My mistake, sorry I'm having a hard time coming to terms with it TBH
If Rolf was innocent (apart from what he admitted to) surely he would be demanding a retrial and protesting his innocence? Why was he shown smiling when he was sentenced?
His wife was very frail I thought, maybe he didnt want to put her through that?
I simply cannot believe someone as famous as Rolf was at that time would allow his reputation to be tarnished. He did a version of Tie me Kangaroo Down with The Beatles, at the time he was probably more famous than them!
Vanessa should have contacted the police when it was made public that he had been charged. To do it now, on TV looks like a publicity stunt. It would have helped the prosecution, given support to the victims to know that someone from the media had experienced problems with Rolf Harris. I find it rather disturbing when people come forward after someone is found guilty. I think Rolf was charged a whole year before the case came to court.
But the prosecution did know her story and had the tape! It just was ruled as prejudicial by the judge.
Why is it easier to believe all these women are lying and that Rolf is innocent? When he was the one caught out lying about doing a celebrity sports show in Cambridge in 1978.
Vanessa should have contacted the police when it was made public that he had been charged. To do it now, on TV looks like a publicity stunt. It would have helped the prosecution, given support to the victims to know that someone from the media had experienced problems with Rolf Harris. I find it rather disturbing when people come forward after someone is found guilty. I think Rolf was charged a whole year before the case came to court.
The police went to VF in 2012 ( or there abouts) after someone told them what had happened. its on this thread somewhere.
But the prosecution did know her story and had the tape! It just was ruled as prejudicial by the judge.
Why is it easier to believe all these women are lying and that Rolf is innocent? When he was the one caught out lying about doing a celebrity sports show in Cambridge in 1978.
People would rather believe he's a paedophile than that he groped adult women on a regular basis, for some reason.
It seems that all the older people in Australian and NZ media who said "oh well of course it's Rolf Harris" when stories of police interviewing an elderly entertainer, then unnamed, started circulating were just making it up to impress their officemates. None of them were going to court, Rolf had not been named or arrested, and they all had a story of a colleague or two who had experienced Rolf personally or who had been warned about him. I suppose it's just coincidence.
I heard the Rolf thing first from the partner of the woman in NZ who has come forward publicly, WELL before any of this became a news story. It is not hearsay. I know a lot of you don't want to believe it could possibly be true, or that he could possibly have been sexually assaulting adult women for years, but it appears that it is true. And the reasons they didn't take it further are as I outlined above; they feared they would not be believed, they were pretty much told "yeah he's like that, don't worry about it just keep your distance", and they were embarrassed and wanted to forget about it.
This is kind of normal when you are a young woman to be honest. Everyone accepts these things go on but nobody wants you to make a FUSS unless it's out and out rape.
This is exactly why so many people are struggling with these convictions.
I was a teenager in the '70s and it was par for the course to be stroked, patted, groped etc. by men, young and old. It was a regular occurrence to have my bum fondled, hands "accidently" brushing my boobs. A lot of men (not all) thought it was perfectly acceptable behaviour, and most women (myself included) just put up with it.
I couldn't name or recognise 95% of the blokes who I encountered who had a quick feel. None of them were famous.
This is no way meant to excuse the behaviour, but it does put a different light on it. After all, many things were "acceptable" in previous years that we wouldn't dream of allowing now.
I repeat an earlier observation, Has anyone seen the footage of the show she was presenting when she was alledgedly groped by Rolf ? As they were lying on a bed together I would imaging it is pretty clear.
Apparently she was warned about Rolf's "wandering hands" before she went on TV, not that I'm saying she's wrong, but why wait all this time now he's gone to prison? Why not do it when the original allegations came out in 2012? Just sounds a bit fishy, imo.
Apparently she was warned about Rolf's "wandering hands" before she went on TV, not that I'm saying she's wrong, but why wait all this time now he's gone to prison? Why not do it when the original allegations came out in 2012? Just sounds a bit fishy, imo.
This is exactly why so many people are struggling with these convictions.
I was a teenager in the '70s and it was par for the course to be stroked, patted, groped etc. by men, young and old. It was a regular occurrence to have my bum fondled, hands "accidently" brushing my boobs. A lot of men (not all) thought it was perfectly acceptable behaviour, and most women (myself included) just put up with it.
