More exaggeration: she has told an Australian woman's magazine (article proudly displayed on her Facebook page) that Rolf groped her not 24 times but "at least" 24 times. In it, she also claims, as also quoted in Daily Mail, that she "slapped his hand away like he was a naughty boy". Yet she told ABC in a TV interview that she didn't react, as it wasn't the done thing in the 1980s. Unable to keep track of her own story it seems.

False accusers cannot help themselves; the stories grow like Topsy until they can no longer get away with it.

Jo wrote:
More exaggeration: she has told an Australian woman's magazine (article proudly displayed on her Facebook page) that Rolf groped her not 24 times but "at least" 24 times. In it, she also claims, as also quoted in Daily Mail, that she "slapped his hand away like he was a naughty boy". Yet she told ABC in a TV interview that she didn't react, as it wasn't the done thing in the 1980s. Unable to keep track of her own story it seems.

nice find Jo.

An Australian entertainer has made groping allegations against Rolf Harris, though she only described him as "flirty" and "cheeky" in 2013.

2020: 'It was a time when we couldn't say anything': Rhonda Burchmore reveals why she couldn't raise claims she was sexually harassed by the late Mick Rooney and jailed actor Rolf Harris

"Rhonda went on to detail her experiences with entertainer Rolf Harris, saying: 'I had the old touch up the a*se [when I was performing in Hot Shoe Shuffle in 1992]. It's a funny thing. Now, you'd say, 'No!' - back then, there was no excuse for you to not accept it.'"

2013: 'Rolf was flirty but that was all'

"THEATRE star Rhonda Burchmore described Rolf Harris as "very flirtatious" when she worked with him and said her husband was jealous.

But Burchmore, now in her early 50s, brushed off the entertainer's antics as harmless.

Ms Burchmore met Harris on a number of occasions in her 20s while on the musical and variety TV circuit.

In 1992, when she was performing in the David Atkins musical Hot Shoe Shuffle at Her Majesty's Theatre in Melbourne, she recalls Harris being particularly "cheeky".

"I do remember he was cheeky and I wouldn't say anything more than cheeky when I was doing a show and quite flirtatious, but I didn't take it any way more than that," Burchmore said in Perth, where she was last week performing in the musical Legs 11, based on her autobiography.

"He was very bold because he was quite flirtatious in front of my husband and Dave Atkins. I had a few drinks with him, I remember, but my husband was more worried than I was at the time. I certainly didn't go home and lose sleep over it."

She said she was "saddened" and "horrified" to learn Harris was being investigated.

"I just think one has to give one the benefit (of the doubt)," she said. "I hate those kinds of witch-hunts that we do. One that immediately comes to mind is Lindy Chamberlain.""

Talking of Australia, did anyone see the SKY interview with the editor of spiked online?
The crap was the usual diatribe designed to make the royals look bad with the interviewer shaking his head and clearly operating from a bias position. The interviewer went so far as to say Harry was basically sacked. They said Charles pokes his nose in too much and then came the part I was waiting for. "What if the royal family turn into a politically motivated organisation when the Queen is replaced?"

I hope they do. What are you lot worried about, the guillotine?

They are getting so desperate.

Both avoiding the ultimate question though.

What a surprise...

He's in the news again, seemingly mainly in the Twittersphere, in connection with the deportation issue.

From The Independent:

As the deportation flight left for Jamaica this morning, black Britons' trust in the government left with it

"The government’s willingness to deport people of African Caribbean heritage has retraumatised many of us who share it. In the most painful way, we have been reminded that our government continues to view us as not fully British, and therefore dispensable.

Why do I say that? Well, because long-term UK residents from other parts of the world are not being deported en masse in the most-high profile and humiliating way. White men from Australia or New Zealand are not having their homes raided in the middle of the night by immigration officers, being thrown into detention and deported in chains and shackles while all the world looks on. They are certainly not being deported for the possession of cannabis or – in the case of Reshawn Davis – a 10-year-old crime he was later found not to have committed. I have never, for example, heard anyone suggest deporting Rolf Harris."

And from the terribly silly "Steeples Times":

Deport Rotten Rolf: As a deportation flight leaves for Jamaica, Twitter users have rightly angrily reacted asking why the paedophile Rolf Harris was not sent back to Australia after his release

How many support Murdoch?
Why was that wanker never kicked out?
The intelligence agencies have many of them cornered.Thats what happens when they fall into the illusion that accountability is for others.

In other words, Rolf's "trending" on Twitter...

twitter.com/hashtag/rolfharris?src=hashtag_click

Weird...

Chaucer, the Rolf Harris of English literature – AN Wilson

And then there is the possibly Rolf Harris side to Chaucer: Cecilia Chaumpaigne, daughter of a London baker, was the young person in a case in which Chaucer was accused of “raptus”. Whether this was mere abduction or actual rape, and whether Chaucer fathered a child with this girl remains unclear, but he paid her £10, the equivalent of his entire annual salary as a Customs Collector. You do not pay that sort of hush money unless you have something to hush up.

