Harris’ cesspit

1. Wonderful eloquent response X

2. Yes, an excellent response

3. How very dare you. You are fascist filth and you libel a hero of the nation who is innocent and has been set up by woodworm women who want his wealth. Rolf Harris is innocent and when he is freed he will sue you. I promise you that you f**kers.

4. Great response. I am puzzled – did he really use the word laky instead of the word lackey? If he did, did he mean to? It is worth looking up the meaning of laky on urban dictionary ww.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Lakies

5. God damn it….. Wrote a huge piece to this and stupid phone went on different page!

   Anyway, long and short of it was that no one actually knows if he did or didn’t do any of the charges against him. In a British court we don’t work on “she says he says” we work on evidence and in his case there was none, we had 20-40 year old memories and no irrefutable evidence or witness statements.

   Maybe after the Saville thing came out (even then we can’t prove or know what did or didn’t happen) so one has to wonder why we ignored legal protocol and convicted someone on no evidence?

   • What rot. He was convicted fairly and squarely by a jury. Rolf Harris a rightly jailed, convicted paedophile and child abuser. I hope he dies in jail for his vile crimes. You should think about the victims of his abhorrent crimes and his wife and daughter should be ashamed of their very pathetic behaviour also.

     • You sound VERY sure of Rolf’s guilt. Maybe you have evidence which I am not familiar with – if so would you be prepared to share this evidence, as so far I have seen none (apart from “pattern of behaviour” evidence which is flawed due to his celebrity/media profile)

6. I am slightly puzzled by your response and I quote “You have the right not to read our content so please exercise that” which has been greatly admired by at least 2 of your readers.

   You appear to want those that disagree with your views not to read them or to put it another way you prefer your views to only be shared by your admirers. Is this really truw?

   • We have published your stupid comment though it is utterly stupid. We are quite prepared to allow alternative opinion but we will continue to expose the nutjobs that support paedophiles like Rolf Harris and Max Clifford for what they truly are.

7. Ooooops “true”

8. I will see you in court Harris. That will probably be the Old Bailey or similar, where I have no doubt you will get another fair trial. I might suggest that if you attract a guilty verdict you would not be coming out of jail except feet first. May I join in the list of people to be sued? Harris is as nasty as Savile and other famous paedophiles, and rightly sharing cell space with the latter bunch. So there you are.

9. That petition is utterly bizarre. It hasn’t gathered anywhere near enough supporters to warrant a response from the government (which usually only answers petitions on its official site if they have at least 10,000 signatories). Maybe that explains why Anne/Pat Pyke appears to have deleted a post she made a few months ago, claiming that she was ready to submit it.
   Furthermore, that petition never had a hope of achieving anything – especially given that Harris himself missed his opportunity to appeal at the end of 2014. Not to mention the fact that he now faces several new charges. The petition is therefore completely pointless, in extremely poor taste, and the Change website would do well to delete it.
   For my part, I have no doubt as to Harris’s guilt. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I never quite bought the ‘nice guy’ persona he put on. I saw a very nasty side to him, years ago, after he flew into a completely disproportionate rage at Samantha Fox simply because she got his name wrong.
   That’s before we even get onto issues such as how the women at his trial did not know each other, yet had very similar tales to tell with regard to his modus operandi. Plus porn of young-looking girls was found on his computer – and was only not prosecuted because their ages could not be verified.
   What really clinched it for me, though, was that letter he wrote. In amongst his excuses, he did admit that the victim had always feared him and he accepted responsibility for “the misery he had caused” – his words. If he really believed his relationship with the victim had been a consensual one, there would have been no need to write a letter begging for forgiveness at all.
   And even if the victim had been 18 (which I don’t believe), why would a teenager want to get involved with someone as ugly and physically repellent as he is? He’s no Brad Pitt, to put it mildly.
   So, yes, I’m going to echo Matthew’s words and hope Harris rots in jail.

   • “And even if the victim had been 18 (which I don’t believe), why would a teenager want to get involved with someone as ugly and physically repellent as he is? He’s no Brad Pitt, to put it mildly.” …. mmmmm because he was a multi-millionare – wake up Ella !!

     • She didn’t get money from him! Instead she developed a host of personal problems from the abuse he inflicted on her (and which he took responsibility for in his letter). YOU wake up, Sally!

10. Thanks Matthew, an interesting knee jerk reaction but I don’t thing you actually read my comment

11. oh dear – think

12. Let the monster die in prison!

Comments are closed.