- promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience -


MENZ.org.nz Logo First visit to MENZ.org.nz? Here's our introduction page.
MENZ ISSUES

MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.

Sat 5th July 2014

Rolf Harris Assassination By Long Prison Sentence Seen As Obligation

Filed under: Law & Courts,Sex Abuse / CYF — Lukenz @ 12:57 pm

This site has strangely been silent over the fate of Mr Harris.

Even if Rolf has taken advantage of girls under the age of consent, is 5 years and 9 months a fair and right sentence for an 86 year old man and his 20 to 50 year old historical crime?

Rolf has already paid a much higher price than any less well-known man.

Some people denounce the boat ride to the courthouse with his closest family. I do not as it may well be the last thing his family ever does with him.

To me it would seem his family has shown incredible strength and solace in the face of such public attention and media coverage. It would also seem that if he were such a bad person all of the time his family would not stand with him.

Dying in prison must be an awful thing when you think how it might play out for his family. My thoughts go towards his worry for his family and his families unreserved care, love and support for him. Yes that’s right, his family has done nothing wrong. Where is the compassion for them?

Demanding an old man dies in prison makes me feel uneasy as to the motive behind the entitlement. The desire to see him die in such an awful manner speaks volumes for the people who want it.

I would think that retrospective justice and a meeting between victim and felon would work better for the sufferers. Something that might help the victims to move on.

The only other thing I could add to this post is, if Rolf Harris was an 86 year old woman, would the feminist movement demand death by long term prison sentence?

Who dares comment on such a controversial post?

95 Responses to “Rolf Harris Assassination By Long Prison Sentence Seen As Obligation”

  1. Downunder says:

    Watch now for the civil claims, which I am sure will go on beyond his death until his estate is empty.

  2. OMG you're &*(^^&%() says:

    OMG! I was sexually abused by this man. Where do I sign up for compensation???

  3. Skeptik says:

    What I don’t understand is where is the evidence of crime?
    There are several women who have testified against him, but apart from their word surely after all this time there can’t be any other kind of evidence such as DNA etc.

    Rolf Harris wouldn’t be the first man targeted for his vast wealth by some woman/women who see an easy prey – based only on a chivalric court believing their word against his, would he?

  4. Man X Norton says:

    Yes, thanks for raising this Lukenz. It is dangerous in a witch hunt to suggest any support for the suffering of the witch burning at the stake, and certainly for challenging the superstition that identified the witch.

    Although there has been much publicity about his trial it is difficult to get information about what exactly Rolf did. He was convicted only of indecent assault offences, i.e. inappropriate touching. Aside from his daughter’s friend whom he was convicted of touching inappropriately many times from the age of a young teenager (despite his claim that he had no sexual interaction with until she commenced a relationship with him when she was an older teenager), his other offending appeared to consist of somewhat trivial acts. Apparently, he ‘groped’ girls and women briefly when meeting them when appearing in public, giving autographs etc, e.g. with a teenage waitress he “groped her bottom, squeezing her left buttock a number of times”. This kind of thing is now treated as horrific violence that is blamed for totally ruining the victims’ lives, driving them to drink and drugs etc etc. That will certainly be useful in pending civil proceedings which Rolf conveniently has many millions of dollars for settlement.

    Almost certainly, Rolf Harris meant no harm to anyone and he may well have thought that affectionately squeezing the buttocks of attractive girls was complimentary to them. It’s possible that he was getting off like those offenders who brush their bodies against others on crowded buses pretending this to be accidental, but usually such offenders when male have erections that they want the woman to notice. It may be that Rolf was testing the water in response to which the occasional woman or even child would respond willingly or invite a subsequent liaison. But there didn’t seem to be any evidence of that. His motivation was difficult to understand.

    Certainly, it’s reasonable for society to make a law against unwanted touching and to punish it accordingly, but surely the punishment should be modest especially the first time someone is disciplined for it? It may be difficult for a male to understand women’s experience of inappropriate touching and it’s important that men listen and hear women’s reality in this regard. But it seems over the top to punish gentle touching more severely than, for example, serious assaults that deliberately cause enduring physical disability or brain damage. And that’s what an almost six-year sentence is. It’s hard to understand that the psychological effects of a few gentle squeezes of a left buttock, or a wandering hand that creeps up a leg until the leg’s owner stops it, could be compared with serious violence.

    Feminists have elevated the perceived seriousness of sexual offending such that sentences can be greater even than for homicide. Perhaps that could be justified in the case of violent, physically damaging rape but surely not for gentle unwanted touches? But it’s a great weapon in the war against men. Displease the queeen? Off with his head. Yet men continue to be expected to make the first moves in courtship and this has now become a major risk for them.

    The language used around sexual offences has changed to assist feminist ideology. The term ‘victim’ is used instead of complainant even when no offence has yet been proven, and this suggests that no complainant ever makes false allegations. The term ‘attack’ is used even for gentle unwanted touching. The term ‘survivor’ implies that the incident could have killed the victim. The term ‘predator’ creates an impression of sex offenders as dangerous animals (this may be valid for some but not for most). The term ‘sexual violence’ is used even when nothing that could reasonably be called ‘violent’ happened. All these terms have been introduced over recent decades as deliberate exaggeration and feminist propaganda.

    Another important issue here is that of alleging historical offences. We know that memory is very fallible, decays when events are not recalled and changes each time the events are recalled. False memories are easily installed. And these cases usually rely totally on claimed memories without corroborating evidence. Justice can never be robust in such cases.

    And one wonders, if an offence was so terrible, why people didn’t go to the police soon afterwards. It seems that gentle touching isn’t always such a big problem at the time but over the years victims think in ways about the incident that causes them problems. Is that the fault of the offender? And what about many others who experienced unwanted touching or worse yet got on with life normally and successfully; how is that explained? That doesn’t happen after a violent asault causing brain damage.

    If you are burgled by someone you can identify and don’t report it until 20 years later, your complaint won’t even be taken. If during those 20 years you came to hate your fellow man and you developed an anxiety disorder and alcoholism through expecting to find your house burgled every time you get home, bad luck. Numerous older adults were strapped and caned as children at school. That hurt and often left painful welts or cuts. How did those ‘victims’ think through the years that enabled them to get on with life successfully?

    Again, to avoid misrepresentation, I am not excusing gentle unwanted touching. There is good reason to make it illegal and to punish it commensurately. And as for violent rape I would be happy to press the electric chair switch myself. But what we see now is a superstitious witch-hunt against male sexual offenders of any kind. Those like Maggie Barry who believe Rolf Harris should die in prison are no better than the good people of Salem wanting to see witches burn, or the good people of Brunei who want to see unfaithful women stoned to death. They have abandoned reason, fairness and decency in their war against a straw man.

  5. Excellent post, and it says a lot about what kind of hysteria we are living through when even a men’s rights supporter has to justify himself discussing such an obvious and transparent feminist witchhunt against men.

    Unfortunately, things are going to get a lot worse, and the Yewtree showtrials are likely just a precurser of what might soon become a genuine sexual holocaust against men.

    But thanks for showing the courage to even discuss this, and praise too for the excellent comment from Max X Norton.

    As the witchhunts intensify, the MRM will have to show the courage to discuss the fundamental issues that lie behind them, in particular the feminist inflation of the concept of sexual abuse and its consequences on the ‘victim’, and yes, that includes child sexual abuse. It’s NOT just about the injustice of false accusations, or trying to put as many female ‘paedophiles’ behind bars as possible, it’s about stopping the injustice of more and more men going to prison with ever longer sentences for crimes which are relatively trivial, or which should not even be crimes in the first place.

    In the Uk, if you hack into the phone of a murdered schoolgirl and relatives of murdered children, in order to maximize profits for your tabloid sleeze rag, you get 18 months in prison. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/andy-coulson-jailed-for-18-months-for-phone-hacking-plot-9583746.html

    Repeatedly stamp on another man’s head in an unprovoked assault and you get 1 year :
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2677642/Caught-CCTV-The-horrifying-moment-scientist-savagely-beaten-two-drunken-thugs-kicked-stamped-head-tried-make-small-talk.html

    Unwanted touching by a man against women or girls will get you 5 1/2 years (and that may even be extended due to ‘fury’ at its leniency), even if the incidents took place decades ago and the ‘perpetrator’ is an old man in his 80′s.

    See also Steve Moxon – one of the only MRAs who deals with this subject : http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/rolf-harriss-conviction-is-great-fraud.html

  6. patriarchal landmine says:

    women are sociopaths who take pleasure in seeing innocent men destroyed.

  7. Family Court Judge says:

    I don’t think it does much good to question the validity of the convictions. Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire, and I for one accept he’s guilty and of probably far more cases than we’ve heard.
    However, to Maggie Barry and others that are now suddenly coming out saying in not quite so few words, “I told you so” or “I knew all along”, I say: O really? And you did nothing?
    You didn’t expose him and thereby perhaps prevent further victims? You didn’t report him when you knew he was abusing kids? Doesn’t that make you an accessory to the fact?

  8. Man X Norton says:

    Family Court Judge (#6): Welcome to the witch hunt, your support will please the inquisitor.

  9. Lukenz says:

    @4 Man X Norton

    A carefully worded yet passionate post about how far we have come. I think your best post yet.

    Your post raises important questions about the motive of Maggie Barry and her complaint re Rolf touching her leg during an interview. As I understand she said stop and he stopped. Hardly a worry or point of order decades later.

    Maggie Barry is a politician coming up to an election. Politicians currency is votes, if you don’t get enough you lose your job. I just can’t stop thinking she brought up this historical and soul threating leg touching episode for anything else other than to raise her community profile.

    The definition of rape has been rewritten from someone being attacked and raped while walking through the park to I had sex with that guy but as it turned out years later maybe I should not have. Or I shared myself around quite a bit in my younger days, did drugs but I carried it on too long and now life didn’t turn out the way I wanted it to. One of the guys I bonked has a good life, he doesn’t want me now, but I sure as hell could do with some of his fortune to help me recover where I should have been. Not to mention some formal public court-martial and sympathy to boot.

    I see articles on line just how wild some of the young woman are behaving today and wonder just how many men who gave them what they both wanted at the time are heading for a major trial and prison cell 20 to 50 years down the track. More so if the guy acquires a profile and money later in life. Yes, I think it fits the profile because the complaint does not come at the time but decades later.

    See here

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681197/After-truly-horrifying-story-debauchery-Magaluf-nightclub-SUE-REID-reports-The-island-spoken-British-girls-sell-bodies-holiday-cash.html

    It is quite delusional to think rape in todays’ definition is worse than murder. If you compare the two side by side, well one is alive and the other is dead. Quite a noticeable difference I would think. And to ever think that mutual relations with a woman of consenting age can result in a jail term longer than murder is beyond reason to any normal person.

  10. Sarah Haras says:

    Are you actually defending Rolf Harris? He ha all but admitted some of his accused behaviour –

    Rolf Harris has admitted to a court that a lengthy and secretive affair with a much younger friend of his daughter reveals a “darker side” to his entertainer’s exterior. He described the relationship with the woman 35 years his junior as little more than “sex with no frills”.

    Rolf Harris yesterday admitted he got turned on by a 13-year-old girl in a bikini and confessed his lovable showbiz persona has a dark side. The veteran entertainer made the remark about the swimwear being worn by his daughter Bindi’s best friend during a 1978 holiday in Hawaii, jurors heard.

    Not evidenced in court, but revealed afterwards, was the matter of kiddie porn on his computer.

    He wrote a letter of apology admitting the above. His letter is hardly one of apology. It is one of self-justification. The prosecutors saw through this. The judge saw through this. The jurors saw through this.

    There is a saying “qui s’accuse s’accuse”. He who excuses himself accuses himself. In plain English “me thinks he protesteth too much”.

    The only witch hunt in this whole sorry affair is the ongoing publicity given, and the continuing post-game analysis. He should not deserve any special treatment. He is simply just another criminal. Another statistic.

