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.
The chances of the footage being publicly available at this point are pretty close to nil.
It's been seen by police, prosecutors, defence council and a judge etc - none of whom seem able to doubt its authenticity why do we Jo Public need to see it?
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.
.
A fair enough observation if one is inclined to believe the innocence of another man where he was found not guilty.
But to then dispute the result of a case against another totally different man, the subject here, who has been found guilty is rather ingenuous.
In the Sunday Express Vanessa claims that shes been blasted by trolls and taunts over her claims. Although she never emails or has a blackberry and looks at sites probably like this. Possibly she wanted to go public too help others, possible she should have not spoken out.
In the Sunday Express Vanessa claims that shes been blasted by trolls and taunts over her claims. Although she never emails or has a blackberry and looks at sites probably like this. Possibly she wanted to go public too help others, possible she should have not spoken out.
Why on earth shouldn't she have spoken out?
And she'll have people that look at social media on her behalf. I've no doubt she wanted to help others and add her voice - you really think that she'd bother saying she'd been groped for "publicity"? Really? You honestly think she'd be thinking "ooh, that's a good PR move, really need that right now". What on earth do you think she possibly gains from it? There's absolutely nothing in that This Morning interview that makes me doubt her or her motives. Whereas a man with what was clearly a reputation and long history of groping (including "digitally penetrating" ) women and little girls...hmmm. Seems to me that, like the NZ DJ who also spoke out, VF is just adding her experiences to the body of evidence.
Honestly. Think some of you need to have a word with yourselves.
And she'll have people that look at social media on her behalf. I've no doubt she wanted to help others and add her voice - you really think that she'd bother saying she'd been groped for "publicity"? Really? You honestly think she'd be thinking "ooh, that's a good PR move, really need that right now". What on earth do you think she possibly gains from it? There's absolutely nothing in that This Morning interview that makes me doubt her or her motives. Whereas a man with what was clearly a reputation and long history of groping (including "digitally penetrating" ) women and little girls...hmmm. Seems to me that, like the NZ DJ who also spoke out, VF is just adding her experiences to the body of evidence.
Honestly. Think some of you need to have a word with yourselves.
I think some people (occy definitely not included, although I very much believe that she should have spoken out) decide the presumed integrity of alleged victims depending upon whether or not they like them as a person. Similarly with alleged perpetrators.
Vanessa's not stupid. She knows the media. She probably expected a backlash. Why put herself through it?
I think the backlash against Vanessa Feltz since she spoke out about Harris has been appalling and sickening. I have never really liked her but that's not the point...some people really need to take a look at themselves when it comes to victim blaming and how they are apparently automatically suspcious of people who come forward about sexual abuse.
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!!
He did more than that. The Judge's Sentencing Remarks show that he spat on his fingers and inserted them into the girl's vagina. This is consistent across several of the counts. He also performed oral sex with his tongue on a couple of them.
This isn't low level inappropriate groping or fondling - this is effectively rape.
It's been seen by police, prosecutors, defence council and a judge etc - none of whom seem able to doubt its authenticity why do we Jo Public need to see it?
I have seen posts suggesting that she should make the tape available to the public to shut the trolls and abusers up. So, not content with the victim experiencing the distress of sexual assault, having to verbally recount it for the police, the victim is now expected to allow everyone in the world (who wishes to) to observe the experience and analyse it in great detail? Otherwise, she will not be believed and should expect verbal abuse.
Because the word of a woman not previously convicted of any crimes is not enough against the word of a man currently serving a sentence for sexual assault? For the public, I mean, obviously the police need to ensure they investigate the truth.
Re the Vanessa live "grope". What surprises me is that as the programme was broadcast live and presumebly watched by a few million people, why was the incident not picked up straight away ? I don't think anyone is calling her a liar, it's just amazing that if what she claims happened, happended on live TV why was it never mentioined in the press. I would have thought at least one viewer would have written in about it.
