Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21972689
any guesses on this one
any guesses on this one
Show More
ah yeah i fkd up there 
though didn't actually have much idea who it could be when i posted originally as not really followed this too closely
though didn't actually have much idea who it could be when i posted originally as not really followed this too closely
He wil be 83 tomorrow. See if they refer to an 83 year old in any reports tomorrow then we know for sure.
Tom Savage, editor of The Daily Star newspaper, has tweeted that the man in custody is Rolf Harris.
Wy has tom savage done that? Presumed it was classified info?
Russel brand named two people in his show last night, does anyone know who they were?
An 82-year-old man from Berkshire has been arrested on suspicion of sexual offences as part of the Jimmy Saville sex abuse investigation, the Metropolitan Police said. Guido understands that it is Rolf Harris.
He was – as Guido reported at the time – interviewed by the police under caution in January. There was no legal reason to not report this news – the papers chose not to for their own reasons
.
http://order-order.com/2013/03/29/rolf-harris-arrested-under-operation-yewtree/
He was – as Guido reported at the time – interviewed by the police under caution in January. There was no legal reason to not report this news – the papers chose not to for their own reasons
.
http://order-order.com/2013/03/29/rolf-harris-arrested-under-operation-yewtree/
Really. So why wasnt he named when glitter, max clifford, dlt etc were all named?
who knows,
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7725624.stm
.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7725624.stm
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z0rlYSJQkyw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z0rlYSJQkyw
I guess of all those questioned/arrested, he's by far the one most loved by the public. If the accusations turn out to be false (and I suspect they will), I guess the papers won't want to have been seen to persecute a popular, elderly man...I guess. It does seem odd though, and rather unfair on those who have been named.
So why wasnt he named when glitter, max clifford, dlt etc were all named?
because the others are all coonts
because the others are all coonts
Think how violated all those animals he touched might feel if he's guilty.Brings a whole new meaning to the Harmsworth Hospital.
Clungehungry and Kenny Mann.It would be strange if the accusations were not true. However, the problem lies in PROVING them. As with most of these cases (if not ALL!) it will probably come down to one person's word against another. It would be very refreshing if just one of these accused 'celebs' could find the courage to admit the charges. They have caused years of anguish and God-knows-what other mental stress to these kids/youngsters/women for years. Now they want to drag them through court and attempt to prove, by any means their defending counsel sees fit, that their accusers are all liars or fantasists or simply women driven by vindictiveness or greed.
These are the girls and boys/women/fans who adored you. Treat them with the consideration that they deserve.
Just for once will one of them do the 'honouable thing'. I'd have far more respect for them.
These are the girls and boys/women/fans who adored you. Treat them with the consideration that they deserve.
Just for once will one of them do the 'honouable thing'. I'd have far more respect for them.
Perhaps their accusers are "liars and fantasists etc.etc.etc " .
Dave Fishwick. Do you really think they are all innocent and all of their accusers are wrong? This is possible, of course, but highly improbable.
Artie. Quite possible, but nowhere near as likely as the 'perhaps it is the accused who is lying' scenario.
Artie. Quite possible, but nowhere near as likely as the 'perhaps it is the accused who is lying' scenario.
An "80 odd year old from Berks" has been reported to have been a) nicked before Christmas as part of the Savile investigation, b) to have been in The Priory because of it and c) now nicked again.
There might be a lot of 80+ year olds being involved in this from the same county but even if there were and they are not all the same person, how come this person/persons consistently gets his name removed from any reports, yet others are splashed all over the news as soon as they are nicked/questioned?
Double standards?
There might be a lot of 80+ year olds being involved in this from the same county but even if there were and they are not all the same person, how come this person/persons consistently gets his name removed from any reports, yet others are splashed all over the news as soon as they are nicked/questioned?
Double standards?
yes of course, what other possibly reason is there? maybe the ones named are more "common" or working class. Rolf had a program with the queen I think
when are cops coming to arrest me , i had sex with my 15 year old girl friend when i was 17, 40 years ago, this is getting pathetic now
Perhaps the press don't know who has been arrested. Why should they? The police are engaged in seeking evidence regarding certain claims (probably). They are not there to instigate a media feeding frenzy.
All will come to light in good time. Perhaps the claims will lead to a court case. Perhaps they will lead nowhere.
All will come to light in good time. Perhaps the claims will lead to a court case. Perhaps they will lead nowhere.
Elisjohn. Nice of you to feel concerned for what may be young victims of assault.
thing is nearly all of us have skeletons in the cupboard if were honest, those that havent are liars.
How many people were involved in the alleged Harris crimes?
These are life-destroying things to say about somebody.
I'm going to do a Bon Vivvy and not accept them until sufficient evidence is provided
These are life-destroying things to say about somebody.