  11. john dutchie says:

    Hmmmmmmmm…..Okay then Sarah…..Firstly I will not defend Rolf Harris actions, as far as I am concerned…Rolf Harris got what he deserved…However,on the flip side ….More of the usual typical double standards of blatant hypocrisy by Feminism in Western European society…

    And to validate my stance.. .”……Feminist “Barbara Ellen” article in the “The Observer”

    “…..This shameful liaison does not deserve prison……”

    ” Looking at the case of Madeleine Martin, the 39-year-old RE teacher and mother of two, jailed for 32 months and placed on the sex offenders’ register for sleeping with a 15-year-old male pupil, do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t. And neither, I’d wager, would most 15-year-old boys.

    The issue shouldn’t be taken lightly. All teachers, male and female, are in a position of trust and should not abuse it, though reading of Martin and the boy having sex in car parks, of her buying him mobile phones and tattoos with her name on “so he wouldn’t forget her”, of her failing marriage and terminally ill sister, Martin seems more pathetic than predatory….”

    And this comment below from this gentleman is spot on ….

    thetrashheap
    29 November 2009 9:10am

    360
    “Do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don’t. And neither, I’d wager, would most 15-year-old boys.”
    “This is why, in my view, a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil amounts to statutory rape, whereas a female teacher sleeping with a 15-year-old male is a far greyer moral area.”
    Sorry but thats ridiculous double standards. On one side you have a male rapist and on the other a grey area????? FFS
    Men and women should be subjected to the same laws, face the same punishment for the same crime. That’s equality…..”

    http://goo.gl/RfWFNe

    And a response video on you tube concerning Feminist “Barbara Ellen” article from this Gentleman…

    “….It’s Only Child Abuse If A Man Does It…..”

    http://goo.gl/2ih0VE

    Awaits for your response which will properly be ….”Oh you are just another Misogynist who hates strong willed women..”

  12. john dutchie says:

    Oh and by the way Sarah…I suggest you read this article from the N.Z herald….

    “…Woman, 36, bears child of 11-year-old boy…..”

    “5:29 AM Saturday Jun 15, 2013
    Case prompts minister to ask why women can’t be charged with rape

    Current NZ law on rape makes it impossible for a woman to be accused of the crime. Photo / Thinkstock
    An 11-year-old boy fathered a child after sex with a school friend’s 36-year-old mother.

    Both the father and child are now understood to be in care after the principal at the boy’s school raised the alarm.

    The case has caused counsellors working in the area of child sexual abuse to highlight the lack of attention given to women as potential offenders……

    Male Survivors of Sexual Abuse manager Ken Clearwater said if the case were proved, the woman should be held accountable for her actions. Making charges able to be brought dependent on the gender of the offender was wrong and the law should be changed. “It is a huge issue for us.”

    He said male victims of sex abuse carried out by women were equally as damaged as any other victim of rape.

    “As a male you’re supposed to enjoy it but we don’t say that about young girls. Males are not seen as victims. The psychological damage is huge – and they carry extra shale because it’s a woman and you’re supposed to enjoy it.”

    http://goo.gl/LyQsYC

    Lets reverse this situation shall we Sarah….I bet you if was a 36 year old man that got a 11 year old Girl pregnant…There would have been a massive out cry in the media, from every Feminist’s/women’s organization in N.Z ….Of… “The Rape culture of men…”

    Am I correct Sarah….????

  13. thedude says:

    The witch-hunters will be emboldened by their taking of another scalp and looking for fresh victims as we speak.

    And Sarah sweetie, so now a man getting turned on by a 13 year old in a bikini (but who never so much as went near her, let alone touched her) is now an evil criminal offence in your world (despite many 13 year olds looking a lot older these days) that deserves prison? You are one disturbed little man-hater.

  14. john dutchie says:

    Well then Sarah….I am waiting a response from you,with the rest of your vile man hating feminists….Your silence is deafening….!!!

    Here another one for you Sarah….Another poor down trodden woman …She is a true victim of Patriarchy …

    “…..I loved him, woman says of 13-year-old boy……”

    “…… A 21-year-old swimming coach who had a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old swim champion says she once loved the boy and believes she has done nothing wrong.

    The woman has spoken out about her relationship with the boy, believing she has been unfairly vilified.

    “I fell in love with that person and he loved me back and he told me almost every day, for six months, how much he loved me,” she said.

    The boy’s mother is furious that sex crime laws dating back 42 years mean the woman cannot be prosecuted as a man would be if he slept with a child…….”

    http://goo.gl/f18zN1

  15. john dutchie says:

    Well Sarah….I am still waiting….What’s the problem Sarah.????..As the cat got your tongue Sarah..????

    And I have saved the best one laast, for you Sarah, with the rest of your Feminist cohorts at the Ministry of Women’s affairs based in Wellington….Please, enjoy this article Sarah…..Don’t you dare say,with the rest of your Feminist cohorts… that perverted sexual predators behaviour is only a male domain……Which the Feminist movement have being mouthing off vocally for the last thirty to fifty years

    “…..THE BIG LIST: FEMALE TEACHERS WITH STUDENTS …..”

    http://goo.gl/bl1Uao

  16. Sarah Haras says:

    Sorry I’m late John Dutchie. I was … watching the dutchies beat Costa Rica.
    I don’t feel the need to be drawn into a debate on the excuses or penalties or lack thereof when women sexually abuse children. Rolf Harris has been found guilty of sex crimes, and has been sentenced. He deserves his sentence. End of story. Lets not excuse his actions.
    Should we let all men off scot free *because* women get off scot free? Bullshit.
    Women should in my view be sentenced the same as men – the same as the son of the Maori ‘king’ should have been sentenced, not excused.
    TheDude: “And Sarah sweetie”. condescending sexist crap.
    John Dutchie: “your vile man hating feminists”. man-hating feminists are not ‘mine’. Please cut the personal abuse.

  17. john dutchie says:

    “…..I don’t feel the need to be drawn into a debate…..”….Of course not Sarah…Not when it concerns the blatant double standards that have been pointed out……..

    Did I personally excuse Rolf Harris actions…No….!!!..

    “…Please cut the personal abuse…..”….Pardon Sarah…????….Personal abuse did you say…Beg to differ on that one… and then you mention “condescending sexist crap”…Well then Sarah …And what do you call these world wide famous Feminists quotes below, made publicly by well renowned and respected Feminists in Western European society……

    “The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

    “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

    “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marilyn French

    “Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release… — Germaine Greer….”

    And you dare to talk about “sexist crap”….Can I kindly suggest to you to take a hard and long look at your gender Sarah….

    Oh and this lady below, summed it upperfectly…..

    “…..Kelly sums it up nicely….”

    “If you’re going to say feminism is not a man-hating movement, I’m going to have to insist that you provide links either to sites showing feminists condemning the statements listed above, or feminists telling women to respect men as men.”

    http://goo.gl/8p1y7j

  18. john dutchie says:

    My apology …. I forgot to respond to your comment of “….Should we let all men off scot free *because* women get off scot free? Bullshit…..”….Did I say Sarah that….Or even hinted at that…No…!!!!! again, I have have previously mentioned…the blatant double stands of Feminism in Western European society ….

  19. john dutchie says:

    Have a look at this article Sarah….

    “……Female paedophile is jailed after she had sex with eight-year-old boy 50 times……”

    “….Loren Morris, 21, was 16 when she began sleeping with the schoolboy and continued to until he was ten years old.

    Morris enjoyed regular sex with the boy, who cannot be identified, and was only discovered after he was overheard bragging about it at school.

    Judge Robert Juckes QC sentenced Morris to a two-year prison term at Worcester Crown Court following a trial last month…..”

    http://goo.gl/VtRsWR

    This Female paedophile only gets a “….TWO YEAR ..”..Prison term Sarah…!!!! What a pathic joke this sentence is..!!!

    ….This what I call a classic “Pussy pass”

    I guarantee you this Sarah…!!!!…If it was Man who would have committed exactly the same crime as this Female paedophile did, he would have received a minimum of a ten to twelve years imprisonment term, under the English justice system ….And so he should….. might I add…..

  20. Sarah Haras says:

    John Dutchie says

    “….Should we let all men off scot free *because* women get off scot free? Bullshit…..”….Did I say Sarah that….Or even hinted at that…No…!!!!!

    And then moves straight on to doing exactly that

    again, I have have previously mentioned…the blatant double stands of Feminism in Western European society

    No JOhn, you didn’t use the exact same words I stated. I didn’t quote you verbatim.
    But you are doing exactly what you say I falsely accused you of.
    And again, I stress you did not use the verbatim words “you falsely accuse me of…”.
    John then follows up with a lecture of examples of double standards.
    Go for it John. You win.
    You modus operandi speaks volume for your attitudes and behaviours.
    You have bullied me out of this debate.

  21. john dutchie says:

    L.O.L…”….You modus operandi speaks volume for your attitudes and behaviours……”….”…You have bullied me out of this debate……..”…..Translation…..How dare you, as a mere male challenge me, and dare to voice a opinion that I don’t like….!!!!

    And Yes and I won’t mince my words… I will challenge, and I will speak my mind on the blatant double standards of the hypocrisy of Feminism….

    However I do have a wicked sense of humour Sarah which you of course won’t like….Here you go then ,a video done with English satire humour…. on you tube….It will help you to improve your Feminist shaming tactics…..Enjoy……

    “…..Gender Studies: Shaming Language….”

    http://goo.gl/jLyOr0

  22. john dutchie says:

    And on a serious note Sarah…..your comment of “….Go for it John. You win…”….There are no winners here Sarah ….Its a lose …lose ….situation for both genders…..Have a wee think on what I have just said here Sarah….

  23. Lukenz says:

    Hi Sarah

    I do not see in my post where I am defending Rolf Harris convictions. Please if you could point out what sentence or word I have used in any way defended Rolf Harris and what he has done.

    Can I ask you to read on the lines not between the lines.

    Let get down to brass tacks;

    Would you Sarah like to see the man’s family watch him die in a prison cell?

    Do you think his family (who have done nothing wrong) should not have spent that last hour with him traveling to court on boat?

    Do you think at 86 years old using 2 walking sticks to get around, with his face in the media around the world is any further threat to any woman or girl?

    Do you think Rolf got more media attention than an unknown person and therefore paid a higher price?

    Do you have any compassion for Rolf Harris’s family?

    Do you think rape is worse or the same as murder?

    Do you think touching a woman leg of consenting age, being told to stop, stopping requires a public court marshal, custodial sentence and to be registered in the sex offenders list for life ?

    Do you think Maggie Barry suffered any harm what-so-ever who just openly allege in the media having her leg touched by Rolf Harris, told him to stop, and he stopped decades ago?

  24. john dutchie says:

    And the question I would like some one to ask Maggie Barry, is this ….Why didn’t she say something straight away after the interview with Rolf Harris …..Concerning the inappropriately touching of her leg….Maggie Barry doesn’t come across as a weak and feeble lady…

  25. Man X Norton says:

    Sarah Haras: You have used a straw man strategy by misrepresenting what people here have written then arguing against your own misrepresentation. Nobody has said that Rolf should not be punished as a criminal for his criminal offending, but some here have questioned the severity of the punishment in comparison with how other arguably much more serious crimes are punished, then (after your first comment) how leniently women are punished for (much more serious) sexual crimes. And some here have criticized the inhumane vindictiveness of those who would celebrate Rolf’s death in prison for what appears to be relatively minor sexual offences.

    Rolf has not admitted the offending at all, but you claim that he “all but admitted” it because he acknowledged a couple of perfectly legal but politically incorrect things about himself. Your reasoning here would impress witch-hunt inquisitors. You extend it further by claiming that the more strongly he denied the accusations the more likely he was to be guilty of them. That’s exactly the reasoning used in witch trials. And what’s incredible is that you probably won’t even recognize what you are doing, as most people in today’s sex-offender lynch mobs don’t recognize they are thinking like witch-hunt supporters. The only thing missing now is the physical torture used to extract confessions in previous centuries.

  26. john dutchie says:

    Okay Sarah watch this video… this women who was caught on camera….Maybe she should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for five years and nine months for so called “minor sexual offences””…….Again I will repeat this….I am not condoning or excusing on what Rolf Harris behaviour…

    “….. Female Paedophile Sexually Assaults A Boy In Public…….”

    http://goo.gl/oI26gF

    And these gentlemen’s commenta below….relating to this disgusting incident are spot on……..

