Stuart Hall...Its a lockup.

[ONeill]

That bit about his dead mother has sickening connotations now.

[seafoid]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/30/rolf-harris-kids-can-say-no-film

[Main Street]

Anyone see this Jimmy Savile interview from 1990? Very unsettling reading it now.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/it-was-a-relief-when-i-got-the-knighthoodbecause-it-gotme-off-the-hook-an-exclusive-interview-with-savile-from-1990-has-a-new-meaning-9571057.html

Some eerie psycho stuff in there alright.
I see the journalist actually didn't know that he liked little girls, but only repeated what she heard about him in the form of a question and was proud about putting that question out in print.  I'd say there was a bit more to it, not something she could hang her hat on at the time, she had inklings and something to do with his manner which made her feel disconcerted around him. His manner made her feel it appropriate to ask such a question.
She did  pick up on him equating sex with going to the toilet, a functional activity that one is compelled to do, but devoid of emotional connections.

[deiseach]

Private Eye have a recurring skit, a column from the pen of 'Dame Sylvie Krin' where they ridicule the great and the good in the style of a Mills & Boon writer. Way back in 1990 they had the hero Prince Charles - yes, you can laugh - recounting a meeting with a shell-suited, cigar-chomping 'guru'. He suggested to the guru that he may wish to meet his wife Diana. "Is that your daughter, your honour?", says the guru. No, replies Charles, it's my wife. "Oh no," says the guru, "too old, that's not Jim's thing at all." This was reproduced recently in their Eye Told You So section (they also told us that Andrew Wakefield was a hero taking on the evil medical establishment who were poisoning our kids with the MMR vaccine, but that's another story) and it shows how well known Savile's perversion was yet no one objected. The next time someone says we have lost all sense of morality, rub that in their smug face.

[Main Street]

Private Eye have a recurring skit, a column from the pen of 'Dame Sylvie Krin' where they ridicule the great and the good in the style of a Mills & Boon writer. Way back in 1990 they had the hero Prince Charles - yes, you can laugh - recounting a meeting with a shell-suited, cigar-chomping 'guru'. He suggested to the guru that he may wish to meet his wife Diana. "Is that your daughter, your honour?", says the guru. No, replies Charles, it's my wife. "Oh no," says the guru, "too old, that's not Jim's thing at all." This was reproduced recently in their Eye Told You So section (they also told us that Andrew Wakefield was a hero taking on the evil medical establishment who were poisoning our kids with the MMR vaccine, but that's another story) and it shows how well known Savile's perversion was yet no one objected. The next time someone says we have lost all sense of morality, rub that in their smug face.

There is a difference between knowing something to be true and hearing rumours.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that Savile's perversions were widely known to be true. There were widespread rumours. But as that journalist wrote, nobody followed up with a complaint against Savile.

"Of course, I didn't know that he liked little girls – all I knew was that it was a very widespread rumour that had not yet appeared in print. I thought perhaps it would stir up some responses from his victims, but it didn't as far as I know, nor any response from Savile himself."

[deiseach]

There is a difference between knowing something to be true and hearing rumours.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that Savile's perversions were widely known to be true. There were widespread rumours. But as that journalist wrote, nobody followed up with a complaint against Savile.

"Of course, I didn't know that he liked little girls – all I knew was that it was a very widespread rumour that had not yet appeared in print. I thought perhaps it would stir up some responses from his victims, but it didn't as far as I know, nor any response from Savile himself."

There's a difference, I agree. But this was a world where no one objected because they were afraid no one would believe them, and they'd have been right. In that respect, the world has moved on for the better.

[Main Street]

There is a difference between knowing something to be true and hearing rumours.
There is little or no evidence to suggest that Savile's perversions were widely known to be true. There were widespread rumours. But as that journalist wrote, nobody followed up with a complaint against Savile.

"Of course, I didn't know that he liked little girls – all I knew was that it was a very widespread rumour that had not yet appeared in print. I thought perhaps it would stir up some responses from his victims, but it didn't as far as I know, nor any response from Savile himself."

There's a difference, I agree. But this was a world where no one objected because they were afraid no one would believe them, and they'd have been right. In that respect, the world has moved on for the better.

Yes, but that goes to explain to a good extent why Savile's perversions weren't well known,
and those who did the covering up could manage to just keep enough lid on in that environment.
And probably most journalists who would have had an interest, had just heard rumours, no first hand evidence came their way.  And when it was the BBC who were managing the cover up, that lessened the odds of serious spillage.
When you think about it, that question the journalist nervously left in for Jimmy to answer certainly matched him for brazenness, in that 1990 interview and then she brazenly let it sit in the print edition for all to read.

[seafoid]

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/02/rolf-harris-pantomime-act

As director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer did peerless, unprecedented work on how sexual assault and victimhood are perceived, and how the cases are treated in court. Twenty years ago, victims weren't heeded at all. Gradually, the criminal justice system started to support victims, but with that support came, Starmer told me just before he left his post, "a number of assumptions about what real victims do. A real victim goes straight to the police; a real victim will give the police a coherent and consistent account in chronological order; a real victim would never go back to the perpetrator; a real victim wouldn't dress in a particular way, or drink or take drugs. Over time, those tests or assumptions have, I think, ended up ringfencing some of the most vulnerable victims from criminal justice protection."

It is impossible to overstate the impact Starmer had on this terrain. Without his insistence that a crime is still a crime, irrespective of when it occurred, I wonder if the police would even have launched the Yewtree investigation. It was against a backdrop of a different Crown Prosecution Service, not some nebulous atmospheric change in the culture, that Harris was prosecuted.

[ziggysego]

Rolf Harris gets 5 years and 9 months. Not long enough, far too late. He'll be out in half that time. At least he faced justice, unlike his good friend Jimmy Saville.

[seafoid]

Rolf Harris gets 5 years and 9 months. Not long enough, far too late. He'll be out in half that time. At least he faced justice, unlike his good friend Jimmy Saville.

He's 84 though and his reputation is in bits.
I feel sorry for his daughter- she was in line for a jackpot on his death but now it'll be used to pay compensation

[EC Unique]

Rolf Harris gets 5 years and 9 months. Not long enough, far too late. He'll be out in half that time. At least he faced justice, unlike his good friend Jimmy Saville.

He's 84 though and his reputation is in bits.
I feel sorry for his daughter- she was in line for a jackpot on his death but now it'll be used to pay compensation

This will break him. I would not be surprised if he died in jail. I'm sure he was smart enough to have a fair bit of his estate signed over to her years ago to avoid inheritance tax. She will be ok that way.

[ziggysego]

Rolf Harris gets 5 years and 9 months. Not long enough, far too late. He'll be out in half that time. At least he faced justice, unlike his good friend Jimmy Saville.

He's 84 though and his reputation is in bits.

I couldn't give a f**k what age he is and as for his reputation, he hasn't shown any signs of remorse, so I doubt he cares about his reputation.

[ONeill]

What's the story with the family standing by him?

[Zip Code]

What's the story with the family standing by him?

Cold hard cash i'd say - hopefully he gets a few accidental injuries in the clink, on a daily basis.

[Main Street]

What's the story with the family standing by him?

Cold hard cash i'd say - hopefully he gets a few accidental injuries in the clink, on a daily basis.

He'll be resident in the nonces wing.
Anyway, deprivation of liberty is punishment enough.