Rolf Harris: The Steeple Times has been vindicated

1. He needs to be electrocuted.

2. Matthew
   As a matter of interest are you going to publish my comment about MP’s with a propensity for forcing themselves on Parliamentary aides. Sexual harassment-whether heterosexual or homosexual should never be tolerated and you should be robust in condemning such activity. This sort of behaviour in the workplace would never tolerated: tell me why MP’s should be allowed to get drunk and engage in sexual activity with staff?
   Come on, Matthew, you put yourself up as a moral guardian and adjudicator tell us what you think about MP’s and sexual abuse?

   • You have the same moral compass as Jimmy Savile. Shame on you Pete Wayde.

     • Gina
       I will forgive you. Judging from your previous comments I suspect you are a bit thick.
       Certainly, this last seems to prove it!

       • How dare you. Comparing an INNOCENT and EXONERATED MP to Rolf Harris is wrong and you should be ashamed of yourself. You are a silly man. Grow up.

         • Gina….you are as daft as brush!! He may not have been convicted of rape, but his sexual antics, whilst under the influence of alcohol are not what we expect of a MP(or perhaps they are!)
           Now, Gina dear…go and do something useful. How about getting the washing in-it looks like it’s going to rain…you old washer woman!

     • Why do you make such a peculiar comment, Gina Brown ? I’m curious………!

3. Gina. I don’t think anything Pete has said reflects on his moral compass in any bad way at all. He seems to me to be suggesting that there is not much difference between the likes of Savile, Harris et al and an MP getting drunk and abusing his aides or subordinates.

   Apparently, the MP in question was innocent of any ‘crime’ but, frankly, any suggestion of impropiety should be avoided by such people – otherwise at their peril.

4. Thank you Jackthelad and Michael. That was exactly the point I was making. In any ‘for profit’ business a senior manager fumbling his staff whilst drunk would be fired.

5. I made exactly the same points as Peter Wayde when Evans was found not guilty.He is still invited on the BBC, despite his treatment of young interns.I find that distasteful.

6. You are an idiot. Rolf is innocent on all counts. These women should be ashamed of themselves and punished for victimising a wonderful man. I have known Rolf for many years and I speak for many when I shout: “ROLF HARRIS IS INNOCENT”.

   • Bollocks………………

     • Just what I’d expect from someone who doesn’t like Rolf. You are an imbecile. Rolf will be cleared of these lies.

       • Who on earth could like this disgusting man

   • Perhaps Churchill the insurance dog will give him a helping paw with his move on Friday.

7. I wonder if Leon Brittan would do a ‘What’s on Your mantelpiece’. Perhaps this ugly fat slob might find a missing bundle of papers there

8. Though I would cheerfully volunteer to hang child molesters (having been sexually assaulted myself as a boy), I believe that Harris’ trial was not fair or reasonable – he was convicted of ‘abusing’ a female who continued to have a long, extra-marital affair with him for many years after he allegedly preyed upon her younger self – an affair which ended with great bitterness & (allegedly) an attempt to blackmail Harris via threats to sell stories of his infidelity to newspapers. The remaining accusations consist of uncorroborated 40+ years old ‘memories’ – all offered by women who were found to have glaring lapses of memory in important details. Despite extending research to cover a 6 or 7 year period around one alleged offence, it proved impossible to show that Harris was ever at that location (mass appeals to the public via all kinds or media failed to put him on the spot, even when the ‘date envelope’ was stretched so much). As with the other offences, he apparently committed a crime which nobody else witnessed. Another accuser claimed he groped her bottom when she was 13. Various circumstances demonstrated that she would actually have been 17 or 18 yrs old at the time in question. Once again, her ‘memory’ of the offence was the only ‘evidence’ that it ever happened. One accuser accepted $33,000 from the media for her story before she contacted the police. That individual claimed that Harris assaulted her on one the first days of a 6 week tour of England – a traumatic experience with led her to starve herself & lose 6 kilos in body weight by the time she returned home. However, it was proven that she met Harris only a few days before the tour ended – making her amended memory of losing so much weight in a couple of days completely implausible. As with the other accusations, nobody else saw Harris put his hands on her. Though the witnesses consistently stumbled & were shown to be wrong about so many facts, their unsupported recollections were seen as cast iron proof. Ironically, when the 86 yr old Harris incorrectly stated that he has not been to one of the places mentioned in the accusations (bear in mind that he is elderly & was asked to recall points from over 4 decades earlier), he was seen as a cunning liar rather than somebody who simply mis-remembered. I have no desire to defend any pervert who harms children – but do any of these points fill you with faith in the results of that trial?

   • There is no excuse for what the predatory paedophile Rolf Harris did. Age and loss of memory cannot be used in his defence. Harris was found guilty and he deserves to rot. I have full faith in the jury’s verdict.

     • What about the incredibly bad memories of his accusers? Would you want to be jailed & paraded as a paedophile on the basis of witnesses who stumbed over basic facts like their ages, the times & locations of the alleged offences & who could not produce a single person to verify their claims? Harris might be evil & guilty, but did he actually get convicted by a reasonable & fair trial? We all lose when ‘justice’ is based on hunches & unsustained narratives.

       • The jury took their time to consider the evidence and they found the unconnected victims to be the ones who told the truth. Arrogant Harris also had child porn – which shamefully he won’t be prosecuted for – on his computers. I have been introduced to individuals who had access to Harris’ home. One of them told me about a stash that they found and that what he saw was beyond disgusting. Rolf Harris deserves all that he got. I hope that he and his family – especially his money hungry daughter – see their assets removed and given as compensation to the victims.

9. Great to see people agree with me. Rolf is a dear friend and he’s been set up. He will be cleared.

10. Rolf Harris was a talented and good entertainer, however his mind was very disturbed, a thought process distorted with bizarre ideas and impulses that lead to inappropriate actions and behaviour. He abused his celebrity status due to a overwhelming feelings of entitlement. He was as sly as a fox, he knew the right people.

    • If he had known the right people, he wouldn’t have been in jail.

11. The structures that protected him for over 40 years have crumbled, the right people were unable to intervene, thanks to Jimmy Savile…….

Comments are closed.