    1/ “Gareth Dunford1 day ago”

    “If this would have been a man doing this to a girl there would be outrage instead of laughter over something as sick as this. How is it any different when a female sexually abuses a minor!? I see this time and time again when yet another teacher has had sex with a student…..men comment on how “I wish I had teachers like that in school”….what they are doing is condoning abuse, hos would they feel if in the future they have a child who is abused by someone in a position trust?….”

    2/”confusedfellah4 weeks ago (edited”)

    “……Amazing how these women have no self- awareness. After decades of demonizing men for far less, they carry on like it’s no big deal when they do it.

    They have become the pigs on Orwell’s Animal Farm: Everybody is equal. But women are more equal.…..”

    Yes Sarah like or not ,there is a massive backlash in western european society towards the double standards of Feminism….Even some astute and intelligent western european women are starting to wake up and voice there concerns….You think I am joking….Please, be my guest go ahead and challenge me on my last statement….

  27. john dutchie says:

    And you know what use to make me fume Sarah.???..

    When I try to calmly explain to Feminists that there are Female Pedophiles in our society …And Did I get tarred,feathered and demonised by them Feminists …..hissing spitting from there mouths screaming at me “Women aren’t capable sexually abusing minors….Only Men are sexually capable, and only men are guilty of sexing abusing minors…”

    “….Female Pedophiles ~ The BIG List Documentary {Part 1} (Mirror)…”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H1EkSAmbHk

    And remember in my last post of my comment…. the backlash that is now happening…Case in point…A very angry young American man in this video …And sorry to say this…. he as every right to be angry of the Double standards….

    ” Female Pedophile Gets Jail Time For ONE YEAR For Having Sex With 8 Year Old 50 Times! WTF?!?….”

    http://goo.gl/6WmRBd

  28. Sarah Haras says:

    Lukenz. No, you didn’t use the explicit words “I am defending Rolf Harris”. But then, I didn’t quote3 you. Also, when someone replies to a forum, they are not necessarily solely and exclusive replying only to the initial poster on the forum.
    But you did state “

    Demanding an old man dies in prison makes me feel uneasy as to the motive behind the entitlement. The desire to see him die in such an awful manner speaks volumes for the people who want it.

    The only other thing I could add to this post is, if Rolf Harris was an 86 year old woman, would the feminist movement demand death by long term prison sentence?

    That to me, communicates something that is defending Rolf Harris – not his actions – but his treatment in the media. You go further and ask me a series of questions, which are, I guess, designed to put me on the spot and justify my position. Am I to give answers you approve? What if I don’t? Do I have to have a view on these? Am I not allowed to express my views here, as you have done?
    Personally, I think Rolf Harris got what he deserved. When you commit such acts, you do draw your family into it, and the consequence of your actions. That is what he has done.
    I don’t see the need to get side tracked into other arguments. I am actually allowed to have a view about Rolf Harris and his actions, without having to take a view on Maggie Barry and her allegations; or – in reply to John Dutchie – explain away the entire history of feminist intolerance, injustice, double standards and so on.

  29. john dutchie says:

    Firstly, my apologies to Lukenz…..I didn’t intend to hi jack your thread and change the subject……But I hope you don’t mind

    But I will respond to Sarah request to a degree “….explain away the entire history of feminism…”…Ever heard of Erin Pizzey Sarah…?????

    “….Feminism is a Terrorist Organization – Erin Pizzey on Feminism …..”

    http://goo.gl/meENyH

    Oh and there is plenty more to come Sarah…However I don’t want hi jack Lukenz thread so why don’t you start your own thread on this particular subject….I will gladly debate to your hearts content…..

  30. john dutchie says:

    Correct on your comment “I am actually allowed to have a view about Rolf Harris and his actions….”….And on the flipside other people are allowed to express an opinion with out the under current of….. “…You are defending his crime…”

  31. Lukenz says:

    @28 Sarah Haras.

    I just don’t think you understand.

    Me saying ……. “The only other thing I could add to this post is, if Rolf Harris was an 86 year old woman, would the feminist movement demand death by long term prison sentence?”

    I also said….. Demanding an old man dies in prison makes me feel uneasy as to the motive behind the entitlement. The desire to see him die in such an awful manner speaks volumes for the people who want it.

    The above two statements clearly do not defend Harris one little smidgen. You will note I called him a felon. I was merely asking the forum a question. The answer which is given by others in the forum is “No, feminists treat females who sexually attack under aged males as funny”. Whereas men who sexually assault under aged females receive demands from extremists activists and fanatics that he dies in prison.

    Ohhh Sarah….. How could you possibly even think that comparing what happens to a male felon to a female felon defends Harris in any way?

    The world has always had extremists activists and fanatics. They come in many forms, some politicians, some extreme company owners, extreme union bosses, Nazi WW2 era, religious extremists who demand the chopping off hands for stealing. Christians who use to go on witch hunts. Some past kings and queens and yes and today extreme feminists.

    My compassion for the victims was displayed as I quote below.

    “I would think that retrospective justice and a meeting between victim and felon would work better for the sufferers. Something that might help the victims to move on”. Seems to work with other crimes.

    Again, this in no way defends Harris. Sarah, would you not agree helping the sufferers is a good idea?

    PS.John Dutchie. This is an open forum. Open to the world. Which includes and welcomes both yours are Sarah Haras. Hijack all you like.

  32. Stephen Gee says:

    Wrong – Sarah @ #10 – You wrote – “Rolf Harris yesterday admitted he got turned on by a 13-year-old girl in a bikini” and you provided a link to try and back up your claim.
    You’re either a bad reader or willfully lying.
    Not sure which as feminist trolls looking to demonize individual and/or collective men have been known to appear on this site from time to time.
    In any case I think you should read the article you’ve linked to again.
    It says(quote) – “Answering questions from Sasha Wass QC, Harris repeatedly told Southwark crown court that the first sexual contact took place when the woman was 18, rather than 13 as she has testified”.

  33. Sarah Haras says:

    Stephen, I am neither a bad reader nor a liar. I quoted the headline of the link I provided. The headline reads exactly what I quoted: “Rolf Harris trial: Star admits being turned on by girl aged 13 in a bikini”.
    And to LukeNZ: Helping the sufferers is completely valid. But that is not what the overall tenor of this thread has been about. And which sufferers? The victims? Can’t undo the past; maybe sentencing will help them. No doubt each of them will decry the sentence as too lenient anyway. Maggie Barry (I wasn’t aware any charges were ever laid in respect of her revelation)? Rolf’s family? I stand by my earlier comment. That they have suffered as a result of his actions? His problem.
    You say, LukeNZ, that

    “I would think that retrospective justice and a meeting between victim and felon would work better for the sufferers. Something that might help the victims to move on”.

    I have already referenced Rolf Harris’s (I believe, rather self serving) letter of apology and offer to talk etc. Perhaps this has been omitted in the ‘shoot the messenger’ method of debate engaged in this thread? Would it have helped? We will never know.
    In short summary, Rolf’s offending started or occurred many many years ago. Conservatively, lets just say 30 years ago. If the complainants are believed, his behaviour amounts to pedofilia. Not evidenced in court, but subsequently revealed, is his predilection for child pornography. That must be relatively recent, given (1) computers in homes connected to the internet weren’t around 30 years ago; and (2) most people update their computers relatively frequently, ergo, to find evidence on his hard-drive means it has almost certainly accrued in the last – maybe 2-3 or even 4-5 years. Evidence seems to be that some picures he accessed repeatedly, and he made efforts to cover his tracks. Both of those mean its highly unlikely he only found the material in passing or by accident.
    I am actually astounded (and it is probably full credit to the strength of Rolf’s marital relationship) that his wife and daughter have stood by Rolf. Perhaps they themselves are convinced of Rolf’s innocence?
    If he has tendencies along the lines of this summation, then how much more has gone undiscovered?
    Either way, he has been sentenced. I for one assume the law was fair in respect to Mr Harris, and the jury got it right. At that stage, judges usually only follow (a) the law; (b) precedent and (c.) working guidelines in determining the appropriate sentence.
    Which leads me on to John Dutchie, Any debate about the parity of sentences for similar crimes for men vis-a-vis women is an entirely valid debate. There shouldn’t be double standards. But how is all of that applicable to Rolf Harris? That women should receive longer sentences for similar crimes isn’t relevant to the sentencing of Rolf Harris, unless you’re suggesting he should have received a shorter sentence to compensate for other [reverse gender] sentencing injustices?

  34. Man X Norton says:

    Yeah guys, how dare you show compassion for a (gasp) sex offender who (gasp) squeezes left buttocks (OMG) A NUMBER OF TIMES and sometimes (hail Mary) gently TOUCHES people of various ages? (Wash my mouth out with soap)

    Yeah, let the bastard rot and die in prison and I hope he gets badly beaten or better still painfully killed by all those other great guys in jail who love to hate sex offenders so they can think their own offending wasn’t so bad. Rolf Harris deserves everything he gets; after all, he gently touched people, that violent monster.

    And while we’re at it, we should burn all his paintings, cds and videos and erase any evidence that he ever achieved anything good. That’s really sensible.

    We’re going to stop men perpetrating sexual violence like gentle touching. I bet all you guys touch your own penises sometimes, you dirty perverts, and I bet you sometimes think about a woman you saw. How dare you, without her permission? Don’t you know that every time you look at or think about a woman for your own cheap thrills you are exploiting and abusing her? That’s sexual violence too, you predators. We look forward to the day that a machine can record what you’re thinking so we can severely punish any thoughts that women don’t give you permission to have.

    As the inquisitors would say, if you don’t agree that sex offenders should be burned at the stake then you must be one yourself. No reasonable discussion about it is permitted unless you agree 100% with the sex offence witch hunts. So we’ll be knocking at your door soon.

  35. George Orwell says:

    That can be arranged, Max, that can be arranged.
    Maybe 20 years too late; but better late than never, eh?

  36. Man X Norton says:

    Sarah Haras (#33): You are a bad reader or more likely you didn’t actually read the article at all except for its misleading headline. That’s typical of the gullibility of a witch hunt mob. In the body of the article it was clear that Rolf was accused of telling his daughter’s friend when she was aged 13 that her bikini turned him on. He did not admit that at all ‘yesterday’ or at any time. And the headline was doubly misleading because he wasn’t even accused of saying that the girl in a bikini turned him on.

    While the article doesn’t make it clear, from the prosecutor’s questions it appeared that he accepted he may have told the 13yo that she looked great in her bikini. The prosecutor then made this incredible assertion: “If you say to a woman or a girl you look great in your bikini, by saying that to a 13-year-old that is a sexual remark.” By this time Rolf, clearly worn down, is agreeing that such ridiculous nonsense from the prosecutor might be correct. The prosecutor then suggested he may have admired the girl’s body and Rolf said it was possible. Well agreeing that something was possible is not the same as admitting it. And anyway, admiring someone’s body isn’t the same as being turned on.

    Does anyone see how easily the b.s. is spread in this witch hunt? A prosecutor claims that telling someone they look great in a bikini is the same as making a sexual remark, and this is actually taken seriously. An tired old defendant is so ground down that he finds himself agreeing that silly suggestions by a prosecutor might be possible; that’s good thumb-screw justice. Sarah Haras comes here parading an English smut rag’s misleading headline as if it’s true. Words are redefined to suit the witch hunter’s story. The article above talks about a 14yo girl being “allegedly attacked after a cuddle” by Rolf. Well, in this case the ‘attack’ was gentle touching, i.e.

    “Sexual ­molestation disguised as a friendly hug. That’s what the victims are describing.”

    The word ‘attack’ is one of the many adopted over recent decades by sex offence witch hunters to exaggerate the seriousness of the offence.

  37. Steve says:

    I have no issues with Mr Harris being found guilty, BUT only if he is ACTUALLY guilty. This trial has been like a witch-hunt, in which the words of a few women from 30 – to 40 years ago has been believed, without any supporting evidence whatsovever, and indeed in some of the counts, it couldn’t even be proved that he had actually been at the place that the accuser’s had said he was!!

