It is very difficult to accept that one of our idols might have feet of clay and I think that this is the problem here. I was sad when I heard that Dave Lee Travis was under investigation and, seriously, Cliff has been an idol of mine since I was about ten, so, if he is also involved, that would make me very sad.

Unfortunately, as is the case with any public figure, we only know the persona that they project through the media and in public appearances - we cannot, unless we actually know them personally, have any idea of what the private person is like. The jovial comedian who turns out to be a wife beater, or the children's entertainer who preys on his audience, we cannot say without any doubt that they could not do that as we don't know them.

As to why no-one made any objection in the Vanessa Feltz incident - these guys have a lot of influence. Big name entertainers, friends with those in power in the workplace, trust me, it happens in a lot of places. People are aware of the predilections of these men, they are just too afraid of their own jobs to make waves. I remember this particular, rather strange idea, but it was Channel 4, which explains a lot. I know, from personal experience, that it is possible to be groped without it being obvious to other people and, depending where his wife was standing, it may not have been obvious to her, even if members of the crew were aware. However, who was going to accuse one the most most famous and best loved entertainers of the time of this? Maybe someone with the same degree of influence but, it would appear, he was too fly to hit on someone who might speak out, which seems to be the way with abusers. Prey on those who can't, for whatever reason, fight back.

It is possible that there will be chancers coming along, making claims that cannot be substantiated in order to make money out of this scandal, but that does not mean that everything that has been said by a myriad of women, who do not know each other, is not the truth. What have Vanessa Feltz and Linda Nolan to gain from giving their stories? They open themselves up to a certain amount of doubt and ridicule, as can be seen in this thread. Not something that most would want to do, but, as Nolan says, if it helps others who have been abused by this man to come forward then it would be worth it.

I can see no difference between this case and the Saville case. Both were very famous entertainers, very involved with children and both with a lot of influence. Both cases rely heavily on the reports of their victims, the only difference being that Saville is no longer here to address those reports.

I think that it is real shame that someone with Harris's abilities, who had a legacy of fun and laughter with a lot of his songs, finishes up with a ruined reputation and a lot of disillusioned fans. However, based on his fame, I am pretty sure that the prosecution made sure that they had a cast iron case before proceeding and, short of actually reading the full trial transcript, we will never know the whole of the evidence that the jury heard.

On the jury having taken some time to reach a verdict - given his previous reputation I think, if I had been on the jury, I would have wanted to go over the evidence very carefully before rendering a guilty verdict. One should never make one's mind up over a matter before being absolutely certain of the facts and, with the length of the trial and the amount of evidence provided, that would mean going through it all in the jury room, maybe even playing devil's advocate to arrive at a correct verdict. To my knowledge none of the jurors has come forward to say that they were browbeaten into giving a guilty verdict, have they?