Re the Vanessa live "grope". What surprises me is that as the programme was broadcast live and presumebly watched by a few million people, why was the incident not picked up straight away ? I don't think anyone is calling her a liar, it's just amazing that if what she claims happened, happended on live TV why was it never mentioined in the press. I would have thought at least one viewer would have written in about it.
Because it could depend on how the camera shots were focused. I'm no expert in this kind of thing but if the event was shot largely from the mid-section upwards and there was little panning out, viewers are likely to have seen nothing and Feltz has already declared that, at the time, she was live on air, trying to be professional and didn't feel able to say anything there and then a) because she was probably shaken up by what was happening and b) didn't want to make a fuss during a live broadcast. IIRC, she said somewhere that she asked him what the eff he was playing at when they cut to the break and he kind of laughed it off.
ETA: For those who still don't believe this happened, none seem to have been able to answer the question about why Feltz would make something like this up, when she knowingly has far more to lose than gain? Instead, many default to answer "Well then she should have spoken out sooner!". We are all very good at 'shoulds' and 'oughts' when we're not the ones in the middle of a situation. AFAIK, she did eventually report it and anyone who knows anything about sexual assault has a grasp of why victims often keep quiet for years. It's been gone over time and time again on DS, through Savile and umpteen incidents and still some people don't get it. Vanessa isn't crying rape or anything remotely similar. She's just adding her voice, as someone said, to the body of evidence that points to Rolf Harris being a sex offender.
Re the Vanessa live "grope". What surprises me is that as the programme was broadcast live and presumebly watched by a few million people, why was the incident not picked up straight away ? I don't think anyone is calling her a liar, it's just amazing that if what she claims happened, happended on live TV why was it never mentioined in the press. I would have thought at least one viewer would have written in about it.
Maybe because the idea that Rolf Harris would do something so sleazy and risky was just so completely unthinkable? Even if people watching saw something - a moment of discomfort/alarm/shock on Vanessa's face maybe - the last thing in the world they'd have considered is that she'd just been indecently assaulted by Harris. Even Vanessa herself sounded like she was barely able to comprehend what had just happened to her, live on tv, at the hands of someone she thought of as an avuncular, sweet-natured, family-friendly entertainer. Knowing what we know now about him, he was plainly an opportunist and took risks all the time, so it sounds exactly like the sort of stunt he'd pull, knowing that his 'national treasure' status would protect him. And it did.
I'm finding it really disturbing that people doubt her. To dislike someone to the degree that you'd (general 'you' ie. some people) look for reasons to doubt her and accuse her of lying/attention seeking, rather than just accept that a convicted abuser assaulted her is really pitiful.
All I'm saying is people like Vanessa who is in the public domain have a free rein too speak out. Know doubt she had a bad experience and feel sorry for her traunma. Let's see those women who are not high up the profile ladder speaking out.
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.
.
So what? The result of a case against one man has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on different allegations made against a different man.
All I'm saying is people like Vanessa who is in the public domain have a free rein too speak out. Know doubt she had a bad experience and feel sorry for her traunma. Let's see those women who are not high up the profile ladder speaking out.
They did. In court. They have the right to anonymity and should not have to waive it just to satisfy random internet trolls. They undoubtedly don't wish to face the inevitable torrent of misogynistic, threatening, foul-mouthed abuse they would receive should they "go public". They have a right to privacy. So does Vanessa Feltz but if she felt that making her accusation public might help, then she's free to do that. People are also free to question it but not to respond with a lot of abuse.
I'm not saying you've behaved this way, you haven't, but there are plenty who have, and that is likely why the non-famous women involved wish to remain anonymous.
All I'm saying is people like Vanessa who is in the public domain have a free rein too speak out. Know doubt she had a bad experience and feel sorry for her traunma. Let's see those women who are not high up the profile ladder speaking out.
People in the public eye clearly do not have free reign to speak out, because most of them will be terrified of receiving a similar response to her. The trolls who have abused Vanessa have not only made her life difficult but made it more scary for other people both famous and non-famous to speak out.
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.
