Amazing. Only here on KingOfHits, with thousands of visits an hour, can the truth be revealed. You may have read the story in today's Mail about poor Rolf trying to get back on TV. Well, here, exclusively, we can reveal the name of the "source" of the story. Nowhere else dares expose such information, closely and legally concealed elsewhere.

The name of the "source" is... BOLLOCKS!!!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4669682...ots-TV-comeback.html

I love the language they always use in these reports. A disgraced star never just 'plans' a return, he or she always 'plots' it, like Dr Evil or Blofeld. And then there's the ominous description of Rolf's mysterious 'team'. What is this team? Does he actually have a 'team' - on salary, presumably - waiting to carry out his instructions? 'Find me a paintbrush - Go, Go, GO!!!!'

Spot on - it's time the media got called out on these phrasings (Leveson determined my evidence was "not on the Inquiry's agenda"). The word "paedophile" is incorrectly used (children, by definition in the 1933 Act, never repealed, are "persons under 14"). The victims of media smearing always SMIRK, never smile. We SKULK, never walk. But Rolf and the others do have a "team" - a fast growing "team" - I call it The King's Army; we are fighting a war against the False Allegations Industry and although many battles have been lost, many others are being won (Cliff, Gambo, Davidson, Tarbuck, Coronation Street, Nigel Evans MP - the list is getting enormous).

Rick wrote:
And then there's the ominous description of Rolf's mysterious 'team'. What is this team? Does he actually have a 'team' - on salary, presumably - waiting to carry out his instructions? 'Find me a paintbrush - Go, Go, GO!!!!'


Another word that seems to be used in the media when talking about criminals, especially women, is "lover". They don't have partners, but lovers, e.g. "Myra Hindley and her lover Ian Brady".

JK2006 wrote:
Spot on - it's time the media got called out on these phrasings (Leveson determined my evidence was "not on the Inquiry's agenda"). The word "paedophile" is incorrectly used (children, by definition in the 1933 Act, never repealed, are "persons under 14"). The victims of media smearing always SMIRK, never smile. We SKULK, never walk. But Rolf and the others do have a "team" - a fast growing "team" - I call it The King's Army; we are fighting a war against the False Allegations Industry and although many battles have been lost, many others are being won (Cliff, Gambo, Davidson, Tarbuck, Coronation Street, Nigel Evans MP - the list is getting enormous).


For those blind enough to think that a crime against an eight year old that nobody saw, at an event there is no record of, leaves no reasonable doubt, then Rolf Harris is indeed a paedophile.

Jo wrote:
Rick wrote:
And then there's the ominous description of Rolf's mysterious 'team'. What is this team? Does he actually have a 'team' - on salary, presumably - waiting to carry out his instructions? 'Find me a paintbrush - Go, Go, GO!!!!'


Another word that seems to be used in the media when talking about criminals, especially women, is "lover". They don't have partners, but lovers, e.g. "Myra Hindley and her lover Ian Brady".

And romping. Nobody romps in real life.

Toddlers romp, Honey, and don't you forget it! Toddlers is probably another of "those words". I'd love to get hold of the Police Manual to Assist False Accusers sometime; it must be a hilarious annex to the standard Cop Speak book which includes VE-HICK-KAL.

I read this first thing unfortunately JK you got it wrong it's total manufactured fake BOLLOCKS obviously need to keep Rolf in the news for some reason.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Spot on - it's time the media got called out on these phrasings (Leveson determined my evidence was "not on the Inquiry's agenda"). The word "paedophile" is incorrectly used (children, by definition in the 1933 Act, never repealed, are "persons under 14"). The victims of media smearing always SMIRK, never smile. We SKULK, never walk. But Rolf and the others do have a "team" - a fast growing "team" - I call it The King's Army; we are fighting a war against the False Allegations Industry and although many battles have been lost, many others are being won (Cliff, Gambo, Davidson, Tarbuck, Coronation Street, Nigel Evans MP - the list is getting enormous).


For those blind enough to think that a crime against an eight year old that nobody saw, at an event there is no record of, leaves no reasonable doubt, then Rolf Harris is indeed a paedophile.

you forgot to include that Rolf's alleged crimes were perpetuated in full view of an audience of parents and children.

The claim he assaulted a child at that event which never happened was claimed to have been while she waited in a queue of people to get Harris' autograph and at which her mother (at least) had to be present.

But that is of course where the current atmosphere kicks in : the very fact that he could do this in front of dozens if not 100s of witnesses (and the notion a big star would even act so stupidly) and was not seen is turned into the notion that he was a crafty and arrogant predator.

## I met Rolf about 20 years ago and he is, as his numerous friends say, a touchy feely type..something which I am not.
He shook my hand and held my elbow and listened intently to what I was saying. It's his nature and always has been. How many mis-took a tactile person as an abuser because of their own stand-offish personality (like mine)?

hedda wrote:
The claim he assaulted a child at that event which never happened was claimed to have been while she waited in a queue of people to get Harris' autograph and at which her mother (at least) had to be present.
I'm pretty sure she claimed that her mother wasn't there as she was ill. The Daily Mirror was doing a rolling commentary on the trial, but I can't seem to find those articles any more. Her brother claimed that he had taken her there "he has never forgiven his 10-year-old self for leaving the kids’ disco in Portsmouth that afternoon to see his mates when he was supposed to be keeping an eye on little sister Wendy". There is quite a bit about her brother in this article:
Rolf Harris pays his youngest abuse victim just 76p a day compensation - but won't apologise

"“I’ve kept it [photograph of his sister as a young girl] for years in the belief that it might one day prove useful."

