They really do hate it when an innocent person is found to be innocent. It ruins a good story.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4203446...ee-sex-offences.html

"Australian entertainer was put on trial for seven sex offences, some historical"

I would have thought all the allegations would have been historical if the most recent was from 2004.

I knew Stephen Vullo QC was doing a good job when the UK press basically stopped reporting the trial - always a good sign.

It just became one of them none stories JK

Check out this bilious report.

Rolf Harris' vindication does not clear his record

I said 17 years ago; the ONLY thing that matters to the media is the answer to the question "Is it a good story?". They are not interested in the truth (which is usually boring and not a good story). And the public (and jurors) feel the same way. It is easier and a better story to convict a celebrity. The bigger the star, the greater the fall, the better the story.

But slowly, surely, the media is starting to realise the other extreme (equally untrue) that ALL coppers are bastards and all lawyers are crooks is becoming interesting.

I would say defence council did their job, digging out the inconsistent evidence that the procecution brought to bare.

And worrying for the media hacks when they realise the Fickle Finger of the Fslse Accusers can just as easily point in their direction as Maxy Waxy found out.

Jo wrote:
Check out this bilious report.

Rolf Harris' vindication does not clear his record

The media reporter appears to be having real difficulty accepting that Rolf Harris could be innocent and spoil all his good stories!

But I really wish police, IPCC on Yewtree, CCRC, appeal court and judges, politicans, media really check own Sasha Wass, check out the whole video Cambridge thing, it appears a major set-up - THREE women have connected themselves to this one event with a story. What about this special attention and chauffereuring plus taxis - possibly? Sounds suspicious?

Three women commplainants, two anonymous and the third declared herself after the first trial. What's going on. Here she is if still there on the BBC

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-28156387

John Marsh wrote:
But I really wish police, IPCC on Yewtree, CCRC, appeal court and judges, politicans, media really check own Sasha Wass, check out the whole video Cambridge thing, it appears a major set-up - THREE women have connected themselves to this one event with a story. What about this special attention and chauffereuring plus taxis - possibly? Sounds suspicious?

Three women commplainants, two anonymous and the third declared herself after the first trial. What's going on. Here she is if still there on the BBC

www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-28156387
She says that Rolf Harris "wasn't difficult to look after". This seems to imply that she was looking after him. Other reports say she was 16. Would someone so young really have been employed in that capacity?

Jo wrote:
Check out this bilious report.

Rolf Harris' vindication does not clear his record

Does anyone accept anything these days rather than stomp about like some sulky spoilt child? Students failing to get the result they wanted? Sue the teachers. Remainers outnumbered by Brexiteers? Demand the result is overturned. Clinton voters lose out to Trump? Launch wave after wave of demonstrations rejecting the verdict. And of course, if juries give the 'wrong' answer, just condemn the acquitted anyway. What a depressingly infantile culture we now have.

Spot on Pru except it's not infantile; it's superficialization again. Complex thought impossible; when the simplistic slogan answers fail, shout, scream, stamp - the three S's.

Here's another woeful piece of 'journalism' - I guess they had this ready for a guilty verdict, and then thought, 'what the hell, we may as well use it anyway...':

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/p...cb52048fbe9de4bc2041

Pru wrote:
Jo wrote:
Check out this bilious report.

Rolf Harris' vindication does not clear his record

Does anyone accept anything these days rather than stomp about like some sulky spoilt child? Students failing to get the result they wanted? Sue the teachers. Remainers outnumbered by Brexiteers? Demand the result is overturned. Clinton voters lose out to Trump? Launch wave after wave of demonstrations rejecting the verdict. And of course, if juries give the 'wrong' answer, just condemn the acquitted anyway. What a depressingly infantile culture we now have.

Acquitted of 3 charges - Jury could not agree on 4 charges (which tends to indicate that some of the Jury thought he was guilty - as he has already been found in OTHER cases).

Love the way some media can't help themselves..they still have to say the "disgraced Rolf Harris".

In all references to the media they really should be called the "disgraced media" after the way they ignored the criminal hacking conspiracy and have pedaled "fake news" long before it was fashionable enabling things like the disastrous Iraq War to happen ( yes you BBC !)

Hi, Jo...yes, truly nasty isn't it. You'll be pleased to know I walloped this chap, verbally, over on Twitter, via PM. I absolutely wiped the floor with him. He truly felt he'd done a good and fair job and got quite upset. (!!!) We are NOT on each other's Christmas Card Lists, put it that way, and he'd been trying to get me to do an interview with him over the Rolf page I run...I'd refused, as I'd not touch any journalist, ever, and this is not about me, but about Rolf, his family and friends and the HELL they've all been put through.

Just shows you what they do though, doesn't it.

They're incensed that Rolf's been found innocent. They crucified him, and now, they refuse to help him....Utter bastards, in my view.

I'm not even bothering to ring them up and give 'em hell, as I've spoken to so many journalists these past years and they truly don't give a damn about the truth, as Jonathan says. Rolf was nothing but ££££s to them...and it let them unleash their inner psychopaths when the guilty verdicts were brought in. They've not been able to do this this time round.

Malcolm X was so, SO right when it came to the press..

It would be hard to find a more neutral/non-condemnatory account of Rolf's career and prosecution than this recent BBC article. No "disgraced" in sight.

Rolf Harris: Profile

"Veteran entertainer, musician and artist Rolf Harris has been cleared of three charges of indecent assault ...
...

He received a Bafta Fellowship, the British TV industry's highest honour, in 2012, and was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia the same year.

But the entertainer was questioned by police as part of Operation Yewtree in November 2012 before being arrested the following March.

Operation Yewtree was set up to investigate allegations in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, but Harris's arrest was part of the strand looking at complaints against people not connected to the late DJ.

Channel 5 then removed two programmes featuring Harris from its schedule and Ben Fogle replaced him as host of Animal Clinic.

Harris went on trial in May in London and denied 12 counts of indecent assault. He was found guilty of assaulting four girls, the youngest of whom was seven or eight and the oldest 19, between 1968 and 1986, and jailed for five years and nine months.

That case led to more women coming forward and in January he went on trial again charged with six indecent assaults and one sexual assault against seven women and girls aged between 12 and 42. He was cleared of three of the charges and the jury was discharged after failing to reach verdicts on the other four counts."

Another detail that irritates me; surely he was acquitted of FOUR charges, not three. OK one was three days before the other three but it still happened. That means 50% acquitted; 50% no decision; jury discharged which, since (hahaha) we are all innocent until proven guilty, he is innocent of the lot - 100%.

They're so scared that he's going to leave prison soon. What do they actually think staying for longer in prison is going to achieve? Greater mental healing for his so-called victims? A fuller correction of his appetite for hugging people? Or do they envision him running out of prison and hurriedly seeking out more victims? It's about public shaming and the paying out of money. Prison is merely the means whereby they try to legitimise the sordid reality of their ambitions.

hello wrote:
Love the way some media can't help themselves..they still have to say the "disgraced Rolf Harris".

The fact that he is already in prison after being convicted seems to have escaped you lol !