Re the Vanessa live "grope". What surprises me is that as the programme was broadcast live and presumebly watched by a few million people, why was the incident not picked up straight away ? I don't think anyone is calling her a liar, it's just amazing that if what she claims happened, happended on live TV why was it never mentioined in the press. I would have thought at least one viewer would have written in about it.
What annoyed me in that interview is she didn't actually say how she explained cutting to that advert break to her controller after the show in post production meetings when questions must have been asked.
A crucial peice of information which I think was glossed over. Phil and Holly really should have pressed her for that one in the interview as soon as she waffled away from the point. Covering up for some retrospectively red faces perhaps? I think so.
What annoyed me in that interview is she didn't actually say how she explained cutting to that advert break to her controller after the show in post production meetings when questions must have been asked.
A crucial peice of information which I think was glossed over. Phil and Holly really should have pressed her for that one in the interview as soon as she waffled away from the point. Covering up for some retrospectively red faces perhaps? I think so.
It would have taken the production team by surprise, they would have been going 'what the heck's she doing'. The question would have been raised there and then.
She said in the interview that everyone knew why she cut to an ad break. She just had reasons not to make a fuss, which at the time she thought were valid, not knowing that he had done worse to other people, including children. I also believe her.
I wonder if anyone is raiding their old vhs tapes to see if they may have it?
It does just sound like vanessa saw it as grosse but not worth complaining officially about..and perhaps the crew thought it was a joke but understood why she wanted to go for a break?..although the gallery are in a different area
What annoyed me in that interview is she didn't actually say how she explained cutting to that advert break to her controller after the show in post production meetings when questions must have been asked.
A crucial peice of information which I think was glossed over. Phil and Holly really should have pressed her for that one in the interview as soon as she waffled away from the point. Covering up for some retrospectively red faces perhaps? I think so.
She's on ITVs Mr and Mrs with her partner. Mentioned tweets and she does tweet
This is why l don't believe she doesn't look at websites and social media sites etc. Not that l don't believe what she says about Harris.
I listen to Vanessa's radio show and she has frequently stated she doesn't do computers or the internet. If you check out her Twitter account it is run and updated by her team.
Comments
The chances of the footage being publicly available at this point are pretty close to nil.
A fair enough observation if one is inclined to believe the innocence of another man where he was found not guilty.
But to then dispute the result of a case against another totally different man, the subject here, who has been found guilty is rather ingenuous.
Why on earth shouldn't she have spoken out?
And she'll have people that look at social media on her behalf. I've no doubt she wanted to help others and add her voice - you really think that she'd bother saying she'd been groped for "publicity"? Really? You honestly think she'd be thinking "ooh, that's a good PR move, really need that right now". What on earth do you think she possibly gains from it? There's absolutely nothing in that This Morning interview that makes me doubt her or her motives. Whereas a man with what was clearly a reputation and long history of groping (including "digitally penetrating" ) women and little girls...hmmm. Seems to me that, like the NZ DJ who also spoke out, VF is just adding her experiences to the body of evidence.
Honestly. Think some of you need to have a word with yourselves.
I think some people (occy definitely not included, although I very much believe that she should have spoken out) decide the presumed integrity of alleged victims depending upon whether or not they like them as a person. Similarly with alleged perpetrators.
Vanessa's not stupid. She knows the media. She probably expected a backlash. Why put herself through it?
He did more than that. The Judge's Sentencing Remarks show that he spat on his fingers and inserted them into the girl's vagina. This is consistent across several of the counts. He also performed oral sex with his tongue on a couple of them.
This isn't low level inappropriate groping or fondling - this is effectively rape.
I have seen posts suggesting that she should make the tape available to the public to shut the trolls and abusers up. So, not content with the victim experiencing the distress of sexual assault, having to verbally recount it for the police, the victim is now expected to allow everyone in the world (who wishes to) to observe the experience and analyse it in great detail? Otherwise, she will not be believed and should expect verbal abuse.