Potential usefulness seems an odd reason to keep a sister's childhood photo. Makes me wonder if it sparked an idea.

hedda wrote:
## I met Rolf about 20 years ago and he is, as his numerous friends say, a touchy feely type..something which I am not. He shook my hand and held my elbow and listened intently to what I was saying. It's his nature and always has been.
Politicians seem to do a two-handed hand-shake a lot too, and in public. Shocking!

How many mis-took a tactile person as an abuser because of their own stand-offish personality (like mine)?
I find tactile people a bit irritating too, but I think most people who are being honest can tell the difference between that and abuse. I think this account is totally dishonest: 'There wasn't a part of my body he didn't fondle'
Innuendo and hyperbole. If she meant he had fondled every part of her body, she'd surely have been straight to the cops.

Regarding Rolf Harris, of the accusers who actually met him or even saw him at the other side of a room or park (and if Wendy didn't, how many others didn't?), I doubt any of them mistook touchy-feeliness for abuse. I think they were simply trying to claim an assault that was as serious and therefore lucrative as possible in circumstances where it might have plausibly occurred (until you think about it). They couldn't have claimed he threw them to the ground in public and had his way with them, as people would have noticed it not happening, but they could claim a grope that might theoretically have gone unnoticed (assuming not a single gropee ever jumped aside/squealed/pushed him/slapped him, etc. and everyone else always had their eyes closed around him, no-one ever took photos or film footage). The ones who took the venue out of a public arena, like Tonya Lee with her outside-pub-toilets claim, Karen Gardner with her taxi claim and the main accuser in the first trial with her claims of underage abuse by a friend's 'creepy' father whose alleged serious assaults when she was 13 and on holiday didn't disrupt the sunniness of her diary and whose house she kept going back to (I had a creepy drama teacher as a 12-year-old at school - blurred pupil-teacher boundary, contrived situations where he could see girls in a state of undress, gave booze-fueled parties at his home to senior pupils, was finally struck off for plying kids with drink - I couldn't wait to get out of his class, wouldn't have been seen dead in his house!), could make their claims correspondingly more serious/lucrative.

Over 15,000 views for this thread; many coming from what we used to call Fleet Street!

Jo wrote:
hedda wrote:
The claim he assaulted a child at that event which never happened was claimed to have been while she waited in a queue of people to get Harris' autograph and at which her mother (at least) had to be present.
I'm pretty sure she claimed that her mother wasn't there as she was ill. The Daily Mirror was doing a rolling commentary on the trial, but I can't seem to find those articles any more. Her brother claimed that he had taken her there "he has never forgiven his 10-year-old self for leaving the kids’ disco in Portsmouth that afternoon to see his mates when he was supposed to be keeping an eye on little sister Wendy". There is quite a bit about her brother in this article:
Rolf Harris pays his youngest abuse victim just 76p a day compensation - but won't apologise

"“I’ve kept it [photograph of his sister as a young girl] for years in the belief that it might one day prove useful."

Potential usefulness seems an odd reason to keep a sister's childhood photo. Makes me wonder if it sparked an idea.

If so, it would have been a better idea if he had claimed to have seen it.
Not that it mattered in the end.

hedda wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Spot on - it's time the media got called out on these phrasings (Leveson determined my evidence was "not on the Inquiry's agenda"). The word "paedophile" is incorrectly used (children, by definition in the 1933 Act, never repealed, are "persons under 14"). The victims of media smearing always SMIRK, never smile. We SKULK, never walk. But Rolf and the others do have a "team" - a fast growing "team" - I call it The King's Army; we are fighting a war against the False Allegations Industry and although many battles have been lost, many others are being won (Cliff, Gambo, Davidson, Tarbuck, Coronation Street, Nigel Evans MP - the list is getting enormous).


For those blind enough to think that a crime against an eight year old that nobody saw, at an event there is no record of, leaves no reasonable doubt, then Rolf Harris is indeed a paedophile.

you forgot to include that Rolf's alleged crimes were perpetuated in full view of an audience of parents and children.

The claim he assaulted a child at that event which never happened was claimed to have been while she waited in a queue of people to get Harris' autograph and at which her mother (at least) had to be present.

But that is of course where the current atmosphere kicks in : the very fact that he could do this in front of dozens if not 100s of witnesses (and the notion a big star would even act so stupidly) and was not seen is turned into the notion that he was a crafty and arrogant predator.

## I met Rolf about 20 years ago and he is, as his numerous friends say, a touchy feely type..something which I am not.
He shook my hand and held my elbow and listened intently to what I was saying. It's his nature and always has been. How many mis-took a tactile person as an abuser because of their own stand-offish personality (like mine)?

I wonder why people were so ready to accept that sex crimes happen IN PLAIN SIGHT?
No. They jolly well dont!