Cambridge girl, the 16 year old waitress who was so traumatised that she thought she was 13. If that crime was witnessed by others, friends and independent people, then Harris would have been arrested if they'd reported it. In this case there was no other witness. So the cops would have just told her that it was her word against his and almost certain to go nowhere. If she insisted on making a report they'd follow it up, but it would be a waste of police time and everyone knows it.

But because she's waited 40 years before reporting it he's now sent to jail over it and she's going to be raking in tens of thousands in compensation for it? It's nonsense, on Nonce Sense, as Phil Collins would say.

Groping is clearly sexual abuse, but it's not the sexual abuse that the NSPCC is built on. It is not something that deserves to be alongside murder and rape as crimes that will be pursued for a lifetime.

David Mellor was asked during a report over the weekend on TV about it and says he has seen the evidence. Rather than having explosive details he said it was exceptionally weak in terms of evidence.

But if we're going by the standards of Harris's trial, having exceptionally weak evidence won't matter. If someone claims to be a victim they'll be accepted as a victim and conviction rates are going to soar.

I've seen a list of supposed visitors to the Barnes guest house where all the famous people supposedly performed child abuse. If they are going to pursue them like they've pursued Harris then dozens of lives are going to be ruined.

Anyone who trusts people in power and famous people need to read some ****ing books and open their eyes while they go about their daily business.

As I said, you have a strange concept of what sexual abuse is and why people but especially females, should be able to go about their daily lives without concerning themselves that they may be subjected to unwanted and unwarranted touching.

A few weeks ago I was in a trans club and followed a very dear friend of mine across the upstairs bar area. A middle-aged guy walking towards us made a grab for her groin area, she managed a side-step that would be the envy of most half-backs and avoided him. As he passed me I grabbed him by the shoulder and asked what the fook he thought he was doing. Before he could answer, I asked if he would ever consider doing the same to a genetic girl in the street or a bar or club. He blushed, mumbled an half-assed apology and looked sheepish. I told him that if she'd been in the downstairs dark room or any "play" area, she might be seen as "fair game" but she was walking through a social area and as such, he should be expected to keep his hands to himself unless invited to do otherwise.

Do I think that she should have been subjected to that? Absolutely not. If I was with her I would have probably reacted in a similar manner to you. In fact if she was a close friend the guy would have probably been on the floor and I'd I've suffered a broken hand.

However, you are illustrating my point. He subjected her to an attempted groping. Your reaction to that was not to arrest him and call the police, your reaction to that was to basically threaten him a little and leave it at that.

Your assessment of an attempt at a form of sexual abuse was to issue a mild threat and a warning. If you believe that this is such a serious crime then the police should have been called. You know what would have happened. If he had a clean record and your friend wished to make a formal complaint he'd have probably received a caution. If he had previous for this then he'd have been charged. You and your friend chose to leave it because it wasn't worth all that hassle.

If you truly believe this is a serious form of sexual abuse then you should be talking with your friend and getting her to report this to the police. I don't think you do. I think the incident is just a sour memory and something you've both moved on from.

Bill Wyman's case is an odd one. He married Mandy Smith and his son married Mandy Smith's mother. How do you work that one out at the Christmas lunch table? Who gets to carve the turkey?

If you want another conundrum how about Jimmy Page having his roadie kidnap a 14 year old model from a club so he could lock her in a room and do whatever Jimmy Page used to do. He kept the girl for 18 months - mostly under guard or locked up. Allegedly she is okay with it all.

The strange thing is why Dickens didn't seem to follow up on the lack of action over his dossier. He obviously went to a lot of trouble to prepare it, he hands it over and then...nothing. Why didn't he kick up a stink? The easy answer is that he was heavily leant on, but that seems too simplistic. Wouldn't his family have gone public after his death?

Ah the old "double switched generation" ploy eh?

You probably wont be surprised at all to learn that my wifes family had such an example, we spent many a Christmas working out whether xxx was a nephew or an uncle or both.

Must remember not to hit the tablet screen so hard when double posting.

Is that anything like the old "double post" ploy?

Having just read the list of names allegedly involved at the Elm Guest House I can probably guess what happened to the dossiers. Some very powerful, famous and wealthy people.

People just love a conspiracy theory.

The 1980s, the time when even the most obviously gay entertainers were still in the closet was also the time when a powerful ring of blatant rent boy abusers were running the country.



Dickens was a politician on a crusade. The fact that he used parliamentary privilege to save himself from a court case for slander shows how much faith he had in his evidence.