Because the word of a woman not previously convicted of any crimes is not enough against the word of a man currently serving a sentence for sexual assault? For the public, I mean, obviously the police need to ensure they investigate the truth.
Because it could depend on how the camera shots were focused. I'm no expert in this kind of thing but if the event was shot largely from the mid-section upwards and there was little panning out, viewers are likely to have seen nothing and Feltz has already declared that, at the time, she was live on air, trying to be professional and didn't feel able to say anything there and then a) because she was probably shaken up by what was happening and b) didn't want to make a fuss during a live broadcast. IIRC, she said somewhere that she asked him what the eff he was playing at when they cut to the break and he kind of laughed it off.
ETA: For those who still don't believe this happened, none seem to have been able to answer the question about why Feltz would make something like this up, when she knowingly has far more to lose than gain? Instead, many default to answer "Well then she should have spoken out sooner!". We are all very good at 'shoulds' and 'oughts' when we're not the ones in the middle of a situation. AFAIK, she did eventually report it and anyone who knows anything about sexual assault has a grasp of why victims often keep quiet for years. It's been gone over time and time again on DS, through Savile and umpteen incidents and still some people don't get it. Vanessa isn't crying rape or anything remotely similar. She's just adding her voice, as someone said, to the body of evidence that points to Rolf Harris being a sex offender.
Maybe because the idea that Rolf Harris would do something so sleazy and risky was just so completely unthinkable? Even if people watching saw something - a moment of discomfort/alarm/shock on Vanessa's face maybe - the last thing in the world they'd have considered is that she'd just been indecently assaulted by Harris. Even Vanessa herself sounded like she was barely able to comprehend what had just happened to her, live on tv, at the hands of someone she thought of as an avuncular, sweet-natured, family-friendly entertainer. Knowing what we know now about him, he was plainly an opportunist and took risks all the time, so it sounds exactly like the sort of stunt he'd pull, knowing that his 'national treasure' status would protect him. And it did.
I'm finding it really disturbing that people doubt her. To dislike someone to the degree that you'd (general 'you' ie. some people) look for reasons to doubt her and accuse her of lying/attention seeking, rather than just accept that a convicted abuser assaulted her is really pitiful.
So what? The result of a case against one man has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on different allegations made against a different man.
They did. In court. They have the right to anonymity and should not have to waive it just to satisfy random internet trolls. They undoubtedly don't wish to face the inevitable torrent of misogynistic, threatening, foul-mouthed abuse they would receive should they "go public". They have a right to privacy. So does Vanessa Feltz but if she felt that making her accusation public might help, then she's free to do that. People are also free to question it but not to respond with a lot of abuse.
I'm not saying you've behaved this way, you haven't, but there are plenty who have, and that is likely why the non-famous women involved wish to remain anonymous.
People in the public eye clearly do not have free reign to speak out, because most of them will be terrified of receiving a similar response to her. The trolls who have abused Vanessa have not only made her life difficult but made it more scary for other people both famous and non-famous to speak out.
You all need to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0HKhQVJ3v0&feature=youtu.be she is clearly telling the truth and you can hear the emotion in her voice.
What annoyed me in that interview is she didn't actually say how she explained cutting to that advert break to her controller after the show in post production meetings when questions must have been asked.
A crucial peice of information which I think was glossed over. Phil and Holly really should have pressed her for that one in the interview as soon as she waffled away from the point. Covering up for some retrospectively red faces perhaps? I think so.
It would have taken the production team by surprise, they would have been going 'what the heck's she doing'. The question would have been raised there and then.
It does just sound like vanessa saw it as grosse but not worth complaining officially about..and perhaps the crew thought it was a joke but understood why she wanted to go for a break?..although the gallery are in a different area
You know she's not actually on trial, don't you?
This is why l don't believe she doesn't look at websites and social media sites etc. Not that l don't believe what she says about Harris.
I listen to Vanessa's radio show and she has frequently stated she doesn't do computers or the internet. If you check out her Twitter account it is run and updated by her team.