I'm going to do a Bon Vivvy and not accept them until sufficient evidence is provided
Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport has a totally different meaning now 
Naydam, I think it would be far stranger if they were all true. Dozens of victims saying nothing for decades and then coming forwards as one off the back of an unrelated documentary. I suspect the true picture is mixed - some genuine victims, some exaggerations, some attention-seeking and some, well, a lot, money-seeking. It's tragic the the police and press have set the bar of proof so low that the genuine victims will forever be lumped with the others.
What were they supposed to say? To whom could they say it? Many of them (my estimate)have complained to the police but simply been fobbed off for one reason or another. Many were not reported because of fear that they would not be believed, it would cause family trouble or a fear of having to appear before a court to air their most intimate details. The defence lawyers will resort to any means necessary to discredit the word of the accuser.
Why do you find it surprising that a woman, who has harboured this pent-up impotence, should not think in later life, when she is more self-assured and less timorous, that she had been wronged and the predator is NOT going to get away scot-free and NOW is the time for reckoning. The police are finally taking this seriously.
The police have not 'lowered the bar'. Women can't just roll up at a police station and say "Mr X fondled me when I was twelve. Please arrest him." The police would have to take statements as evidence and hand these to the CPS, who would decide if the evidence was strong enough to bring a charge. This decision would not be taken lightly.
Of course, most cases will be difficult to prove because of lack of forensic evidence, and if it came down to one person's word against another it would be unlikely to end in a guilty verdict. Things might be a bit different, though, when there are twenty individual accusers.
Another reason they may be coming forward now would be that they thought that now, at last, their case would be heard. If they have been molested they have the right to point the finger of accusation firmly at their attacker, regardless of whether people will feel sorry for him, or not! He (whoever he may be) has had several years to repent the trauma caused by his acts and has chosen not to bother!
Why do you find it surprising that a woman, who has harboured this pent-up impotence, should not think in later life, when she is more self-assured and less timorous, that she had been wronged and the predator is NOT going to get away scot-free and NOW is the time for reckoning. The police are finally taking this seriously.
The police have not 'lowered the bar'. Women can't just roll up at a police station and say "Mr X fondled me when I was twelve. Please arrest him." The police would have to take statements as evidence and hand these to the CPS, who would decide if the evidence was strong enough to bring a charge. This decision would not be taken lightly.
Of course, most cases will be difficult to prove because of lack of forensic evidence, and if it came down to one person's word against another it would be unlikely to end in a guilty verdict. Things might be a bit different, though, when there are twenty individual accusers.
Another reason they may be coming forward now would be that they thought that now, at last, their case would be heard. If they have been molested they have the right to point the finger of accusation firmly at their attacker, regardless of whether people will feel sorry for him, or not! He (whoever he may be) has had several years to repent the trauma caused by his acts and has chosen not to bother!
They could have gone to the police and said Mr X assaulted me, like countless other women did over the decades, including many who claimed to have been assaulted by celebrities. They didn't. The law hasn't changed, and yet hundreds of accusations have been made in a matter of weeks. The police take this seriously now, they took it seriously last year, they took it seriously twenty years ago. What's changed is that a lot of people have realised that the police and press feel so guilty they'll believe any accusation, and there's money to be made.
Clungehungry 29 Mar 13 21:49
What ?!!
Several well known broadcasters are now on record as saying that they knew Saville was offending but he was such a star, they were juniors so who'd believe them.
If they didn't think they'd be listened to, how could a child ?
There was clearly a culture of powerful people doing what they wanted.
Do you not understand how hard it must be for a victim of abuse to:
Admit it to themselves.
Get the courage to tell anybody.
Get the courage to tell anybody in authority.
Talk about what happened.
That's just the start.
You may as well argue that abuse doesn't happen.
What ?!!
Several well known broadcasters are now on record as saying that they knew Saville was offending but he was such a star, they were juniors so who'd believe them.
If they didn't think they'd be listened to, how could a child ?
There was clearly a culture of powerful people doing what they wanted.
Do you not understand how hard it must be for a victim of abuse to:
Admit it to themselves.
Get the courage to tell anybody.
Get the courage to tell anybody in authority.
Talk about what happened.
That's just the start.
You may as well argue that abuse doesn't happen.
do you know how hard it is to be a nurse and whistle blow on a doctor
your career is over
what the fk is new about the above and the nurse eh??
POWER AND WHO HOLDS IT
your career is over
what the fk is new about the above and the nurse eh??
POWER AND WHO HOLDS IT
That's nonsense. Of course it's hard to come forward, everyone knows that. And yet many, many people did, over the decades, and had the police believe them, even when they were lying. These people coming forward now could have expected a sympathetic hearing 10 or 20 years ago. The law hasn't changed. Policy hasn't changed. The only thing that HAS is that the police and press have publically displayed a complete lack of interest in justice, pronouncing guilt without trial.