Dickens might have had a list of suspected paedos. He might have had a list of some victims too. But there's unlikely to have been anything that was anything other than conjecture. The cops will have gone and questioned some of the victims, the victim might have agreed to press charges. But then when the police asked the victims to tell the stories again the allegations would have changed so much that the cops knew they weren't a fit witness.

Harris, Hall and Clifford were mainly convicted on the fact the jury chose to believe the crying 50 year old women who said they were abused as kids. The jury chose to not believe the 84 year old man who insisted he didn't do it.

But if/when the accuser is a former rent boy and drug addict and the alleged attacker is a married Sir or Lord who has household names step forward as a character witness the same desire to believe the alleged victim isn't going to be there.

The Bill Wyman case is an awkward one as they met/lived in Spain where the age on consent is lower (14 I think) even though they were both British. I am guessing under those circumstances that the local Spanish law applied thus Wyman wasn't prosecuted.

Quote ="dr_feelgood"The Bill Wyman case is an awkward one as they met/lived in Spain where the age on consent is lower (14 I think) even though they were both British. I am guessing under those circumstances that the local Spanish law applied thus Wyman wasn't prosecuted.'" www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pt-14.html Nothing about Spain in that. IMO the reason the police aren't willing to do anything is because they wouldn't be able to make a case. Mandy Smith was a young party girl who did pretty damn well out of knowing Wyman. I doubt that she would give evidence against Wyman and I'd guess that she'd be willing to lie openly to make sure he wasn't convicted. I think the only way that the police would take the case on is if Smith actually chose to make a complaint to the police. I think Wyman would be in trouble if she ever did go to the cops but even that would be a hard case to make. The police and CPS just don't want anything to do with this IMO. And rightly so.

Quote ="dr_feelgood"The Bill Wyman case is an awkward one as they met/lived in Spain where the age on consent is lower (14 I think) even though they were both British. I am guessing under those circumstances that the local Spanish law applied thus Wyman wasn't prosecuted.'" www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... pt-14.html Nothing about Spain in that. IMO the reason the police aren't willing to do anything is because they wouldn't be able to make a case. Mandy Smith was a young party girl who did pretty damn well out of knowing Wyman. I doubt that she would give evidence against Wyman and I'd guess that she'd be willing to lie openly to make sure he wasn't convicted. I think the only way that the police would take the case on is if Smith actually chose to make a complaint to the police. I think Wyman would be in trouble if she ever did go to the cops but even that would be a hard case to make. The police and CPS just don't want anything to do with this IMO. And rightly so.

I tend to agree with that. There is a short but interesting article about the fallout from the Harris case which links to a Daily mail article and paraphrases a Times one due to it being behind a paywall here:

[urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/jul/07/rolf-harris-dailymail[/url

I have to agree with the final comment made on the article and think it applies to the vast majority of famous charlatans.

that's bollox, his artwork and presenting are far better than 95% of what's out there, he was the banksy of his day..I prefer looking at Harris's artwork over banksy in any case..
Yes, he's been convicted, does that demean his talent..that's an opinion, not everyone's opinions are right..

As I mentioned a few pages back he IS a fine artist and far more of an artist than just Banksy style graffiti, and the hysterical fools who are rushing to galleries or eBay to sell his original works claiming that their minds are now completely messed with and all trust betrayed are just that - hysterical fools.

Here's my offer, if you have any original Rolf Harris painted artwork (not his doodles or cartoons) then I will happily collect them from you for the stipend of £50 per canvas and thus relieve you of the burden of guilt you are now carrying with you inside your foolish head.

And as we're on a historical witch hunt I also make the same offer for any original Picasso (dirty old man) or Gauguin (nudey native girl painter in his dotage), or indeed any famous artist who you want to have your suspicions about.

Ok, the comment was maybe a bit harsh on his artwork but I found his presenting a bit creepy when I was a kid. Very similar to that of Bob Ross of 'The Joy of Painting' fame. All those 'happy little trees' had you captivated but you couldn't help but think he was a perv, my Mum and I couldn't anyway!

In a similar vein, Caravaggio murdered someone and Michelangelo had a touch of the Burke and Hare's about him, I'll gladly take any of those.

Healthy relationship you and your mum had when you were growing up. Spot the nonce on TV, the ideal way to bring up kids.

Got an original George Stubbs if you're at all interested?
The dirty old bastad was into horseeality.

Never did me any harm, plus there were plenty of them as we're now finding out.

Did you have any [iuncles[/i sat watching the tv with you and your mam?

No, just the milkman.

Nowt wrong with milf's being into full fat.