And the tiny, nasty army of obsessed trolls (usually sex abusers shouting loudly to disguise their perversions) howl with hatred. How very dare he?!!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4518038...-twitter_dailymailUK

And it is so easy to understand how people reading Twitter and Tumblr and Facebook and the rest think the vast majority believe wrongful convictions and media stories - whereas I suspect far and away the majority feel the opposite and have nothing but sympathy and kindness - even if they believe he was guilty of his convictions. I continue to believe that humanity is better than portrayed by those who like to shout.

I suspect that a lot of those doing the shouting, as if it made them a better class of person, are at best rather inadequate and at worst hiding something nasty underneath, possibly even criminal convictions. I wonder if the excessive shouting about sex crime, whether real or imaginary, has anything to do with prison culture entering the mainstream, rather like that fashion for baggy trousers a few years ago, or possibly the fad for tattoos, with people shouting loudly to try to reinforce their status in the pecking order. Perhaps those who make false claims are also seeking to compensate for inadequacy, whether moral or financial.

Would it be usual for previous convictions to be hidden from the jury? How is he supposed to have a fair trial when the details are splashed everywhere?

Yes the question of a "fair trial" needs re-examining too; when, obviously, people like Harris and Talbot are being tried because the prosecution know juries will be aware of previous convictions has become accepted by the judiciary. Someone here mentioned "fish in a barrel". One wonders how those in charge can sleep at night. Simply, they cannot believe in Karma. Fair enough; let them find out the hard way (as Max Clifford did).

Jury sworn in at Rolf Harris indecent assault trial in London

"The jury, comprising seven women and five men, were ordered by Judge Deborah Taylor to put out of their minds any prior media reporting they may have read or seen about the high-profile entertainer. Judge Taylor told the jury to begin the trial with a "blank page in your minds" to be filled only by the evidence heard in the courtroom."

Yes I HATE that; Judges have been doing it for years "put that out of your mind". And the prosecution uses it to their advantage. In my first trial the prosecution mentioned "seduction packs". They turned out to be the free leather packs Concorde gave away to passengers (I had dozens of them). So the Judge ordered the jury to "put them out of their minds". But the prosecution had planted the seed - that I had "seduction packs". Bollocks. But damaging - and I bet it swayed some members. Likewise the Judge ordered jurors "not to read newspapers". But he never mentioned online ("The Beatles? A pop group"). So I reckon some of my jurors went online, read the early reports in the Guardian of the false allegations on my arrest (ordered dropped by the Judge before the jury was selected), saw they were different from the false claims they had heard about, assumed I'd "done it before" and convicted me. I cannot prove this (not allowed to question jurors). But I bet it influenced them. The British Judicial System is broken. It does to allow for immorality or illegality by police, prosecutors, lawyers, jurors or judges. It does not update fast enough to take in the realities of society adapting. It is shattered, in a thousand pieces.