It really irritates me when Boris - who we know has probably behaved far worse than Jimmy Savile ever did (an innocent man unless proven guilty in a court of law) - moans at Keir Starmer (ditto; God knows what skeletons lurk in his cupboard; all it needs is a couple of "credible and true" false accusers). And Media, God bless 'em, knowing a good story, repeat it, one side or the other. Like it really made me vomit when Rolf Harris admitted saying "you look lovely" to a 13 year old and denied any sexual activity or intent until she was 18 - yet Judge, Jury and Prosecutor used it as evidence. EVIDENCE??? It's not evidence of anything illegal, complimenting a child. For God's sake where are we going in simplistic humanity?

It's hard to understand why Rolf Harris's first defence team put him on the stand. The replacement team he used for his appeal, second and third trials apparently didn't. The prosecution barrister in his first trial seems to have played him like a fiddle. (Can imagine something similar happening with Prince Andrew if he's deposed.)

Prosecution QC Sasha Wass (SW) today put it to Rolf Harris (RH) compliments he made to a girl about her bikini was actually a comment on her body, and suggested he was admiring her sexually.

Here is the exchange in full:

SW: 'Do you accept that when a man tells a woman or a girl that they look lovely in a bikini, they are not actually admiring the clothing, but they are admiring the person's body?'

RH: 'Possibly.'

SW: 'What you were saying to (the alleged victim) is "You have got a great body".'

RH: 'I suppose so.'

SW: 'When she was 13?'

RH: 'Yes.'

SW: 'And you made it plain to (the alleged victim) on that holiday that you did admire her, admire her body?'

RH: 'On one occasion, possibly.'

SW: 'And you admired her sexually, that's what that is.'

RH: 'It did not compute to that in my mind ... in hindsight, I suppose it is.'

SW: 'It seems from where we are going from your answers to the questions that you admired (the alleged victim's) body sexually during that holiday.'

RH: 'It's possible, yes.'

SW: 'And, of course, once we work out that you did see (the alleged victim) in a sexual light during that holiday, everything that (she) says becomes realistic, doesn't it?'

RH: 'Not as far as I'm concerned, because it never happened.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2641565...-family-holiday.html

Jo wrote:
It's hard to understand why Rolf Harris's first defence team put him on the stand. The replacement team he used for his appeal, second and third trials apparently didn't. The prosecution barrister in his first trial seems to have played him like a fiddle. (Can imagine something similar happening with Prince Andrew if he's deposed.)

Prosecution QC Sasha Wass (SW) today put it to Rolf Harris (RH) compliments he made to a girl about her bikini was actually a comment on her body, and suggested he was admiring her sexually.

Here is the exchange in full:

SW: 'Do you accept that when a man tells a woman or a girl that they look lovely in a bikini, they are not actually admiring the clothing, but they are admiring the person's body?'

RH: 'Possibly.'

SW: 'What you were saying to (the alleged victim) is "You have got a great body".'

RH: 'I suppose so.'

SW: 'When she was 13?'

RH: 'Yes.'

SW: 'And you made it plain to (the alleged victim) on that holiday that you did admire her, admire her body?'

RH: 'On one occasion, possibly.'

SW: 'And you admired her sexually, that's what that is.'

RH: 'It did not compute to that in my mind ... in hindsight, I suppose it is.'

SW: 'It seems from where we are going from your answers to the questions that you admired (the alleged victim's) body sexually during that holiday.'

RH: 'It's possible, yes.'

SW: 'And, of course, once we work out that you did see (the alleged victim) in a sexual light during that holiday, everything that (she) says becomes realistic, doesn't it?'

RH: 'Not as far as I'm concerned, because it never happened.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2641565...-family-holiday.html

And yet, the Daily Mail ran an article the other day about an eight year old little girl out for the day with her father to watch rugby, and it creepily referred to her as "all grown up"

Another day another dollar for the gift that keeps giving.

Karma for Starmer..... He's moaning that "it wasn't me guv" but, well well Sir, we have been trained, nay bludgeoned into "believing"...... not our fault it's your fault for ignoring lack of evidence, ignoring English Law and being part of the biggest HSE injustice ever to rear it's head. You reap what you sow Sir.... "They're coming for you....."

The injustice I'm referring to is not just SJS but the 1000s of poor souls thrown into a nightmare or an early grave. I'm so sorry for you all.

Will Boris mention the grooming gsngs in Yorkshire? I think Starmer swept that under the carpet also. 🤔

Have Keir Starmer or Boris Johnson ever been the victim of False Allegations, I wonder. Has either been investigated and found innocent? Media only covers dead people in these situations but that doesn't mean the dead people were guilty. Look at previous Prime Minister Edward Heath.

JK2006 wrote:
Have Keir Starmer or Boris Johnson ever been the victim of False Allegations, I wonder. Has either been investigated and found innocent? Media only covers dead people in these situations but that doesn't mean the dead people were guilty. Look at previous Prime Minister Edward Heath.

When I read about Yewtree, I knew it would be another publicity job for the police and newspapers. Freddie Starr was hounded by the media especially ITV who were his employers in the 90s, discarded him like he was yesterday's newspaper.

Jim Davidson who I thought was an arrogant **** when I met him at a private party, even people I know who met him via their jobs said the same thing about him. However him being arrested was a farce, those met him in the past he would him wife/girlfriends with at events this was in the late 80/early 90s.

However the girls and young women in Yorkshire who were being groomed by gangs were ignored and still being ignored.