I couldn't name or recognise 95% of the blokes who I encountered who had a quick feel. None of them were famous.
This is no way meant to excuse the behaviour, but it does put a different light on it. After all, many things were "acceptable" in previous years that we wouldn't dream of allowing now.
I agree as I had similar experiences in the 70/80 but, if it is true, I read that RH put his hands under a young girls dress and french kissed a child!! That is more than the odd "accidential" touch on the bottom!! I really though the police had got it wrong regarding Rolf Harris, I have been truly shocked by the events of the last few weeks. I just can hardly believe that anyone could be so stupid and to be so deluded to think that they could behave like that for years. I thought he was a really great guy, animal hospital, singing, he was a childrens entertainer!!
Yeah I agree, I thought he was a nice bloke! But if he french kissed a child that's just wrong! I have been saddened and ashamed about the events with RH
I feel like my memories of the past have been messed up regarding RH, with what I knew, or what he showed to us, versus what has come to light as what he really did (?) I feel like I cant remember the good things he did.
I repeat an earlier observation, Has anyone seen the footage of the show she was presenting when she was alledgedly groped by Rolf ? As they were lying on a bed together I would imaging it is pretty clear.
It depends, the camera's may have been on close ups or deliberately told to avoid unsavoury shots but that would indicate the crew & gallery could see what was going on.
I read she threw to a commercial break I'm not sure how she could do that as they are at specific times in the programme.
I don't have any proof - and should have made that clearer - it is simply a gut feeling, something that occurred to me after he had been arrested but before conviction. The examples you cite were all much younger than Harris when they changed target audiences, and had not spent the best part of three decades appealing almost solely to the children's market.
You post quite frequently on the Michael Jackson threads, and if I recall correctly have suggested that MJ might have modified his sleeping arrangements had someone been strong enough to knock him into line. In my opinion - nothing more - something similar actually did happen with Harris, although there was less concern about his well-being (or wealth) and more about the effects any revelations could have on those who had employed/facilitated him. By moving him away from kid's TV, Harris got to continue with his career (under certain restrictions), there were no awkward red-top revelations, and all was blown over...
John Craven looked old to me when he stopped doing children's presenting.
Looking at old TV schedules I'd say the bulk of Rolf Harris work was family orientated rather than children, I believe he had a Saturday night entertainment show before the children's programmes.
I don't recall saying Jackson would have changed his bedroom habits. Regarding Rolf Harris's move from children's TV after 14 years he or his agent may have decided it was time to move on.
I did wonder if the change in TV work was down to his daughter Bindi discovering his affair with her best friend but that was 1997. According to this article the best friend was in a relationship with Rolf Harris from 1978 for 16 years which would be 1994.
It depends, the camera's may have been on close ups or deliberately told to avoid unsavoury shots but that would indicate the crew & gallery could see what was going on.
I read she threw to a commercial break I'm not sure how she could do that as they are at specific times in the programme.
There are ways to cut quickly to a break if something is going wrong. There have to be - if someone Is suddenly taken ill or starts swearing or fighting or any number of situations.
Does anyone else feel at times that this thread is like being in a Brecht theatre of the deaf play?
This is exactly why so many people are struggling with these convictions.
I was a teenager in the '70s and it was par for the course to be stroked, patted, groped etc. by men, young and old. It was a regular occurrence to have my bum fondled, hands "accidently" brushing my boobs. A lot of men (not all) thought it was perfectly acceptable behaviour, and most women (myself included) just put up with it.
I couldn't name or recognise 95% of the blokes who I encountered who had a quick feel. None of them were famous.
This is no way meant to excuse the behaviour, but it does put a different light on it. After all, many things were "acceptable" in previous years that we wouldn't dream of allowing now.
People wouldn't be 'struggling with these convictions' if they informed themselves about what actually happened - rather than relying on the sanitised version that some papers were reporting.
I was a teenager in the 70s too - digital penetration was never 'acceptable', as I'm sure you'll agree.
People wouldn't be 'struggling with these convictions' if they informed themselves about what actually happened - rather than relying on the sanitised version that some papers were reporting.