    I’ll let this link do my talking for me – http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2014/07/rolf-harris-beyond-reasonable-doubt-2-attachments-2569834.html

  38. Skeptik says:

    Sarah Haras,
    I concur with Man X Norton (#36) in thinking you need to learn to read and remove the witch-hunt lens.
    I only hope nobody comes after one of your elderly male relatives 30 – 40 years after some alleged sexual offense. Replete with a badgering money hungry prosecutor who sinks to putting incriminating words in the old guys mouth.
    Then there’s the chivalric judge, and an insatiable gutter press looking for a juicy story.

    Your statement here is most telling and chilling when you say
    “He is simply just another criminal. Another statistic”.

    He’s actually much more than that as you should know.
    He’s a human being.

  39. ScareCrow says:

    There is nothing more dangerous to a society than an 86 year old man who may or may not have – at one point in his life – had sex with a hot 17 year old many many many years ago.

    It is far better to have murderers, muggers and whatnot roaming the streets than men like this roaming the streets.

    SARCASM!

  40. Man X Norton says:

    ScareCrow (#39): Yes, the sex offenders’ register is just another part of the witch hunt. I can probably protect my children from strange people chatting them up or hanging around the playground, and anyway I will talk to my children about the many risks that exist in their world and how to protect themselves. I would much rather see a register of the burglars and drunk drivers in my neighbourhood because they are the ones we can’t recognize. For that matter, I would like a register of dangerous people who have a history of making false complaints and/or fraud and/or theft from an employer and/or plundering men’s assets through the Relationship Property Act.

  41. Man X Norton says:

    Skeptic (#38): Well said!
    Steve (#37): Thanks for the link to that excellent critique of the convictions. It is the only list I have seen that gives any detail of what he was supposed to have done and the evidence for it, and it makes it clear that only a witch-hunt mentality could have found Rolf guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For those who think “well if so many women have come forward there must be something in it” your article provides a good example of the period not so many years ago when thousands of people who didn’t know each other and who lived far apart said, and seemed to believe, they had been abducted by aliens.

    Personally, I accept that he indulged in inappropriate touching of women and sexually mature teenagers. I doubt it extended deliberately to children. It may have been a wank-tool for him but I suspect the real motivation was that it worked for him sometimes in getting a positive response and/or further invitation from some women. That’s intermittent reinforcement and it establishes high-rate behaviour resilient to extinction, like gambling does.

    As I previously said, it’s fine to punish such behaviour but the punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the behaviour and in balance with other crime. The offending he was accused of did not appear to involve great violence or even intention to harm.

    However, convictions should not be made on the basis simply of allegations without corroborating evidence because that can never be beyond reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, real justice would have seen Rolf Harris acquitted of everything alleged because there was no good evidence and the accusers all said things shown to be incorrect or ulterior motives were proven. For the type of offending alleged, assuming he did do any of it, he already suffered more than enough punishment through the stress, cost, the ignominy of the trial and damage to his reputation.

    Victim Impact Statements are another thorny issue. Suddenly, the accuser is allowed to make all manner of claims without any need to support them in any way, yet those claims have a significant influence on the Court’s sentencing decisions. All the accuser’s life problems are blamed on the offender. The objectivity for which our judicial system was designed is lost as the accuser’s need to self-justify the action taken against the accused (and to relieve their psychological discomfort about causing huge damage to the accused) is given free reign. Psychology 101.

  42. Man X Norton says:

    I wonder if Sarah Haras will be honourable enough to return and say “Sorry, I read that article again and you are correct, I got it wrong”.

  43. George Orwell says:

    Max, sorry, I won’t. The Jury convicted him. They believed there was enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt to find him guilty of the charges laid. It seems that there was solid evidence of child pornography as well, but no charges laid in this respect. Having read Rolf Harris’s ‘letter’, it strikes me he is not apologising for a sexual relationship with an ‘of age’ teenager; he is at pains to point out that nothing physical occurred until she was ‘old enough’.
    I don’t actually think a witch hunt has occurred. Sure, in light of Jimmy Saville, there has been a massive ‘dusting out’ of the cobwebs. Remember Jimmy Saville has never (as far as I know) himself been convicted of any sexual offence. And he most certainly cannot defend himself now. It is, I guess, slanderous to label him predator.

    So I guess we are just going to have to disagree. You, and several other people here, seem satisfied that he never committed any criminal offence; or if he did, it was so long ago or so minor as to not warrant justice.
    Society s a whole – or at least out lawmakers disagree. We see it in our newspapers just about every week, another father or grandfather ‘going down’ for historic sex offences.
    I see Rolf as just another example of this.

  44. Sarah Haras says:

    Clearly, that last post , was me! :)

  45. Sarah Haras says:

    Ms Wass also described the friend of Harris’s daughter as having been ‘targeted, groomed and dehumanised… over a period of 16 years’ by the star.
    ‘(The alleged victim), unlike all of the witnesses in this case, was not the victim of a one-off opportunistic sexual assault,’ she said.
    ‘Her life was affected dramatically by what he did to her.’
    She said the woman – whom Harris has admitted having a sexual relationship with, but only from the age of 18 – had appeared a ‘damaged and emotionally dead creature’ when she appeared in the witness box.
    ‘Each woman, unknown to the others, describes a similar pattern of deviant sexual behaviour. The chances of them making up such similar accusations in the absence of knowing each other is absurd’
    ‘(Her) accounts of being sexually targeted and groomed by Rolf Harris explain the transition from a carefree child to that emotionally scarred adult.’ she said.
    Describing the first alleged assault, said to have taken place in a hotel room while on holiday in Hawaii, Ms Wass said: ‘She was completely isolated and totally vulnerable.
    ‘Mr Harris would have represented an adult father figure when she was away from home.
    ‘This first assault was a critical part of the grooming process. Mr Harris was testing his luck with (the alleged victim).
    ‘Would she create a fuss? Would she tell Bindi? Or would she be compliant?’
    Ms Wass added: ‘From that moment (the alleged victim) was lost because the longer a secret is kept the more difficult it is to complain later and the more easy it is for someone else to suggest “it takes two to tango”.’
    The prosecutor said Harris had admitted finding the girl sexually attractive during the holiday, after the entertainer earlier admitted he had sexually admired the teenager as she wore her bikini.
    She said the girl was a ‘sitting target’ on the holiday, with Harris able to assault her whenever he liked.
    Later this afternoon, the court also heard that Harris had used the teenager as a ‘blow-up doll’ for his sexual gratification after training her to ‘perform like a pet’.
    Ms Wass said that although Harris had never admitted to grooming the youngster, he had alluded to training her like an animal in a letter he wrote to her father in 1997 making a ‘breast-beating’ apology.
    She said: ‘He is, I suggest, accidentally exposing his true approach to his relationship with (her) and he is looking for that unconditional love that an owner might give a trained dog, and what other reason could there possibly be for Mr Harris mentioning the training of animals?
    ‘This trial has given these victims an opportunity to be heard for the first time’
    During her closing speech, Ms Wass also referred to an incident where the girl gave Harris oral sex in a car in a lay by off the M4 motorway, telling jurors: ‘She was performing for him clinically, like a prostitute.’
    She added that despite Harris’s ‘preposterous’ assertions that the relationship had been consensual, the pair had never spoken or discussed their desire for one another.
    ‘The fact of the matter is this was not a consensual relationship, this is what emerged at the end of an abusive relationship which began when she was 13,’ she said. ‘She had been psychologically destroyed and trained to perform like a pet.’
    Jurors heard that after the woman told her family about the abuse she suffered at Harris’s hands, her older brother called the artist and confronted him about abusing his sister since she was 13.
    Ms Wass said: ‘Mr Harris had been at the top of his game, by this stage, for 50 years.
    ‘He had been abusing children since 1969. Mr Harris must’ve believed that he was invincible when he answered (the brother) in that glib way when he was accused of child abuse, saying “it takes two to tango”.’

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653957/Rolf-Harris-described-untouchable-world-famous-childrens-entertainer-pattern-deviant-sexual-behaviour-child-sex-trial-prosecutor-sums-case.html#ixzz36lAH8HoD

  46. MurrayBacon says:

    #37 Steve and #41 Man X Norton – Evidence is easily swept away by Sympathy

    For a long time, sympathy protected Rolf Harris. Winds may change direction after a while and suddenly all the evidence is weighed so differently… This is what standard of proof is all about. Even when it is meant to be beyond reasonable doubt, if sympathy can be manipulated enough, the end result may not be even balance of probabilities. We are all human and if sympathy cuts deep, our emotions so easily override logic and careful deductions.

    I haven’t followed the case carefully, so I can only hope that the beforeitsnews.com article is accurate?

    Rolf Harris does have the fortunate fortune, that he can appeal if he wants to. This is what justice is all about, whittling away other people’s money, until they are poor enough to be left to rot in peace. Of course we should also observe that it may have been the fortune behind him, that clinched the decision to prosecute in the first place?

    Thank you Sarah, for challenging all of us unapologetic men. We need to be reminded of all of the viewpoints.

    The DNA exonerations remind us that there are plenty of innocent among the guilty in prisons. Our legal system is more crushingly efficient, than wise.

    More and more women are finding that what they could safely ‘get away with’, they too are now subject to accusation, sometimes going back many years, milking and prosecution, in much the same way as any man.

    Maybe at some time, these measures will actually end up giving children some protection?

    I certainly have the feeling ‘there but for the grace of God go I’.

  47. Sarah Haras says:

    In the event Rolf Harris is exonerated, found innocent, evidence found to be planted, etc etc, I will happily declare unfailing acceptance that he was wrongfully convicted, and fully deserving of recompense.

  48. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Sarah, thank you for your challenges.

    I am not expressing any opinion about Rolf Harris, just trying to look at how well the process works for protecting children, protecting adults, finding truth and acting proportional to the issues complained about.

    One of the problems in sex accusations, is that outcomes may be very severe, yet sometimes they are not severe at all? This makes proportionality difficult to decide… Thanks, MurrayBacon.

  49. Jefhrm says:

    What is going to happen to the women who left her two toddlers alone in her car while she visited a near-by bank today.; they managed to find a lighter,and some how set the car on fire,luck would have it a passer by intervened in what could have been another unnesesary tradgedy 1/ the kids were abandoned 2/ It could have been a hot day 3/lighters and children are not a good combination 3 plastic and foam upholstery combined with fire are a leathel mix ,;Her children were inconvenient on this particular day!

  50. Skeptik says:

    Sarah,
    To appear balanced I think you could just as easily have posted a lengthy transcript of what Harris’ defense attorney had to say, but you didn’t. That speaks for itself.
    That said, it’s enlightening to see that you’ve posted at least some of the super-emotive character assassination job the council for the prosecution threw at an 86 year old man.
    Still no corroborative proof mind you, but hey this is feminist UK we’re talking about here.
    Just an old man harangued by a pit-bull-like lawyer and a bunch of accusers with potentially millions of dollars and tons of sympathy to garner in a financial/emotional payout from a wealthy superstar and a horrified society. Absolutely no ulterior motive for them to be lying eh?
    Please let us know if you get news of corroborative evidence rather than mere hearsay and a lawyer’s rant.

  51. Man X Norton says:

    Sarah Haras (#43): In reply #42 I was referring only to your claim as follows:

    Rolf Harris yesterday admitted he got turned on by a 13-year-old girl in a bikini and confessed his lovable showbiz persona has a dark side. The veteran entertainer made the remark about the swimwear being worn by his daughter Bindi’s best friend during a 1978 holiday in Hawaii, jurors heard.

    As explained in reply #36, the body of the article on which you base your claim makes it clear that he made no such admission. In #42 I was entertaining the possibility that you might take responsibility for spreading a falsehood on the basis of a dishonest headline in an English smut rag because you did not take the trouble to read and understand what had really happened. And one might even hold out some faint hope that you might recognize your error was exactly the kind of eager acceptance of poor evidence done by lynch mobs and witch hunt supporters.

    You further misrepresent things in your statement

    You, and several other people here, seem satisfied that he never committed any criminal offence; or if he did, it was so long ago or so minor as to not warrant justice.

    I would challenge you to point to anything in my comments here that suggest what you say, and indeed I challenge you to point to anything from anyone in this thread to support your claim. Misrepresentation of other people’s arguments is a technique commonly used by feminists towards anyone who disagrees with them, especially when the other side’s arguments are strong.

