really are 'hearsay', being based entirely on what you may have read somewhere, not on any actual evidence that you have personally heard, as was the jury's verdict] to be not very convincing, vehemently as they may be expressed.

You have not answered the last question I put to you at 0617 a.m, as to "Where or when did I ever try to control the way you write, dear Lizzie?" It seems to have been rather a serious accusation for you to have aimed at me, so I think you owe it to me to produce some reference to, or quote from, anything I had previously posted to justify it. I am, after all, one of those as often as not on your side, unlike many others here who, I agree, do just seem to have it in for you much of the time. So -- something specific, please, to explain your attack on me?

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:44 PM

"The veteran broadcaster, (Esther Rantzen) who founded the counselling service ChildLine, warned that young people are now being harmed by the widespread suspicion that anyone who has contact with children could be a child abuser.

Her fears were confirmed by an experiment she helped conduct in a busy shopping centre, which found that 99 per cent of adults chose to walk on by rather than going to the assistance of two children who looked lost and distressed.

Even the handful who did stop admitted they were worried that people would assume they were trying to abduct the children.

This comes amid growing concern that in the wake of high-profile cases such as the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the Soham murders, all adults are now viewed as paedophiles unless they can prove themselves innocent.

There are now no men under 25 teaching in state-run nurseries, such is the fear of being branded a child molester, while from next year 11.3 million adults will have to have their backgrounds checked by the Independent Safeguarding Authority before they can work or volunteer with under-16s.

Even malicious allegations made against teachers or priests must now be kept on file until they retire, while council officers are questioning the motives of any lone adults who walk through a public park.

Rantzen asked of the results of the test, to be shown on TV tonight: "What does that say about our attitude to children now? Have we unwittingly put up barriers protecting ourselves, but harming them?

"It seems to me that many adults may now actually be putting children at risk, because we are so afraid someone will suspect us of having sinister motives if we help them.

"I blame myself for a lot of this. Thirty years ago most people didn't realise that abuse ever happened, so abusers just got away with it. But in 1986 we made a programme called Childwatch in which we pointed out that abuse is far more common than most people realise, but of course it's a secret crime, it happens mainly in children' homes, within the family.

"Now people are treating abuse as if it goes on behind every tree."

She added: "The tragedy is there are people who hurt children, and we must protect them against pain and abuse. But unless we hang on to our common sense the whole of child protection is going to suffer, so many of these rules and attitudes are designed to keep adults safe, to keep jobs safe, to keep organisations safe, to keep councils safe. Our priority should be to keep children safe."

In the experiment, to be shown on ITV1's Tonight programme, two child actors were left alone in a London shopping mall looking upset while hidden cameras were set up to observe how many people offered them assistance.

A total of 1,817 people walked past the children, a seven-year-old girl and a nine-year-old boy, but only five did something to help.

Almost 500 people walked past the boy before one of them informed the shopping centre manager about his plight, and more than 100 ignored the girl before one of them stopped to ask if she was OK.

In addition, the five adults who did stop to help all admitted they had been worried their would be seen as suspicious.

Mark Williams Thomas, a child protection expert and former policeman, said: "It does concern me that no member of the public is even asking this child are they OK. They actually had to walk around them."



Esther Rantzen Blames Herself

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:08 PM

Update on the 'plumber story'...It wasn't even IN Rolf's house. It was his FORMER house. Somehow though, between the plumber finding it and the police being alerted, and going to search for it, it had all disappeared.

So, maybe Rolf kept the key to his former home and popped back there every day from his Thameside Mansion when the folks were out, to rip up the floorboards and read one of his old magazines...

It's ridiculous!!   The whole thing is nuts!

And IF there was child porn there, then why did it disappear, and who made it disappear?

It wasn't Rolf, he no longer lived there...

I once found a pair of mini-knickers wedged behind the toilet cistern in my house on Dartmoor, when the plumbers were putting in a new bathroom. Actually THEY were the ones who found them. I was left trying to explain to their chortling faces as to what the lacey knickers were doing behind the cistern, of course...and the more I protested that they were NOT mine, the more they chortled...

The woman who'd lived there before we did was a very prim and proper Scottish lady whose husband was in the Navy. She had 4 adult sons, most of whom lived away. Maybe they were husband's ?   :0) Sure as heck they weren't mine though...I wear Big Girl's Knickers, don't do all the flibbetygibbet up yer bum uncomfy stuff...

No, no, NO! What I meant about Vanessa was that if she cares so much about other women, about children etc, then why the feck didn't she speak out 20 years back when she KNEW that apparently there was filmed EVIDENCE of him trying to put his hand in her knickers?

The reference to her Harley St. Husband was because she would have been able to take the financial hit, had she lost her job due to speaking up. She didn't have to rely just on HER wages to keep a roof over her family's head.

Don't be silly, folks...I used to BE a Harley Street Secretary so I have a VERY good idea how much Harley St. Surgeons EARN!

Gawd, ANYTHING to try and use against me, right, to paint me as dark as you can....This is EXACTLY what the press have done with Rolf Harris, to the extent of shocking disbelief....I've been dealing with this kind of crap from many of you for a LONG time, so I've learned to duck and dive and stand up for myself....

A FEMALE presenter, Musket SHOULD BLOODY well HAVE come forward, ESPECIALLY when she KNEW there was (allegedly) filmed evidence and she was well off financially, thus not having to rely on her salary alone to care for her children...

Sadly, it would have been her Star Chasing Ambition, I feel, that stopped her from speaking out....

Cares about women?

My arse!!!!

I'd have rather slept with my kids on the street than have kept quiet, under those circumstances....

I've not seen this film, I've not see any photos....