I was a teenager in the 70s too - digital penetration was never 'acceptable', as I'm sure you'll agree.
People wouldn't be 'struggling with these convictions' if they informed themselves about what actually happened - rather than relying on the sanitised version that some papers were reporting.
I was a teenager in the 70s too - digital penetration was never 'acceptable', as I'm sure you'll agree.
Very true. I think we've had better press coverage here in Australia.
There are ways to cut quickly to a break if something is going wrong. There have to be - if someone Is suddenly taken ill or starts swearing or fighting or any number of situations.
Does anyone else feel at times that this thread is like being in a Brecht theatre of the deaf play?
I didn't say it's not possible to go to an unscheduled break, speaking as someone who has worked on numerous live programmes, it would not be the presenter who directs when to take a break it would be the gallery.
I've worked on a live show where there was a medical emergency involving an audience member the director complained of medical staff being in shot because he was not aware of the problem. The vision mixer cut round the situation and viewers at home were blissfully unaware of the drama unfolding in the studio.
If they have several people all telling the same story who have never met then it doesn't matter how long ago it was. If they all told different stories (Even slightly) then they would not push ahead with it
Yes; but after one person sold her story to the press, others could copy what was reported from that.
This sounds like you are suggesting that the women who reported RH were liars, and that the Police and CPS were fools who believed these women that there was a case and wasted taxpayers' money prosecuting RH .... ? And that the jury were all hoodwinked into finding an old man guilty and put him in jail?
ETA: also, the case against RH was not reported in the news when he was arrested, and details were all withheld. So unless these women who 'copy' those evidence were very clever and managed to make similar accusations I think it would be hard to make a case against RH.
Finally, why would private women want to come forward to make such accusations if it's not true? Think of the stress of going to the police and lawyers and making statements after statements and appearing in court just to name some consequences.
This sounds like you are suggesting that the women who reported RH were liars, and that the Police and CPS were fools who believed these women that there was a case and wasted taxpayers' money prosecuting RH .... ? And that the jury were all hoodwinked into finding an old man guilty and put him in jail?
ETA: also, the case against RH was not reported in the news when he was arrested, and details were all withheld. So unless these women who 'copy' those evidence were very clever and managed to make similar accusations I think it would be hard to make a case against RH.
Finally, why would private women want to come forward to make such accusations if it's not true? Think of the stress of going to the police and lawyers and making statements after statements and appearing in court just to name some consequences.
A good question to which I do not know the answer. However, at Dave Lee Travis's trial, and Stuart Hall's second trial, it was decided by juries to find the accused not guilty of many allegations; in fact, at the former trial, proof was provided that the accused was not at a certain place.
.
I repeat an earlier observation, Has anyone seen the footage of the show she was presenting when she was alledgedly groped by Rolf ? As they were lying on a bed together I would imaging it is pretty clear.
I was wondering this myself. They were lying full length on a double bed during the interview in full view of an audience and a tv camera, so how on earth did he manage to do it? Like you, I would like to see the footage.
Comments
My mistake, sorry
If Rolf was innocent (apart from what he admitted to) surely he would be demanding a retrial and protesting his innocence? Why was he shown smiling when he was sentenced?
His wife was very frail I thought, maybe he didnt want to put her through that?
I simply cannot believe someone as famous as Rolf was at that time would allow his reputation to be tarnished. He did a version of Tie me Kangaroo Down with The Beatles, at the time he was probably more famous than them!
Why is it easier to believe all these women are lying and that Rolf is innocent? When he was the one caught out lying about doing a celebrity sports show in Cambridge in 1978.
The police went to VF in 2012 ( or there abouts) after someone told them what had happened. its on this thread somewhere.
People would rather believe he's a paedophile than that he groped adult women on a regular basis, for some reason.
It seems that all the older people in Australian and NZ media who said "oh well of course it's Rolf Harris" when stories of police interviewing an elderly entertainer, then unnamed, started circulating were just making it up to impress their officemates. None of them were going to court, Rolf had not been named or arrested, and they all had a story of a colleague or two who had experienced Rolf personally or who had been warned about him. I suppose it's just coincidence.
It's not an unreasonable belief, since he was found guilty of sexually assaulting an 8 year old girl...