  52. Man X Norton says:

    Yes, thanks Skeptic (reply # 50) and nicely said. The fact the proscutor said things does not make them true. A prosecutor is (unfortunately for justice) allowed to rant, allege and exaggerate to her heart’s content without any need for her rants to follow logically from the evidence, and that’s what she has done.

    Let’s take a look at a selection of Ms Prosecutor’s statements.

    But today, Ms Wass told the court that Harris’s ‘young and vulnerable’ victims had ‘no motive’ to make up their claims.

    What a silly statement. In fact, the complainants were actually all rather long in the tooth by the time they made their allegations, and 11 million pounds of official wealth must provide some motive. Other possible motives included the wish to support feminist dogma, the wish to join the ‘let’s accuse a celebrity’ party that was gathering pace around the Saville allegations, the wish to respond to appeals by the police for others to come forward, the wish to support other complainants that media had already announced, the wish for sympathy, limelight or public plaudits for how brave they were. The same kinds of motives, one supposes, that caused thousands of people to make up claims about being abducted by aliens.

    ‘Thereafter police investigations uncovered more and more women who felt able to come forward and describe what Rolf Harris had done to them when they were young and vulnerable and impressionable.

    This points to the process for drumming up complainants. Willing women complainants were ‘uncovered’. This will mean that police obtained numerous names from people attending Rolf’s ‘meet the public’ appearances who knew women who also attended who also knew other women who were there and so on, then police contacted as many as possible of those attending and came up with three (aside from Rolf’s daughter’s friend) across all of his public appearances prepared to give them the stories they sought .

    And she dismissed suggestions that the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Yewtree – which was established following the revelations about Jimmy Savile – was a ‘celebrity witch-hunt’.

    Yes, but her dismissal doesn’t change the truth.

    ‘Each woman, unknown to the others, describes a similar pattern of deviant sexual behaviour. The chances of any of them making up such similar accusations in the absence of knowing each other is absurd.’

    Mmm, but alien abductees all came up with similar accusations without knowing each other so it’s not that absurd, and in an atmosphere of moral panic and mass hysteria about deviant celebrities, it’s possible that rumours, media accounts of allegations, pamphlets about ‘safe touching’ and so forth influenced a wide range of people’s ideas in similar directions. Also, because very few people had the opportunity to be alone and private with Rolf and most people could only safely claim to have met him briefly in passing during his crowded ‘meet the public’ appearances, that seriously limited the options about what they could accuse him of. Come to think about it, the absence of complainants (aside from his daughter’s friend) alleging real sexual activity in Rolf’s hotel room or other private situations is inconsistent with him being the deviant sexual predator he is now portrayed as being.

    ‘(Her) accounts of being sexually targeted and groomed by Rolf Harris explain the transition from a carefree child to that emotionally scarred adult.’ she said.

    Here she shows her (lack of) skills as a backyard psychologist

    She said: ‘He is, I suggest, accidentally exposing his true approach to his relationship with (her) and he is looking for that unconditional love that an owner might give a trained dog,

    Ah, and now a cross-species back-yard psychologist.

    She added that the trial had heard from 10 witnesses in total – four of whom charges relate to – and none knew each other, save for a mother and daughter.

    Hang on, if two of the witnesses knew each other then why say none of them did? And although the witnesses might not have known each other, who knows what they had read or heard about the allegations, what the police told them about the allegations prior to taking the official statements, and so forth? “So you were at that event in 1972? Well someone says that Rolf Harris ran his hand up under her skirt while she was getting an autograph. Did you see anything like that? Oh you did? Great, let’s take a formal statement from you then.” Does the prosecutor really expect us to trust these processes as fair and honest? Hah! Ethics and fairness have been constantly discarded to get a higher conviction rate of men accused of sexual (and now also domestic) offences without better evidence, and you can be sure that same attitude will be applied by many individuals throughout the law enforcement process.

    The prosecutor compared the evidence against Harris to one of his own paintings, saying: ‘Each stroke can be a little bit vague or unclear but taken together you can identify what is happening.’

    Oh how poetic Ms Prosecutor. So let me get this right; Rolf committed a small part of an offence in each case so that across all the complainants a whole offence was committed?

    Ms Wass said each of the witnesses had painted a ‘portrait’, showing the ‘Mr Hyde concealed behind Rolf Harris’s Dr Jekyll who was his public profile’.

    Oh yeah, accurate justice is really served by artistic and fictional metaphors, huh?

    And she dismissed the star’s explanations or denials for the various allegations made by witnesses as ‘ruses’ and ‘red herrings’.

    Well how surprising! Of course, if a prosecutor dismisses the witch’s denials it proves the witch is lying and he must really be a witch.

    She added that despite Harris’s ‘preposterous’ assertions that the relationship had been consensual, the pair had never spoken or discussed their desire for one another.

    The pair had never spoken? Mmm. And since when is ‘discussing desire for one another’ a prerequisite for sexual romps? Surely the choice to turn up for and participate in liaisons time and time again demonstrates such a desire to some extent?

    Later this afternoon, the court also heard that Harris had used the teenager as a ‘blow-up doll’ for his sexual gratification after training her to ‘perform like a pet’.

    Ah yes, good idea Ms Prosecutor. Portray the complainant as an automaton and/or trained animal who cannot exercise free will or be responsible for her behaviour, so that disposes of the wee problem that she repeatedly chose to meet up with Rolf for sexual liaisons for many years as an adult. Of course, there was no evidence of his pet training programme, something that would have needed to be really spectacular to establish such reliable control over her even after long breaks.

    The more closely one looks at this ‘evidence’ by which Sarah Haras allows herself to feel smugly convinced of Rolf Harris’ guilt, the more one suspects a miscarriage of justice.

  53. Skeptik says:

    Some of us remember the hysteria created around ‘recovered’ memories; the Peter Ellis days with BS hyperbolic statements about satanic ritual abuse and such being bandied about.
    Feminists were having a field day then demonizing men in order to stir up sympathy for themselves and women – all the way to the bank.
    It was an ugly corrupt period in New Zealand I hope to never see again.
    This case and some of the attitudes I’m hearing on this thread (laid bare skillfully IMO by Man X Norton), and elsewhere on the internet however, eerily reminds me of that awful time.

    I imagine that now as a result of Harris’ conviction a lot of older folks, especially old men who richly deserve a peaceful old age will instead be needlessly scared seeing these events unfold.
    They’ll be afraid that they too may get targeted decades after for alleged abuses and hounded into submission by aggressive lawyers out for a handsome payout.
    All of which falls very nicely into the misandric feminist narrative of grossly inflated levels of male abusiveness.
    Still I take some comfort that such sexual abuse scaremongering narrative is being more often challenged as in these articles (many written by women) show – http://www.avoiceformen.com/?s=sexual+abuse+hysteria

  54. Sarah Haras says:

    I was waiting for Rolf Harris’s prosecution to be linked to that of Peter Ellis.
    It seems to me what everyone has failed to observe is that Rolf Harris has been prosecuted – not of having a relationship with an 18yo girl (which generally, is not a crime at all) – but of sexual abuse. Evidenced by multiple people at disparate times and places. The jury were satisfied that – beyond reasonable doubt – he is guilty. I don’t think several men on the backside of the world know more or better in this case – Rolf Harris – than those who sat through the whole case and made their verdict.
    But what is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’? It is simply that, on the evidence presented, a reasonable person accepts that Rolf is guilty of the charges laid. It is not that there is no doubt whatsoever, or no chance whatsoever that he didn’t commit the alleged crimes.
    Peter Ellis is, I agree, probably innocent of all changes laid. But that is not actually directly relevant to Rolf Harris. I think different countries, detectives, prosecutions and judges were all involved in these two cases.
    Arthur Allen Thomas was convicted on what was later established to be falsified evidence. That doesn’t mean Mark Lundy (who is not officially only ‘alleged’), Scott Watson (‘guilty’), David Bain (who is now officially ‘not guilty), John Barlow (‘guilty’) or any other particular murderer is therefore likely to be similarly innocent.
    Trial by media may or may not eventually find Rolf Harris innocent; but in the meantime, he is guilty. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Of, as I understand it, all charges laid.
    Other charges were, for whatever reason, not laid , particularly around child pornography.

    So I guess, gentlemen, forgive me and slate me all you like. I remain firmly accepting of his adjudged guilt.

  55. Skeptik says:

    Sarah,
    Once upon a time it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the world was flat, at another time ‘reasonable’ people believed that blacks were less intelligent than whites.
    Reason is a construct of the time it is created in.
    Don’t jump to the keyboard just yet though. Just let that sink in.
    Think about the zeitgeist now.
    Perhaps then you’ll have some compassion for my disquiet at events surrounding Harris.

    Nobody is dense enough to say Harris and Ellis had the same lawyers, judges etc.
    So I think you’re presenting an entirely straw man argument there.
    However I think it’s factually correct to say that both the Ellis and Harris cases have happened during the age of modern day feminism, both occurred in English speaking western feminist countries, and that both involved conviction of a male WITHOUT corroborative evidence.

    If you listen to as many men as I have over the decades, then you might possibly have a sense of why being convicted on the mere say so of a woman, or bunch of women is such a sore point with so many of us guys.
    Until then I think you’re comments are going to be a painful reminder of how vulnerable men in feminist nations are to false accusations, prosecution without due process and trial by media in these Salem-like feminist times.

  56. Sarah Haras says:

    Sceptik, I too have listened to many men who have met the full force of family court. I myself have probably suffered in family court as much as you or any man here has.
    [Now, that is bound to invoke your ire and indignation about how I don't know anything about you or your case].

    But let me expound the general assumption that ‘reasonable’ is fluid as to the time and place it is applied, interpreted against a prevailing set of moral, ethical, social standards. To remove it from Rolf Harris’s case is to conclude either that he had to be convicted beyond all doubt. Or not convicted at all because there is ‘some’ doubt.
    And then apply the same across all court cases that have happened during the age of modern day feminism, in English speaking western feminist countries, that don’t have corroborative evidence.

    Clearly nearly all cases of child sexual abuse have little corroborative evidence – particularly those involving very young children. What would be corroborative ? Witnesses? Seminal evidence? Photos?
    No, such a suggestion is ludicrous, because anyone who has ever had a child knows just how trusting they are, and how willing they are to please adults. How naïve they are, and how they will not reveal sexual abuse for years and years.
    As for women, well yes, perhaps women can or should be expected to report sexual assaults and violence more readily. Tol preserve physical evidence, perhaps even to ‘keep themselves safe’ and not expose themselves to undue risk. You and I might find it incredulous that women often do not report sexual assault immediately. But you and I also know that corroborative evidence is often next to non-existent, save perhaps dna evidence (if it is captured and preserved pretty well immediately). Not everyone is a Monica Lewinsky and keeps ‘that dress’.

    So if the argument was one of evolving perceptions of ‘reasonable’, and the need to corroborative evidence, I doubt anyone would ever be prosecuted, except maybe for those men stupid enough to sexually abuse kids or women in public, or who publish videos or other evidence or those whose dna was carefully and clinically preserved immediately after the assault.
    What corroborative evidence would have satisfied you, Max Norton, John Dutchie, Stephen Gee, LukeNZ and others here? Should we overturn Rolf Harris’s convictions, (and those of all other men similarly convicted over the last generation or so, without hard, physical corroborative evidence), pending establishment of the same?

    To link Rolf Harris to Peter Ellis is simple folly. To maintain that because Peter Ellis’s conviction here in New Zealand was wrongful (I agree, it was), is still a world away from that of Rolf Harris’s conviction. To imagine the young girl in particular should have reported her sexual abuse when clearly there was a strong enough relationship in existence that later? developed into a full blown sexual relationship, is absurd. To expect she would report it soon after her relationship with Rolf was over, is absurd. To expect the girl to report the sexual activity soon after it allegedly started (ie circa age 13, but I’m not sure at what age she stated she was, when the first activity began), is absurd. He was, after all, her best friends father.
    I did wonder through the trial, why Rolf’s daughter chose not to testify. What would be her testimony? My once-best-friend is lying (or at least deluded)? Or my father is lying? Did the friend ever confide the abuse to her?

