Rolf has never been on This Morning

That might be why I didn't use a capital T&M

[url=http://www.rolfharris.com/news/185Beg to differ.[/url
[size=85[iOr search "Rolf Harris talks about his new tv show and paintings - This Morning 18th Oct 2012"
[/i[/size

Can yer tell wharrit is yet??

And I thought he might have been (ha-de-ha)

The Op Yewtree lot are arresting anyone and everyone.

An arrest, in itself, is no big deal.

All it means is that an offence is being investigated and that their is some evidence that may link the person arrested to that offence.

You know, there is a problem with this whole Operation Yew Tree enquiry and with the reporting of these types of accusations in general, and that is that its so very easy for reputations and careers gained over a lifetime to be ruined in a few minutes casual reportage.

As far as I am aware the likes of Rolf Harris and Dave Lee Travis have not yet been charged with anything, after six months of inquiry there is still not enough evidence to proceed with a prosecution and I for one am hardly surprised for with the rumour mill that inevitably accompanies these salacious press reports it becomes fairly obvious that these APPEAR to be isolated incidents of a sexual nature between two adults at a time when, how can we say this, different moral standards applied and "these kind of things" happened daily in the world that they moved around in, I hesitate to say that women threw themselves at media personalities, but sometimes that is what happened.

Proving that assault took place rather than consenting adult behavior must be almost impossible with the passage of 30 or 40 years.

I first heard that Rolf Harris may be implicated around the time of his first questioning in October/November when he suddenly vanished from the online artist community that he was so prevalent in and was said to be receiving medical help in a private clinic following a period of stress - thats when the stories started to circulate.

Since then he has been interviewed twice under caution but NOT named by the Met Police, as is correct, the fact that he HAS been named by one of the Murdoch newspapers proves firstly that whatever the hell Leveson was supposed to achieve it clearly has achieved nothing for newspapers are still obviously obtaining and publishing information from within what are supposed to be confidential files, and also continues the ridiculous state of affairs where the male element of a sexually related case is named freely in the press but the female accuser remains anonymous - I understand that in Rolf Harris's case there is one accuser, we know nothing of the truth of that, nor her, nor what her statement contains, the press are very keen to uphold a "victims" identity but very keen to name public names - still.

When all of this is concluded I trust that the Met will be investigating where the newspapers have obtained their names from and how they knew (for instance) where and when certain individuals would be attending random police stations for interview, clearly whatever was said during the very long and very expensive Leveson inquiry has been long forgotten, probably forgotten as soon as it was said.

You are being far too generous there. The press are only keen to avoid prosecution and claims for damages. If there was not a law in place preventing the naming of victims, do you sincerely believe the press would voluntarily refrain from doing so?

This has been common knowledge for a few months. Every media outlet knew who the accused was, but as similar to jimmy Saville , kept quiet about it.

More to the point, all of this came about from a politician bringing up the stories of a pedophile ring in parliament and the royal family. As a deterrent, the police decided to arrest a few well known and past it celebrities, which has kept the public happy.

As of yet, no politicians or members of the oral household have been questioned, which is the purpose of the police operation.

I'd bet good money that none of these cases get to court, just leaving a few ruined reputations. A simple way of finding a paedophile is to have a look at the celebrities or politicians who have knighthoods.there will be a few in there.

Royals probably have Crown immunity. So it would be interesting to see how they went about dealing with that.

My word, is that who the "high profile, 83 year old Australian entertainer living in Britain" is!?

He should never have recorded Two Little Boys"

Or Jake The Peg...

... or, indeed, anything.

Not because of recent events but simply because he's crap.

Dont we normally send the crims to oz.

Not for a couple of centuries, and you're falling into the trap of sentencing a person before even a charge has been laid, indeed there may be no charges at all, or if there are then they still have to be proven in court.

As long as it provides something to be indignant over anyway...

One of our finest and most versatile contemporary artists.

The ba$tard wants executing for covering 'Stairway to Heaven' alone

Freudian slip?

I thought that with him being of antipodean blood he would be more likely to be charged with sheep worrying!

Where will this stop? Just about every celeb or kids tv presenter from the 70s seem to be being nicked. I bet John Noakes and Valerie Singleton are cr4pping themselves along with Basil Brush and Andy Pandy! And as for the Clangers, well they were always a bit strange.

No doubt and he's certainly very accessible, but my comment referred to his musical ability.

I think I read somewhere that he had no idea what he was covering.

It was for an Australian radio show IIRC, they had a lot of bands cover it in a variety of styles, an album was compiled of it.

If anyone has the CD of that album, are you open to offers?

Nobody's signed up to anything yet and certain elements of the media are still whinging away about 'free speech' and 'freedom of the press' as they try to cling to self-regulation, with Paul Dacre in charge.

Substantial elements of the press is not remotely interested in any form of regulation – just see what happened in the post-Leveson case of Lucy Meadows, not just before her death, when she was 'outed' with absolutely no public interest justification, but since too, when certain elements quite deliberately misgendered her in their reports.

Only today the [iMail[/i is reporting on criticisms of Gwyneth Paltrow helping market overtly sexualised bikinis for tots – a publication that, in its online form, profits from quite deliberately sexualising underage girls. The sheer brass neck of it is astonishing.

And huge swathes of the population have a responsibility to bear in all this. If they were really so offended by the behaviour of the tabloids in particular, they'd stop buying the rags in question.

Anyone who can get a tune out of a Stylophone must be regarded as a musical genius. Getting a tune out of one of those is akin to being able to run in diving boots.

Would I be far off the mark in suggesting that the condemnation of Paltrow included a fair number of the "outrageous" pictures from said website?