Someone selling one of his old books or videos in a charity shop, could hardly be regarded as "Been in the news". Even for a local newspaper, this is a pretty thin story.

It's a flimsy story but gives the newspaper the excuse to remind everyone of Rolf Harris's convictions, including of the charge of which he was cleared on appeal. That seems to be the whole point of the story.

The judge who presided over Rolf's appeal is retiring:

www.lep.co.uk/news/crime/case-dismissed-...d-retirement-2899671

His career has also involved sitting on the Parole Board and the Court of Appeal, where he presided over Rolf Harris’s conviction appeal.

That's an interesting article, Sheba. I wonder if there will be another appeal, but perhaps that's not possible.

Man walks dog, shock.

"Can we use the "P" word again?" "Yes, of course, stick it in the headline!" "Do we have to mention the overturned conviction?" "Oh, I suppose so, but stick it at the end where no-one will notice."

Disgraced paedophile Rolf Harris looks frail as he is pictured for the first time since turning 90 during lockdown walking his dog

If that's the worst photo of him they could get, I reckon he looks fine rather than frail for a 90 year old.

Jo wrote:
Man walks dog, shock.

"Can we use the "P" word again?" "Yes, of course, stick it in the headline!" "Do we have to mention the overturned conviction?" "Oh, I suppose so, but stick it at the end where no-one will notice."

Disgraced paedophile Rolf Harris looks frail as he is pictured for the first time since turning 90 during lockdown walking his dog


They have lied about it again.

They say... "Harris's assaults include one on an eight-year-old autograph hunter"

No they dont, because this assault never happened, and nobody in their right mind could ever have believed such a load of tripe in the first place.

What kind of pervert actually PREFERS an eight year old girl to have been assaulted, instead of the truth, that she was safe and well?

In the Mail:

Harris's assaults include one on an eight-year-old autograph hunter and two against girls in their early teens, as well as a catalogue of abuse against his daughter's friend of over 16 years.

Two paragraphs down:

Of the 12 convictions, one was overturned on appeal in November 2017 ....

But they don't say it was the autograph hunter one, no doubt because it would make use of the 'P' word somewhat redundant.

JK2006 wrote:
If that's the worst photo of him they could get, I reckon he looks fine rather than frail for a 90 year old.

I agree there JK; journalists are full of filth. If he's paid his debt to society and following his probation etc he's not doing any harm. I never liked him he's one of the reasons I didn't return to UK much.

But my opinions are irrelevant like the Daily Mail article is.

While I respect your opinion, I have issues with the 'paid his debt to society' mindset.

The man was stitched up! The seven/eight-year-old had never met him and had either confabulated or lied through her teeth. It was this conviction that was overturned in November 2017. Unfortunately, the count relating to her was the first to be heard (a smart move on the part of the CPS, I suspect, as it was the most shocking in view of her age). This pack of lies potentially impacted on how the jurors related to the other charges.

The counts relating to the other three women had more holes than a string vest.

Also, Rolf's barrister at the first trial was taken ill at a critical time in the proceedings, this being after the prosecution had summed up but before the defence had done so and leaving him effectively unrepresented until a junior took over. As a result the jury had had plenty of time to reflect on the prosecution's case with there being no balancing view from the defence.

Even now there is a huge level of misunderstanding about this case on the part of Joe Public, I suspect because the press have got away with labelling him a paedophile for so long as - according to them - he 'abused girls [plural] as young as seven'.

Rolf Harris didn't abuse any young girls and can't by any stretch of the imagination fit the definition of a paedophile.

Sheba wrote:
While I respect your opinion, I have issues with the 'paid his debt to society' mindset.

The man was stitched up! The seven/eight-year-old had never met him and had either confabulated or lied through her teeth. It was this conviction that was overturned in November 2017. Unfortunately, the count relating to her was the first to be heard (a smart move on the part of the CPS, I suspect, as it was the most shocking in view of her age). This pack of lies potentially impacted on how the jurors related to the other charges.

The counts relating to the other three women had more holes than a string vest.

Also, Rolf's barrister at the first trial was taken ill at a critical time in the proceedings, this being after the prosecution had summed up but before the defence had done so and leaving him effectively unrepresented until a junior took over. As a result the jury had had plenty of time to reflect on the prosecution's case with there being no balancing view from the defence.

Even now there is a huge level of misunderstanding about this case on the part of Joe Public, I suspect because the press have got away with labelling him a paedophile for so long as - according to them - he 'abused girls [plural] as young as seven'.

Rolf Harris didn't abuse any young girls and can't by any stretch of the imagination fit the definition of a paedophile.

Indeed, but even if we assumed that the rest of the convictions were deserved, it is still no excuse for the newspapers to bully him.