Saw this comment watching this video of Rolf on Jim'll Fix It brilliant clip

But this comment from "craigfromboro" makes a lot of sense and i do agree with

"anthony glas i think youve got it in one.i grew up with rolf harris and jimmy savile in my childhood they were on tv pretty much all the time,a household name so to speak,everybody loved them.i have not one bad word to say about jimmy savile or rolf harris,i used to do mobile discos until recently(due to shortage of work) and we regularly played jimll fix it theme tune and court of king caractacus in the school disco sets,before all this crap came out i was trying to get hold of old episodes of these programs ie rolfs cartoon time,jimll fix it amongst others. in the 70s and 80s people were more affectionate with kids even on tv,before the do-gooders interfered with everything and went child protection-mad, made out that smacking was bad (thats why we have wild feral kids attacking everyone) and now people are aware of the existence of peadophiles more cases are coming to the forefront,and some kid who may have had a compliment to how they dressed or maybe a tv presenter cuddled them or patted them on the back they now think that was 'abuse' thats how society has changed,the love and affection has gone and the community spirit has gone,we are now condemning these previously well loved tv presenters due to the way society has made us think.i recently saw the jimll fix it xmas special on here,he had his arm round a little girl and patted her on the head.that says to me love and affection,wanting that little girl to realise her dream on the show,yet to someone of the current generation who didnt live through the 70s and 80s and who has been brought up in the current climate of fear and terrorists and paedophiles they naturally think these men are paedophiles because some screwed up jilted person in their 40s makes out he abused them 40 years ago by putting his arm round them,sorry but everyones entitled to their opinion,and before i get judged i was brought up decent,honest,have no criminal record and do not condone sex crimes of any sort,but i dont believe these two tv presenters have actually done anything what would in the 70S and 80S have been seen as improper."

you are so right Jo and Rolf obviously thought he could reason with a clever barrister who will lure you down unseen roads full of potholes.

As a youngster I saw such a one lure a silly policeman down such a precinct after he had falsely arrested a pal on Portobello Road (a French busking clown) and the entire case (without going into it) rested on where the clown's red nose had ended up.

The silly confident copper had to admit he couldn't have possibly seen the Clown's red nose on the floor of a police van as the door was shut and not open as he alleged the clown had opened said door..Knightsbridge Magistrate immediately dismissed the case.

It's why one should avoid going on the stand at all costs as even telling the truth can be twisted.

JK2006 wrote:
It really irritates me when Boris - who we know has probably behaved far worse than Jimmy Savile ever did (an innocent man unless proven guilty in a court of law)

That is a tad confused.

hedda wrote:
a French busking clown

Now this has quite made my day! I absolutely ADORE French busking. It has so much more of - what is the word? - 'swing' to it, compared to British busking. And when clowns do it - très bien! I say! Magnifique!!

hedda wrote:


The silly confident copper had to admit he couldn't have possibly seen the Clown's red nose on the floor of a police van as the door was shut and not open as he alleged the clown had opened said door.

Watson - fetch me three pipes.

THREE pipes, Holmes?

Yes, old friend. I fear this will take a while...

New documentary on CH5 tonight on 9pm looking at the fall from Grace of Savile, Harris, Hall and Glitter

Gary Glitter would make a better prime minister than Boris!

Jeremy Clark's Son wrote:
Gary Glitter would make a better prime minister than Boris!

That is for the WEF to decide.

MCR wrote:
New documentary on CH5 tonight on 9pm looking at the fall from Grace of Savile, Harris, Hall and Glitter

There was nothing new in the documentary and no MWT either.

I have still no idea how Rolf Harris got famous he was so boring to watch and his voice got on my nerves. Savile looked like a relic in the 1980s and his teeth were disgusting.

I don't know about Hall because I hate sport and It's A Knockout was a cure for insomina.

Glitter always looked very old and his singing was shouting like a screeching mother.

I have read and re-read this article. I can't see why and how it's news worthy?

I can't believe Paul Gadd has it all, money, cars, nice house near the west country and fame. Then just lost it all!

Maybe if he had psychotherapy in the 70's things might be different. I walked past a pub where the pub band belted out I.O.U. earlier this evening. I will admit I use to play Gary Glitter loud before his conviction.

I did hope his PC/laptop he took in to be repaired wasn't his or he bought a secondhand one from a car boot with data that was not erased.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1166186...-weeks.html#comments

I definately think Rolf was innocent

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1127822...no-longer-speak.html

Rolf Harris hasn't spoken publicly since his release from jail in 2017 but released a statement in Mr Merritt's recently released book Rolf Harris: The Defence Team's Special Investigator Reveals the Truth Behind the Trials.

'I understand we live in the post truth era and know few will want to know what really happened during the three criminal trials I faced – it's easier to condemn me and liken me to people like Saville and Glitter,' Harris said.

'I was convicted of offences I did not commit in my first trial. That is not just my view but the view of the Court of Appeal who overturned one of my convictions. I had already served the prison sentence by the time of the appeal.

'I changed my legal team after the first trial, and I was told that if the truth was out there, William (Merritt) would find it and he did.

'The evidence he found proved my innocence to two subsequent juries.

'I'd be in prison serving a sentence for crimes I did not commit if it were not for William's investigation.

'It is difficult to put into words the injustice that I feel.'

And 31 years after he passed away we have that alleged newspaper the Daily Star splashing at the side of its front page in this morning's 26th January edition about the "Dark Side Of Benny" referencing comic Benny Hill and re-hashing all the decades old tales.

What purpose does it serve exactly? Put on the front page but then stuffed way back on pages 24 and 25 anyway. Nothing new to read at all.

Quite interesting that since this thread went up a year ago it has had over 60,000 views!