    Perhaps you and others simply cannot accept that the evidence presented through out the trial was actually sufficient and strong enough to convince the jury; that Rolf Harris is actually guilty of what he has been convicted of. The fact that he is a celebrity, would appear to be masking any willingness to simply see him as another old man whose past eventually caught up with him

  57. Skeptik says:

    Sarah,
    Unlike you I’m going to stay above spelling your name wrongly to make it into some kind of an insulting term. That was either dumb of you, or uncalled for and would say a lot about your character.

    I’m skeptical that you’ve suffered as much as any man here in family court. To make such a claim in light of what has happened to men in NZ family courts without saying in what way you’ve suffered is meaningless anyway. You might as well say you’ve suffered more than Kosovo victims or homeless people in New York.

    I don’t think you’ve presented any arguments to date on this thread that justify conviction without corroborative evidence. In fact on the contrary you seem to present a view that historical claims of several decades old should result in convictions on the mere word of an accuser alone.
    That’s a terrifying condition which I’m heartened to see you at least admit failed in the case of Peter Ellis.
    Asking contributors to this thread what historical corroborative evidence would be enough to convict seems disingenuous, for it implies that corroborative evidence is never necessary to whit only the word of an accuser – which is exactly what some of us fear is draconian and Salem-like.
    I don’t have an answer to that conundrum, but I am nonetheless open to the possibility of the accuser/s for whatever reasons (simply misguided or greedy and vexatious) being wrong about their testimony and innocent people thereby being horribly trapped and incarcerated in a web of corruption.

    So it’s not so black and white to me as it appears to you.
    Given the current rape and sexual abuse hysteria sweeping the western world (numerous links already provided in previous posts) I think you’d best be VERY careful next time you hug a young female relative unless it be ‘remembered’ several decades later as you having a sick kiddie fiddling grope.
    Better still I think you’d best stick to showing your affection by giving them an anti-sceptik (whoops, there’s that terrible spelling again!) hand shake.

  58. Lukenz says:

    @ Sarah 56.

    Where have I ever argued any point on corroborative evidence? You are saying I’ve said things that I have not. I think you must have your mind on something else when you read what I have written.

    My weigh is on how long should society put an old man in jail for 20 to 50 year old sex crimes and how uneasy I felt with people demanding he die in prison.

    It was also about how sad I felt for his family. You seem to have zero compassion for Rolfs family. And I’de really want to know why.

    Sarah, Why do you read what someone has written and get it so wrong so many times?

    You know a sentence that demands people die in prison is usually reserved for genocide or mass murder.

  59. @Sarah –

    the offences that Rolf was accused and convicted off were relatively trivial, especially for that time. He is also a man in his eighties and clearly harmless at this stage of his life.

    Admitting that a 13 year old girl had a ‘great body’ doesn’t prove anything. Most 13 year old girls are past the mid stage of adolescence and physical growth, and most women of your age would kill look like some of these girls. It’s the men who strenuously deny that teenage girls are attractive (i.e. paedocrites), and who accuse others of being ‘paedos’ for admitting so, who usually end up abusing underage girls.

    The fact that his computers were subjected to state of the art forensics and only 33 illegal images were found amongst the no doubt hundreds of thousands of images they recovered strongly suggests that he did not search for child porn but rather fell foul of the ludicrous feminist definitions of child pornography that exist today.

    Just looking at one picture of a young looking 25 year old woman in a sexy pose (but fully clothed) would count as ‘downloading’ a ‘child porn’ image, oh sorry, ‘child abuse image’, under femihag laws.

  60. Lukenz says:

    Rolf Harris as far as I am aware has not been convicted of having child porn. I don’t even think he’s been charged with that offence.

  61. MurrayBacon says:

    Dear Sarah, #56 I have listened to many couples and women’s complaints about familycaught$, as well as many men’s. I have often said that in my opinion, the single women especially have suffered some of the cruellest stories that I have ever heard in my life. In some of those cases, there were issues that had to be addressed, but at the end of the childhoods, much more cruelty was done, than was part of the job of protecting children and vulnerable adults.

    I did wonder through the trial, why Rolf’s daughter chose not to testify. What would be her testimony? My once-best-friend is lying (or at least deluded)? Or my father is lying? Did the friend ever confide the abuse to her?

    Both the defence and the prosecution would have had this option [call Bindi] open to them and presumably both thought that she wasn’t able to contribute any testimony that helped their version, more than it added confusion. Also, she is in quite a strong conflict of interest situation, so that whoever called her would look a bit harsh in this situation.

    I would be tempted to make the conclusion that she could have commented on other stressors in the complainant’s life (other than Rolf Harris), that may/probably contributed to the complainant’s outcomes. This could have been very damaging for the complainant’s credibility. Such issues might include the quality of parenting that she received in younger years.. Anyway, such information may come into the public domain in the course of time, from other sources or from Bindi.

    Remember that in the Christchurch Creche police/caught$ debacle, that there were also 2 women and 1 other man?, that were initially charged. Charges were dropped after several months, after they had been bankrupted and/or their houses sold to suit their legal workers. Their child care careers suffered also. Women suffered very harshly, though certainly not as much as Peter Ellis.

    NZ education, well the boys in particular, are still suffering from the official denials and failure to constructively address these police/caught$ competence, quality, integrity and ethical issues.

    So, thanks to all, for contributing into this harsh issue debate.

  62. Sarah Haras says:

    In the aftermath of the Peter Ellis case, one woman, Joy Bander, wrote a book “A Mother’s Story”. In it, she covered how her son was asked (apparently ever so sensitively) whether anything had occurred. Initially he said no. And he was thanked for being a good boy and answering honestly.
    As he was repeatedly (and again, apparently ever so sensitively) asked whether anything had happened, he answered, and he was praised for answering. Eventually his answers started revealing the stories we came to learn, of the cages, rituals and so forth. And he was thanked for opening up. His was the testimony that helped convict Peter Ellis.
    What I read in the book, was a story of a boy who learned to given the answers that earned him praise. His stories grew more fanciful (and absurd). He was pleasing adults. His mother was convinced the worst evils imaginable (to a 6? year old) had actually occurred.
    Sorry if I have misrepresented the essence of the above; please read the book for yourself, and gain you own conclusion.
    I do not believe such a miscarriage has occurred with Rolf Harris.

  63. Sarah Haras says:

    Please accept my apologies for misspelling your pseudonym, Skeptik. I did not intend to.
    I’d happily offer to meet with you in a neutral place to share stories, if it’d help you understand where I come from. Would you like to do that? (It’d have to be here in New Zealand; I can’t afford to travel).
    Don’t get me wrong. I have no ulterior motives. Like many people here, I am not in a position to state anything specific about my history here.

    You know, I was listening to the radio today; National programme. One panellist, I can’t recall his name; stated that New Zealand law is still fundamentally based on the “it is better to let 10 guilty men go free, than to wrongfully imprison one innocent man”.

    Another batch of statistics is the increased number of police investigations into ‘family incidents’ over the last year. Something over 92,000, if I heard correctly. However only 36,000K resulted in prosecutions. In other words, the balance were dealt with, with warnings, instant protection orders, or dismissal as no case to answer. There might be other reasons. It wasn’t the stats I noticed, but it was Judith Collins defence that, despite the increased number of ‘investigations’, there was a much lower percentage there charges were laid. Ms Collins seemed to suggest that the rate of prosecution was higher, given cases that might not result in a successful prosecution were not having charges lid (ie insufficient evidence).

    Why mention both of these things?
    Well, it seems to me that men are fixated that feminism has it in for them in the courts, especially family court. Actually, I agree with family court (often misspelt on this forum as femily court, surely not intentionaaly :) .
    But the fact is, our other courts still have to meet the levels of “beyond reasonable doubt” that they have always had to meet. Scott Guy, a year or two back was found not guilty of murder of his brother in law. I suspect most of New Zealand are convinced he committed murder. That (apparently) only 10% of charges laid of sexual abuse / sexual assault / attempted or actual rape result in conviction speaks volumes that despite what aggrieved men like to think, actually most cases aren’t successful. Testimony to the level of evidence required.

    I’d be more afraid of the “Guilty until proven innocent” being proposed by Labour, in resect of sexual offences. That’s adequately covered under other threads. That should scare the living shit out of all men.
    Sad as it may be for women everywhere, The Logical Song might be very wise:

    Best for the rest of us to never have sex or live with a woman again as its just too dangerous, with all these feminists taking away mens human rights.

    At least the girls will still have their dildo’s ….

  64. Man X Norton says:

    Sarah Haras. You keep misrepresenting others here. Nobody as far as I have noticed has said they believe Rolf Harris was innocent. But if proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard, several here dispute that could have been met in any credible way.

    And you still haven’t acknowledged that you perpetuated a falsehood in your first reply in this thread, because you believed a false headline and didn’t read the article carefully. Indeed, that same approach characterizes people’s thinking in the current witch hunt against those accused of sex offences.

    Your arrogant, bulldozing approach here deserves no respect. Please start taking a modicum of care to read properly what people have written here, represent their positions honestly and take responsibility for your error when it has been clearly shown to be an error. Otherwise you are basically acting as a troll.

  65. Sarah Haras says:

    Max, As I have stated repeatedly, the jury accepted he is guilty of the charges laid and he has been convicted. Words that I have quoted, that were stated in court, are a matter of record. what has been published in the media has been published. So alas, I am not apologising for a thing.
    That is not arrogance. That is simply the way life is.
    You may stop haranguing me now.

  66. john dutchie says:

    Reply to Sarah…#63….And this was my reply the ….”Best for the rest of us to never have sex or live with a woman again as its just too dangerous, with all these feminists taking away mens human rights……”

    “Best for the rest of us to never have sex or live with a woman again ….In a western European Country… as its just too dangerous, with all these feminists taking away men’s human rights…..”

    Oh and by the way Sarah….I am deadly serious too….I haven’t touched or desired a Kiwi/western European women for over seven over years now….

    I don’t live in N.Z, and have no intention what’s so ever of returning to Feminist N.Z or even living in Feminist western European country ….

    I have found true freedom where I am living now, and have found true inner peace…I am very happily married to awesome “Go getter” Asian lady….And note this Sarah….I respect her …honour her…love her ….And walk beside her…As my true equal…

    And watch this video….Its will a eye opener for you….

    “…..A woman’s view as to why men are deserting Western women for Asian women…..”

    http://goo.gl/XyW83H

    And this Gentleman comment below…. relating to that video I posted…. summed it up perfectly in my humble opinion….

    ” CosmicBiohazard6 days ago

    “…I find Western women are all about ‘what “you” can do for “me” right now’, and Asian women are about ‘what “we” can do for “our” future’. Became dauntingly apparent when the last (western) girl who was after me started going on about sex, and I, being the only man in the world who values his own chastity, politely inquired about possibly leaving that discussion until a point at which marriage might be on the discussion table. She got mad that I would dare demand such commitment in exchange for something like sex; I mean how dare I think so far into a future that “probably won’t even happen” (her words,not mine)? Agreeing to a relationship with the understanding it has no future doesn’t seem to me like something any man would prefer over, if he did want sex, a pick up, or even a hooker, am I right about that at all? My fiancée’ now, on the other hand? We laid those ground rules at exactly the same time, constantly discuss matters of making a bright future for ourselves, I get the feeling western media keeps insisting that men don’t like that…”

    Tongue in cheek…Your comment Sarah of “….At least the girls will still have their dildo’s ….”….I really do beg to differ there…It really should read like this…”….At least the Kiwi and western European girls will still have their dildo’s ….

  67. Mits says:

    don’t feed the trolls

  68. OMG You're (*&^^% says:

    Its only a matter of time, John Dutchie. Japanese women are already turning. Other Asians will follow suit. The key thing that kept women @ women, was dependency on men (as income earners). Every country where that has changed – there you have the problems.

    Although, sadly, I don’t share your optimism even there. I’ve seen Asian women ‘serve their time’ then take their (usually fat, balding, middle-aged-plus men for half or more of everything.
    Its the usual story: Date online, marry, free entry into western countries. It might take a baby along the way; serve the 3 years under matrimonial property law; and wham, bam, thank you maam. They’re rich (by their old Asian standards), western and free.
    Sure, if you hit the outbacks of Philippines, where western civilisation is a dream they’ll never attain, then you may be safe (and most their food is fantastic).