Maybe it was a 'Carry On' moment, maybe they were having a laugh..without viewing the film, I've NO idea.

I'm also amazed that the combined weight, and fame, of The Nolan Sisters wasn't thrown at Rolf....

Over and Over, all these women who've kept silent....

And by the way, I've been abused recently, in a different way, so I know ALL about how it feels, believe you me...I chose NOT to keep quiet though..and for that, I've been lied about and vilified by some...I have not told the whole story, but he knows that what he did was shockingly bad. Hopefully, he will never, EVER do such a foul thing to any other woman, ever again...and no, I'm not talking about either of my ex-husbands....

It is awful when a man makes you feel violated...(same for men if a woman treats them in such a way)....but you should speak out, not only to the man concerned, but publicly too.

I'm just telling you that there are many points in this which make NO sense...and as he's been sent down on the basis of indecently assaulting a 7 year old, when he was NOT even in the very place she said he was, I think that stinks, I really, truly do!

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 11:15 AM

Its's nice for someone in prison that someone is looking out for them, but part of his parole conditions will be to face up to his crimes and be seen to atone for them, so if you want to help criminals, allow them to face up to their crime.

I don't recall reading or hearing anything about any miscarriage of justice. I have read though, when scanning Cornish's diatribe, character assassination and awful stereotypical crap. A female presenter on the telly shouldn't have come forward on the basis of being married to a doctor so doesn't need to work?

I'm no bloody feminist but what an awful thing to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:56 AM

Lizzie, you are criticising people for relying on what they have read and heard in the media, but you are in exactly the same position. You were not in court, you did not hear in detail the evidence which was presented or the arguments made to rebut it. To say that no evidence was presented is nonsense - there were days of evidence. To describe the evidence as 'hearsay' is likewise nonsense and simply shows that you do not understand what the term means. If much of it was uncorroborated then that is the nature of sexual offences, and why it is often so hard to obtain a conviction.

Some of the evidence may show discrepancies, and some of it may not be believed, but even so that does not mean that other evidence is not sound. You were not in the jury room and cannot know what evidence the jury accepted and what they rejected. They were there, and they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was sufficient evidence to convict. They spent enough time on this to suggest they considered the evidence thoroughly. We should accept their decision.

Like many people, Rolf Harris has been a popular entertainer since I was a child and forms part of the background to my life. I wouldn't call myself a fan but I've enjoyed much of his work. This has come as a shock, and it is sad to think this elderly man must now spend his final years in jail and may even die there. However it is even sadder to think what his victims have gone through.

Miscarriages of justice do happen. If real evidence can be found to show a miscarriage of justice has been done then I will be among the first to welcome it. However at the moment there seems to be nothing to suggest that, and even if some of the evidence could be discredited it is difficult to believe that it was all a conspiracy. Your belief in him is, I fear, nothing more than wishful thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: jacqui.c
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:24 AM

Lizzie - I hope that you are never in the situation that some women experience. The absolute embarrassment of the 'he said she said', even now is enough to stop even prominent women from reporting these things, let alone a girl of 15, which Linda Nolan was when it happened to her. Many women choose to confront the abuser there and then and not take it further, particularly when the abuser has power and influence as is the case with the Yewtree abusers.

Then there is the situation. You are 'telling tales' on a much loved, very influential entertainer who is friends with those in high places. When, as was prevalent at the time, there was general atmosphere of 'she must have asked for it', would you really want to totally jeopardise your own position in the company? This applies to any woman who has been assaulted in this way, not just the well known. And so what if Feltz's husband could support her? That is a very chauvinistic attitude to take. Should she have been content to just be the wifey because she had lost her own career?

It is all very well, to sit in an ivory tower and say what should be done. In my own personal experience it would have led to a great deal of personal embarrassment and real problems for my then partner in the workplace to have done that and there was the very strong likelihood that it would all have been swept under the carpet to avoid any 'unpleasantness' and I could have been labeled as a troublemaker and sidelined in my own career.

Thankfully, now, these incidents are being brought into the light and that is good to see. Maybe there will be a change in the relevant culture and women and children will be less afraid to tell on adults for these abuses. I'm not going to hold my breath though. When even high politicians collude in covering up abuses what hope have the rest of us got?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:06 AM

I have no problem with anyone having a different opinion, Lizzie. I just want to know how you think that the two cases are so different. You are as fully convinced that Savile is guilty as you are that Harris is innocent. The only evidence against both is what the accusers have said. Do you have some knowledge or insight not available to th erest of us? To make a case proof is required and, as yet, you have not furnished any.

One should never make one's mind up over a matter before being absolutely certain of the facts

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Claire M
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:56 AM

Hiya! I do too. A flatmate worships the ground CR walks on so I really hope said rumours aren't true.

When I was younger I thought the sun shone from Michael Jackson's backside & got a lot of stick for it. I don't hold the same view now, but that's cos I played his stuff so much I ended up hating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: Ed T
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:56 AM

"Maybe the Dingo Ate Your Baby"?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Censorship in Rolf Harris thread
From: GUEST,Conan Boil
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:43 AM

"That said, it seems to me from what I've read in the press, that the two cases are remarkably similar; including lots of women from different places, all unknown to each other, corroborating each other's stories in their descriptions of Harris' behaviour."


hmmm....


If I were a novelist or screenplay writer, thrillers & mystery detective stories.
Then yes, one fanciful scenario could be an underground criminal dark web network;
secret international membership forums of wicked women collaboratively conspiring to concoct plausible accusations
to blackmail or destroy popular well loved celebrities......

... but that might be a bit too far fetched.. even for an ITV 1 mid week mini series....???