Rolf Harris

[Suff]

+1 WM to both.

Kate, I feel what you say about this maniacal focus on past "offenses" from prominent people today, whilst ignoring very real and serious abuse going on right now, is a case of checkbox policing.

After all, it's way easier to attack some older wealthy man for something which may not have been illegal, under todays laws, than to actually try and find real people being abused right now and deal with the real fallout of the case.

It's like Saville all over again. Abuse going on and being reported to the police but no action taken. Until he was dead. Whilst focusing on other "crime" which was easier and less political to deal with.

I have no time for the politicising of the police and the way they now aim for "easy targets" instead of dealing with real and difficult crime today.

[debih]

But society is different now and things aren't brushed under the carpet.

The children who were abused then (and I am talking about children, not 18 year olds) would not speak out as they were not allowed to - it was a be seen and not heard society then. And if they had spoken out that doesn't mean that anyone would listen to them.

Rolf Harris may be admired and respected by some people but not those that he may have abused. This isn't a flash in the pan thing with him, the police spent four months investigating it and the only reason it came to light was because a newspaper decided to print it. You can hardly blame the accuser of not being named when it was the papers who chose to name Harris, not the police. The police have still not formally identified him as a suspect. And why should the accuser be named - as far as we know he/she could have been a very young child when (and if) it happened. And even when the investigation is over, if it is found that the accuser made it all up it isn't up to the police to give out their name, just as they didn't give out Rolf Harris's name. They should however charge them with wasting police time if they do find that it was made up.

Unless it is announced that whoever accused him did make it up we will never know the truth - the CPS will only prosecute if they think they have enough evidence. Not just because they think he is guilty - so just because it doesn't come to trial, doesn't mean that it didn't happen (as with all the others that have been accused recently).

I think that whilst the whole Saville thing may have given some people the opportunity for their 5 minutes of fame (??? once rubbed up against me when I was a naive 17 year old) it has also given people the courage to come forward and speak about something that happened in their past that they have never thought anyone would believe or they didn't feel strong enough to speak about. We only hear about the high profile people, but I wonder how many "normal" people have been arrested or charged for something that they did years ago that their victims have only now had the courage to speak out about.

The chances are that Rolf Harris is innocent but then again, we don't know that for sure. Just because we like him as a performer doesn't mean that we know anything about him. I think that whilst it is unfair to say that he has done it without more evidence coming to light it is just as unfair to say that whoever has accused him is a "chancer" or making it up.

And I think that any case of sexual abuse, trafficking, etc is important - whether or not it happened yesterday or 50 years ago.

[Suff]

Erm right.

So the police are investigating and the press choose to publish. Based on their "investigations".

And the point is we don't "know" it was a young child because we don't know who it was. Because the press have interfered in a Police investigation and decided to try Rolf Harris "by press". Now should the police investigations be complete, should they choose not to charge and should the press then feel they need to publish, then they should publish. But in that case they need to publish it ALL including the identity of the person making the complaint. Because you don't get to destroy someone's life from behind a screen of anonymity. That is basic common sense.

To me this is yet another case of the press needing to be controlled.

I understand what you are saying about people finding the courage to step forward, but this has to be done sensibly and within the law. Otherwise the shark feeding frenzy of press ratings will destroy a lot of innocent people.

When did we descend to a society that would rather destroy 10 innocent men than see one guilty man walk free??? Or Woman for that matter.

[debih]

The press do need to be controlled - it is disgusting that they are allowed to publish anything to do with a police investigation prior to it going to court. It doesn't allow anyone a fair trial.

I agree - the press should be allowed to publish the full story - making sure that the names of the innocent party (be that the person who accuses or the person that wrongly accuses) but not until after a trial has taken place.

I think it was the BBC website (dated 19 April) that said that the police have not officially named Rolf Harris. So why then are they allowed to print his name and a photo of him in the article. They shouldn't be allowed to "speculate", although I'm sure it has come from an unofficial source.

I'm never sure which came first - the public's ridiculous desire to know everything about celebrities and therefore the press feeding their need, or the press pushing it down the public's throat and therefore increasing the need. Whichever way it should be better controlled and stopped.

And in the era of social networking it makes it even worse.

[pederito1]

I find it very hard to believe that anyone as nice as Harris could have actually caused harm to anyone. He might have had a bit of fun with a flirtatious girl or two but then havn`t we all? Why, I wonder does a snatched kiss, cupped breast or pinched bottom, thought little or nothing of at the time become sexual abuse thirty or so years later?