  69. john dutchie says:

    Now here is a interesting video Sarah….And I can see this situation will eventually happen in N.Z

    “…..Many Areas In Britain Have Become ”Men Deserts”…..”

    http://goo.gl/ODfPTB

    “….DigitalDreams2 months ago….”

    “……Caroline Davey made little effort to conceal her agenda. That she believes fathers aren’t necessary and should be removed from the household. Note how she immediately tried to spin the problem and make it about single mother victims needing MORE money to run the status quo. Meanwhile, she brushes off the comments/concerns coming from the man who was raised in a single parent household. Implying that male role models can come from uncles and friends instead of fathers. Consider the statistics. Most violent men come from single mother homes. There are exceptions to the rule and the situation will only blow up in their face sooner or later. Reap what you sow………” 

  70. Man X Norton says:

    Troll alert. Sarah Haras has come here without concern that she has spread untruths. She does not debate genuinely, she does not consider, attempt to rebut or (usually) even acknowledge careful reasoning that has been offered, she simply keeps assailing us with witch-hunt gossip that was allowed to be aired in a Courtroom and through the media.

    Nevertheless, for anyone who makes the effort to read it, this thread provides useful analysis of this particular arm of the war against men. It has become very clear that, regardless of Rolf Harris’ actual guilt or innocence, his conviction was unjust and irrational.

    Actually, the same applied to Peter Ellis. He probably was guilty of some sexual impropriety but the evidence was unable to clarify exactly what that was, and regardless of his actual guilt or innocence, he should never have been convicted on the basis of that contaminated, groomed and edited evidence. Fair justice must always tolerate the acquittal of some actually guilty parties. They, along with all innocent parties acquitted, do not go unpunished because they have been financially, emotionally and publicly keelhauled regardless.

  71. Skeptik says:

    Sarah,
    Apology accepted.
    I agree with your attitude to the Labor party. Good to finally see a Kiwi female speaking out (a little at least) against Cunliffe’s terrible bigotry.

    However, I think your views on feminism are way off base. I don’t see any evidence that you empathize enough with my male community’s vast experience of feminism to make it worthwhile for me to meet you in person.

  72. Man X Norton says:

    Skeptik (#71): Who knows if it’s a female? Wouldn’t be at all surprised if it’s an undercover witch-hunter who has come to provoke others into saying anything in support of a sex offender that can provide an excuse for state agents to bully them. In the war against men it is fast becoming dangerous to debate these matters rationally. We know already that people’s expression of opinion on this site is used to persecute them in Family Court witch hunt trials, and that in our criminal courts also, prosecutors attempt to discredit witnesses on the basis simply that they have been involved in discussions here. We can expect this kind of thing to escalate as the men’s movement gains more traction.

  73. Man X Norton says:

    OMG You’re (#68): You left out the bit where after the regulation 3 years the (now permanent resident) woman trots off to Women’s Refuge who support her in fabricating claims of abuse. And the bit where she trots off to a state-funded lawyer who prepares an affidavit that ticks all the boxes to ensure a protection order is made against the man. And the bit where the Femily Court accepts her fabrications without question or any need for evidence, and begins by assuming an offender-victim paradigm (and we all know in which gender direction that will be). And the bit where she then occupies the house that he owned long before meeting her. And the bit where the woman is rewarded for her conspiracy by the the rest of us by paying for her lifestyle ongoing, the betrayed man also being forced to do the same.

  74. Daniel says:

    Yeah I was wondering the same. Certainly the guy was a creep but is it now illegal to be a creep? There is a huge smokescreen obscuring the fundamental question – has he knowingly done something which was illegal at the time that he did it rather than just plain nasty?
    This smells like a witch hunt. Who will be next – a lot of musicians are famous for bedding large numbers of young groupies, is that where the next round of hysteria is going to come from?

  75. Sarah Haras says:

    Max, I think if you read back to my first post, I used the words “He ha all but admitted some of his accused behaviour” I accept there is a typo in that statement. “He has all but …”
    Whilst I quote, and have stuck to quoting information freely available on the internet, I have also stated repeatedly an acceptance of the fact that Rolf Harris has been convicted of certain crimes. I have also been at lengths to stress he is not convicted of certain crimes.
    I have also stated that if he is ever cleared of these crimes, I will willingly accept that.
    You accuse of many things, not the last, that “does not debate genuinely, she does not consider, attempt to rebut or (usually) even acknowledge careful reasoning that has been offered, she simply keeps assailing us with witch-hunt gossip that was allowed to be aired in a Courtroom and through the media. ” I suggest I am not the one who has done this. I have endeavoured to offer and answer many things.
    I have endured various offensive assumptions and flaming. I have contributed to this website sporadically over many years. It is true, I have noticed, that if you write what people want to hear, then you are welcomed with open arms.
    However as this has turned into an ‘attack the messenger’, well, again, and as I indicated in other response, it speaks volumes. Murray Bacon, on the other hand, has shown a tolerance for opinions that may differ from his.
    Good day and good bye.

  76. Man X Norton says:

    ‘Sarah Haras’ continues to duck and dive from her actual wrongdoing. As well as claiming that Rolf “all but admitted”, she asserted the following:

    Rolf Harris yesterday admitted he got turned on by a 13-year-old girl in a bikini and confessed his lovable showbiz persona has a dark side. The veteran entertainer made the remark about the swimwear being worn by his daughter Bindi’s best friend during a 1978 holiday in Hawaii, jurors heard.

    As exposed above as being clear in the body of the article she quoted, that is an untrue statement. Rolf Harris never admitted he got turned on by a 13-year-old girl in a bikini. But ‘Sarah Haras’ refuses to take responsibility for her carelessness and the resulting untruth that she put forward here as ‘evidence’ he was guilty as charged. It’s not good enough to say “I was only parroting a headline the article of which I took no care to read, so there’s nothing for me to apologize for”.

  77. Although there has been much publicity about his trial it is difficult to get information about what exactly Rolf did.

    http://www.pearshapedcomedy.com/Rolf.html

    Does this help? He clearly groomed his sister’s best friend… lots of sleepovers, free holidays, relationship concealed from his own family and hers … how many red flags do you need….? There’s more than at a parade in Red Square under the USSR. Some of the other charges are less strong … but the main charge …come on … he was about noncing. There were other things too but as they are abroad he can’t be charged with them and also the charges there were have to fit with the cross-admissibility rules. If you want the sordid details : grooming, fingering an oral sex of the under 16s

  78. Man X Norton says:

    Anthony Miller (#77): The link you provide is a very long, rambling discussion covering a number of cases including Rolf’s, that primarily and convincingly argues the witch-hunt nature of sex offence trials. This includes the admissibility of untested accusations from people in other countries as “similar fact evidence” even though those accusations are unable to be tested because they don’t form the basis of the alleged offences being prosecuted. As your link said:

    These are probably the most damning pieces of evidence but as Harris can only be tried for crimes in the UK they’re never really explored in any depth leaving him in the worst possible situation of being publically accused but not being in a position to mount a proper defence in court… And, of course, he cant sue them for libel because they have absolute privilege as witnesses in a criminal trial. So we have the strange situation of Harris being sort of on trial for what he cant be put on trial for …if you follow that. Strange that the Metropolitan police have to go all the way Australia and New Zealand to find these people but hardly anyone’s come forward from the UK.

    Your link further stated:

    A Home Affairs Select Committee Report in 2002 suggested meekly that:

    Whilst we accept that the criminal justice system needs to be more sensitive to the needs of victims and witnesses, we are concerned that the proposed removal of safeguards for the defendant, set out in Justice for All, may further prejudice the defendant in historical child abuse trials. We are particularly concerned about the proposed relaxation of the rules of evidence, which may allow for greater admission of ‘similar fact’ evidence. In our view, given the sensitive and difficult nature of investigating allegations of historical child abuse, there is a strong case for establishing special or additional safeguards for the exclusion of prejudicial evidence and/or severance of multiple abuse charges.

    Note also that most of the offences Rolf was convicted for were ridiculously vague concerning the time of their alleged commission: an indecent assault sometime between Jan 1968 and Jan 1970, another between Jan 1975 and 1976, another between Dec 1978 and April 1981, and so forth. But no worries, historical sex abuse allegations are allowed to be ridiculously vague and Rolf was convicted on the first one above even though:

    “No confirmation could be found that Mr Harris had been there, despite searches of local newspaper archives, council records and letter drops appealing for witnesses. This included looking at copies of the Portsmouth News between January 1967 and May 1974.”

    and on the second count even though

    There was much consternation when footage of him on the game show Star Games from 1978 was discovered after he’d claimed he’d never been to Cambridge. Prosecutor Sasha Wass QC said without any irony “That video supports pretty much everything that (the alleged victim) said apart from the year, she has got the year wrong?”.

    yet his conviction was for an indecent assault at some unspecified time during 1975 when the complainant was aged 14 and could not legally consent, as opposed to 1978 when Rolf was actually in the town where the offence was alleged to have happened, when the complainant was aged 17 and could have legally consented.

    On and on the witch hunt goes. At least, for the present, criminal trials are open to scrutiny from the public and brave discussions such as those here on this thread at MENZ will eventually cause these excesses of injustice and irrationality to be exposed and expunged. The same will not happen regarding Family Court because it remains a secret court of injustice. However, even the accountability currently possible for criminal trials is under threat for the sex offender witch hunt because in NZ sex abuse trials are often closed to the public and the proceedings suppressed on the excuse of protecting the complainants.

  79. Man X Norton says:

    And check out this story from Sydney. Feminist groups including the Aussie Green Party demand that a judge is removed from a case because he made some sensible comments and a reasoned decision in a sex abuse trial. In a trial of a man accused of raping his 18yo sister the judge disallowed evidence that the man had previously pleaded guilty to sexually touching the sister when she was aged 11 (and he 17). The judge made the point that the accused’s guilt of the earlier offence against the sister at 11 years old was not of much relevance to the accusation of her rape at age 18 years after she already had two sexual relationships with other men and a child to one of them.

    In the witch hunts of previous centuries, any judge (inquisitor) who attempted to speak out rationally about what was happening, or who showed any fair consideration of accused witches’ denials about broom flying etc, or who sought to apply any fair justice processes or to show any mercy towards those accused, was quickly replaced with other judges who could be relied upon to follow obediently the nasty and irrational witch-hunt process. Public groups, convinced of the existence of witches and their dangerousness and keen to blame witches for local illnesses or the failure of last year’s local crop, clamoured in support of replacing any errant judges.

  80. Man X Norton says:

    Another recent example of the witch hunt concerned the Malaysian diplomat accused of entering a woman’s house with the intention of raping her. Aside from the problem of proving someone’s intentions, the whole sage reeks of the special treatment that women now demand in relation to anything they allege. Diplomatic immunity is a longstanding convention that has seen the diplomatic embassy staff of many countries escape the criminal justice system of the country in which they are working (including things like local government rates, parking fees and rents owed to landlords). I was unable to find any record of NZ diplomats who had invoked immunity in other countries, but I would guess there have been some.

    The convention does not include the most serious crimes such as murder and rape, but our Malaysian guest was not charged with rape, only burglary and some form of assault (that may have been gentle touching) in which he allegedly intended to rape. (Intending to commit a crime is not yet seen being as serious as actually committing it, though the feminists will be working hard to bring this about.)

    The Malaysian diplomat’s departure and avoidance of facing trial is actually nothing unusual but the feminists are out to burn him at the stake, complaining that an offence against a woman should be exempt from this international convention. You can bet that if some female NZ diplomat in Malaysia or elsewhere drives drunk and causes a crash with injuries, our feminists won’t make a peep when she invokes diplomatic immunity, this is not revoked by our government, and she returns home to get on with her life.

  81. “in NZ sex abuse trials are often closed to the public and the proceedings suppressed on the excuse of protecting the complainants”

    Well, that’s just wrong. I’m not actually against the use of similar fact evidence… but it is as if prosecutors think it is a golden bullet. Harris is clearly a pervert but instead of learning from the trial how he infiltrated someone’s family and carefully groomed them and their daughter and abused their trust …what we actually get is a series of confused unrelated stories that really dont stack up to a hill of beans.