This is exactly why so many people are struggling with these convictions.
I was a teenager in the '70s and it was par for the course to be stroked, patted, groped etc. by men, young and old. It was a regular occurrence to have my bum fondled, hands "accidently" brushing my boobs. A lot of men (not all) thought it was perfectly acceptable behaviour, and most women (myself included) just put up with it.
I couldn't name or recognise 95% of the blokes who I encountered who had a quick feel. None of them were famous.
This is no way meant to excuse the behaviour, but it does put a different light on it. After all, many things were "acceptable" in previous years that we wouldn't dream of allowing now.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/vanessa-feltz-says-warned-rolf-3844390
She did but they didn't use it for his court case nor did they use the indecent images either.
I agree as I had similar experiences in the 70/80 but, if it is true, I read that RH put his hands under a young girls dress and french kissed a child!! That is more than the odd "accidential" touch on the bottom!! I really though the police had got it wrong regarding Rolf Harris, I have been truly shocked by the events of the last few weeks. I just can hardly believe that anyone could be so stupid and to be so deluded to think that they could behave like that for years. I thought he was a really great guy, animal hospital, singing, he was a childrens entertainer!!
I feel like my memories of the past have been messed up regarding RH, with what I knew, or what he showed to us, versus what has come to light as what he really did (?)
It depends, the camera's may have been on close ups or deliberately told to avoid unsavoury shots but that would indicate the crew & gallery could see what was going on.
I read she threw to a commercial break I'm not sure how she could do that as they are at specific times in the programme.
John Craven looked old to me when he stopped doing children's presenting.
Looking at old TV schedules I'd say the bulk of Rolf Harris work was family orientated rather than children, I believe he had a Saturday night entertainment show before the children's programmes.
I don't recall saying Jackson would have changed his bedroom habits. Regarding Rolf Harris's move from children's TV after 14 years he or his agent may have decided it was time to move on.
I did wonder if the change in TV work was down to his daughter Bindi discovering his affair with her best friend but that was 1997. According to this article the best friend was in a relationship with Rolf Harris from 1978 for 16 years which would be 1994.
There are ways to cut quickly to a break if something is going wrong. There have to be - if someone Is suddenly taken ill or starts swearing or fighting or any number of situations.
Does anyone else feel at times that this thread is like being in a Brecht theatre of the deaf play?
People wouldn't be 'struggling with these convictions' if they informed themselves about what actually happened - rather than relying on the sanitised version that some papers were reporting.
I was a teenager in the 70s too - digital penetration was never 'acceptable', as I'm sure you'll agree.
http://youtu.be/U0HKhQVJ3v0
Very well said.
Very true. I think we've had better press coverage here in Australia.
I didn't say it's not possible to go to an unscheduled break, speaking as someone who has worked on numerous live programmes, it would not be the presenter who directs when to take a break it would be the gallery.
As can be seen with this clips of live TV the tendency is to plough on regardless.
I've worked on a live show where there was a medical emergency involving an audience member the director complained of medical staff being in shot because he was not aware of the problem. The vision mixer cut round the situation and viewers at home were blissfully unaware of the drama unfolding in the studio.
Do hope fate hasn't been tempted there.
This sounds like you are suggesting that the women who reported RH were liars, and that the Police and CPS were fools who believed these women that there was a case and wasted taxpayers' money prosecuting RH .... ? And that the jury were all hoodwinked into finding an old man guilty and put him in jail?
ETA: also, the case against RH was not reported in the news when he was arrested, and details were all withheld. So unless these women who 'copy' those evidence were very clever and managed to make similar accusations I think it would be hard to make a case against RH.
Finally, why would private women want to come forward to make such accusations if it's not true? Think of the stress of going to the police and lawyers and making statements after statements and appearing in court just to name some consequences.
A good question to which I do not know the answer. However, at Dave Lee Travis's trial, and Stuart Hall's second trial, it was decided by juries to find the accused not guilty of many allegations; in fact, at the former trial, proof was provided that the accused was not at a certain place.
.
I was wondering this myself. They were lying full length on a double bed during the interview in full view of an audience and a tv camera, so how on earth did he manage to do it? Like you, I would like to see the footage.