    It’s interesting with regards to the groping how many of Harris’s accusers come from Australia and New Zealand or abroad. There are two explanations for this. One is that he offended abroad because he knew he couldn’t be prosecuted there and another might be that in his earlier career in Australia he was much more badly behaved because he was younger and had a higher sex drive. Still I’m not sure why it’s in the public interest for the UK to send policemen all the way to Australia to interview people who cannot be bothered to keep appointments they made with the local police in Australia. An awful lot of effort has gone into these prosecutions and the political point of them is to underline the CPS’s political campaign that “there is no time limit on sexual offences”. Given the volume of investment then it’s ridiculous that the prosecution cases often have so many holes in them.

    For example here’s a fanatastic false claim from the Max Clifford case
    http://news.sky.com/story/1225442/max-clifford-laughs-at-car-claim-in-abuse-trial
    In which a woman accuses him of having the same yellow jaguar for 30 years.
    An issue which even if it was true could surely be resolved very simply by someone at Scotland Yard ringing up the DVLA and checking what cars were registered to Max’s name.

    Clifford is a bucket of slime who traded in sex stories and covering up sex stories who’s history of dodginess goes right back to Diana Dors sex parties in the 1970s. You have to wonder why someone wants him convicted right now? Is it really about protecting children …or is it revenge for the way he helped bring down David Mellor and John Major’s government…? Whatever … if you wanted someone to fit up for sexual assault he’s made to measure for the part? Half of the charges against him fell apart and while impersonating Cubby Broccoli is deceitful I’m not sure it’s a crime. We also had the Bill Roache trial… Bill Roache is a well known womaniser to the point of mental illness but this is not, in its self, a crime. The trial fell apart because the witnesses could be proved to be lying… Do we see the CPS saying sorry? How was this in the public interest?

    If we take the Stuart Hall case … Hall pled guilty before his first trial. There was then a second trial where he pled guilty to 1 charge of indecent assault and was found NOT guilty of 15 counts of rape and four of indecent assault
    http://news.sky.com/story/1262944/stuart-hall-not-guilty-of-all-but-one-charge
    Which means that clearly among the real cases that deserve to be prosecuted (like Harris) Yewtree is also generating a small tusnami of made up cases that are clearly a pack of lies and shown so to be. I think in cases like this where accusers can be proved to be lying by – for example – a video being sent in that proves they have lied like in in the Dave Lee Travis case … then there should be prosecutions for perjury for the false accusers. And they should lose the annonymity if convicted.

  82. Man X Norton says:

    Anthony Miller (#81): Well, you try as a member of the public to go into a Courtroom hearing a child sex abuse trial. You won’t be allowed in to most of them.

  83. ” Well, you try as a member of the public to go into a Courtroom hearing a child sex abuse trial. You won’t be allowed in to most of them.”

    You can go into such trials in the UK. Usually the defendents will be screened off so only the jury can see them or (if they are a minor) they will be viewable to the jury and judge by a video link from a separate room. But the public can go in and there are no in camera type reporting restrictions unless it is a Family court case about custody and even those the rules on reporting have been relaxed. So I honestly dont know why you have these reporting restrictions because we, here in the UK, dont have them. I have been to a child sex abuse trial as a member of the public at the Old Bailey … and greatly enjoyed the sight of lots of highly paid QCs arguing with each other about why the video link didn’t work and which of them was the worst at connecting an AV cable. Seriously …it’s not an issue here. Whether it’s in person or via video link I think it’s very important that the judge and jury can see the person giving evidence and their body language …even if they have to be obscured from the public gallery.

  84. Man X Norton says:

    Anthony Miller (#83): I don’t know the situation in the UK but I do know what happens in NZ. The Courtroom door is closed for many sex offence trials.

  85. Man X Norton says:

    Oh right Anthony, I thought your post #81 when it said “Well that’s just wrong” was disputing what I said about sex offence trials in NZ, but now I think you were expressing an opinion on the morality of the practice in NZ! Sorry, hadn’t realized you were from the other end of the world!

    Video linked cross examination of complainants or screening off a complainant from the accused removed an important protection against wrongful conviction, that of the accused facing his accuser. The modern practices provide a strong suggestion of the accused as dangerous and that the allegations must be true because the complainant is so scared of (gasp) seeing the face of the accused. This stuff is all contrary to a fair trial. In the witch-hunt trials, those accused of demon possession were sometimes screened off for fear that looking into their eyes might allow the devil to influence the minds of their accusers and others in the trial.

    When a complainant is cross-examined in another room, other other people in that room are not observed and may well be prompting or manipulating the complainant’s replies.

    Many protections against false conviction have been eroded or discarded as part of the modern witch-hunt against men accused of sex offences. For example:
    - Having the accused stand in the dock wearing prison clothes and flanked by uniformed guards while the complainant is hidden behind a screen etc;
    - Allowing complainants’ pre-recorded interviews not under oath to be used as evidence-in-chief or as evidence at all;
    - Disallowing cross-examination of the complainant about her own sexual and moral history;
    - Disallowing any uncomfortable questioning of or suggestions toward the complainant at all while allowing prosecution counsel unlimited licence to make derogatory statements and suggestive questions towards the accused;
    - Allowing ‘similar fact’ evidence at all, thereby disposing of the fundamental principle that the prosecution has to prove the offender committed a particular offence at a particular time on the merits of the evidence about that particular offence;
    - Allowing other untested allegations to be admitted as ‘similar fact’ evidence when they are not ‘facts’ at all;
    - Removing statutes of limitations concerning the duration since an alleged offence;
    - Removing the need to prove an offence was committed at any specific time, day or even year;
    - Allowing any trial to proceed purely on the basis of allegations with no corroborating evidence;
    - Requiring police from the outset to treat accusations as true and restricting them from comments or questions that might imply any skepticism regarding the accusations.

    There will be other examples of erosion of protections against false conviction that I am not aware of and I would be interested in any others that people have come across. They are all justified on the grounds either of ‘treating the complainant more gently’ or ‘increasing the conviction rate on the basis of the same inadequate evidence’. The first reason is sound but is largely achievable without compromising justice and increasing the rate of false conviction. The second reason is spurious and dangerous.

    Now, in our recent Glenn ‘inquiry’, we are seeing blatant demands that male accused be treated as guilty by default with the onus placed on them to prove their innocence. Just like the witch trials.

  86. Man X Norton says:

    And, like in the witch hunts, otherwise intelligent people join the lynch mobs and ignore rational consideration, research and facts. Like Derryn Hinch who campaigns for the names, addresses etc of all convicted sex offenders to be made publicly available, even on everyone’s phones, so that people can tell their children “If your ball goes over that sex offender’s fence, don’t try to fetch it”.

    The fact is that sex offenders have a relatively low risk of re-offending anyway, less than 20% on average although this varies between subgroups of sex offenders. Those who offend against family members or against children who are in a family-like relationship with them will re-offend at much lower rates, less than 10%, while those who offend against adolescent boys have a higher rate, over 30%. None of the sex offender groups re-offend at anywhere near the rate that burglars, shoplifters, fraudsters, violent thugs or drunk drivers re-offend.

    And the likes of Derryn Hinch are allowed to continue to spread utter b.s. to support their superstitious crusade. His claim that sex offender treatment doesn’t work, that no sex offender can ever be successfully treated, is simply a lie. There are numerous, scientifically sound research studies showing that far fewer sex offenders re-offend after participation in modern rehabilitation programmes, showing beyond any shadow of a doubt that ‘treatment’ works superbly well for many of them. And most sex offenders on any register will have participated in some form of rehabilitation as part of their sentence.

    Hinch’s wish to protect children from fetching their ball in sex offenders’ properties is really just superstitious fear mongering. “You might get tainted by the mark of the devil if you go near him.”

  87. Deano says:

    In Oz, as the Harris sentencing was being reported and discussed, a small story appeared about a female baby-sitter who tortured and finally killed an infant boy over a period of several weeks while the mother failed to report or question the obvious injuries the child had suffered. Here’s a link if you can stomach the details:-

    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/injuries-inflicted-by-babysitter-mandy-martyn-led-to-daniel-thomas-death-coroner-finds-20140703-zsub7.html

    Compared to Rolf Harris’s case this story rated barely a mention and disappeared after a day. The mainstream media made a week-long event from Rolf Harris’s conviction and yet almost ignored the horrific murder of a very small child. This says something about the morals of the MSM and it seems they are only able to feel outrage with an issue once it has appears on some sort of approved list of “things to be outraged about”. I am far more concerned with kids being murdered than some middle aged woman claiming a lifetime of misery because some celebrity pinched her on the bum in 1975 and somehow, I don’t think I’m alone.

  88. GregorGee says:

    Hang Rolf. As a public figure who groomed the globe he deserves to pay the ultimate price for abusing our trust and our sisters. But only if you can also hang high profile misandronistic separatist man hating female preditors like those who make statements like Germain Greers who publicly declared she prefers young boys because they cum like taps. l had a teacher in yr 8/9 told us her view of what to do with men was ” milk ‘em and kill ‘em “. what the!

  89. Man X Norton says:

    GregorGee (#87): Unfortunately, calling for a man to ‘hang’ and to ‘pay the ultimate price’ for gentle inappropriate touching is really just joining the ‘milk ‘em and kill ‘em” women’s brigade. It’s time we treated men as human beings deserving of the same caring and mercy that we are almost always inclined to show women. Nobody here has suggested that Rolf shouldn’t be held accountable and receive some punishment, but death? Really?

  90. Rose says:

    Your post doesn’t seem controversial at all. I think you’re right to wonder about the sentence for someone of that age, especially when shorter sentences have been handed down for much younger rapists in recent years, and it’s nice to see someone showing compassion for a change and sympathy for his family. Some people seemed to criticise him for walking slowly into court, when the reason for walking slowly was right there for all to see. Though he was clearly responsible for whatever he said in court, and that letter did him no favours, I think to some extent perceptions have been manipulated. For example, there has been a lot of euphemistic language that implies something bad without saying specifically what (e.g. dark side, Jekyll and Hyde, creepy, handy, octopus, etc.). It’s just bad and icky and ugh. But what does it mean exactly in criminal terms and what were the circumstances back then? What with him being so similar to Jimmy Savile in his public persona (octogenarian, well-known, seemingly cheerful and friendly, light entertainer, children’s programmes, etc.), with Savile’s unresponsive corpse having just been shredded on TV and elsewhere in the media (latest allegations reported as fact is that he made jewellery out of corpse glass eyes and had sex with corpses in the hospital mortuary), it’s hard to see how anyone even remotely like Savile facing allegations by adults from years ago that are automatically accepted as fact (and for which there might be monetary gain through civil compensation or media appearances) could have much of a fair chance, especially with Harris’s name being tweeted by the Savile programme presenter when the Savile stink was fresh (Savile programmes broadcast in UK and Australia in October/November 2012) and nine months before Harris was charged:
    https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/274181776283406337
    ABC even apparently changed its schedule:
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/11/15/3633714.htm

  91. Skeptik says:

    Welcome to the end of men as entertainers for children and teens in feminist cultures at least…..exactly as the feminists want it.
    More gynocenric grip on the next generation of children for political inculcation……unless men and their compassionate allies fight back.

  92. Downunder says:

    Rolf Harris Seeks Leave to Appeal

    Disgraced entertainer Rolf Harris has applied to British authorities for permission to appeal against his convictions on 12 indecent assaults.

    A spokesman for the British Judicial Office confirmed that lawyers for the 84-year-old had lodged papers at the Court of Appeal this week.

  93. OMG! You're *(&^*$^&* says:

    Welcome to the end …

    No – that end came twenty or more years ago, when Santa’s had to stop letting kids sit in their laps, and keep their hands in full view at all times.

  94. Sarah Hanas says:

    Knock knock …
    Who’s there ? …
    Cliff Richard …

  95. Downunder says:

    Did you spell your name wrong or are you someone different from Sarah Haras above?

Leave a Reply

Connect with Facebook

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are now likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Powered by WordPress

Site Meter