Clungehungry 29 Mar 13 22:06
You'd be happy that there was a fair conviction/sexual offence against children - ratio, historically then.
You don't accept that these offences were covered up and perpetrators shielded and moved to one side ?
Nobody apart from Saville has been pronounced guilty ( I concede Saville has not had a trial) .
You feel comfortable though, that the vast majority of historical child sexual offenders have been duly reported and convicted through the system then ?
You'd be happy that there was a fair conviction/sexual offence against children - ratio, historically then.
You don't accept that these offences were covered up and perpetrators shielded and moved to one side ?
Nobody apart from Saville has been pronounced guilty ( I concede Saville has not had a trial) .
You feel comfortable though, that the vast majority of historical child sexual offenders have been duly reported and convicted through the system then ?
You'd be happy that there was a fair conviction/sexual offence against children - ratio, historically then.
No, I'd expect a lot of people have got away with it. As said by others, it's hard to prove.
You don't accept that these offences were covered up and perpetrators shielded and moved to one side ?
No, I don't accept that these (I assume you're talking about the current cases under investigation) ARE offences. I believe people deserve a fair trial before judgement.
Nobody apart from Saville has been pronounced guilty ( I concede Saville has not had a trial) .
Cyril Smith has.
You feel comfortable though, that the vast majority of historical child sexual offenders have been duly reported and convicted through the system then ?
No, I think the majority have got away with it.
No, I'd expect a lot of people have got away with it. As said by others, it's hard to prove.
You don't accept that these offences were covered up and perpetrators shielded and moved to one side ?
No, I don't accept that these (I assume you're talking about the current cases under investigation) ARE offences. I believe people deserve a fair trial before judgement.
Nobody apart from Saville has been pronounced guilty ( I concede Saville has not had a trial) .
Cyril Smith has.
You feel comfortable though, that the vast majority of historical child sexual offenders have been duly reported and convicted through the system then ?
No, I think the majority have got away with it.
I groomed a girl once with flowers, chocolates and a cuddly teddy bear.
Mind you, she was 18 and I was 33.
Mind you, she was 18 and I was 33.
I would like to throw the cat amongst the pigeons!
In the case of Savile, I think the number of unique accusers can be taken as evidence enough to be well beyond 'reasonable doubt'. I he was still alive, do we think he would have pleaded anything other than 'not guilty'.
These people have NOT been judged. If you are referring to the media disclosures, then your argument is with them! It should not take away the victim's right to report the offence. What happens later is none of their doing!
I find it quite disturbing that some on here constantly try claim that these women, as they are now, are making these claims for a financial return of some sort.
It is little wonder that many victims STILL find it impossible to bring themselves to report cases of historic abuse.
In the case of Savile, I think the number of unique accusers can be taken as evidence enough to be well beyond 'reasonable doubt'. I he was still alive, do we think he would have pleaded anything other than 'not guilty'.
These people have NOT been judged. If you are referring to the media disclosures, then your argument is with them! It should not take away the victim's right to report the offence. What happens later is none of their doing!
I find it quite disturbing that some on here constantly try claim that these women, as they are now, are making these claims for a financial return of some sort.
It is little wonder that many victims STILL find it impossible to bring themselves to report cases of historic abuse.
Would not their financial claims be evidence of their financial claims?
anyone who thinks money is not an issue in many of these claims is living in CCL.
in 40 years time will the beckhams, the young pop stars, the clooneys be in court, they are now hero worshipped by the young and im certain theyve been innocently given a kiss etca hug maybe by these stars, will in years to come when these stars are old will they be the ones accused of indecent assult etc.
Its interesting that all papers and tv have not gone with the story. Amazing how organised they are when they want to suppress something
Why did the police have to say "82 year old". In fact why did they have to say anything.
Why not arrest him, bail him, then say nothing publicly until, or if, the CPS decides to proceed with a court case.
Why not arrest him, bail him, then say nothing publicly until, or if, the CPS decides to proceed with a court case.
Brendan it's been in every newspaper and tv news channel I've seen, they're certainly not suppressing it. What they've not done is reveal his name, my guess as to why is below, but it is rather odd.
I think the whole affair may be very closely related to Leveson indeed.
Stuart Hall was arrested and named in December a month before being charged. Freddie Starr and Max Clifford still not charged with anything. Same with hairy cornflake.
Leveson was published last November. This is just media, en mass, excusing someone of bad publicity, because??
Leveson was published last November. This is just media, en mass, excusing someone of bad publicity, because??
I saw someone say he threatened litigation, but given that Clifford's been named that's hard to believe. There could be a super injunction in place? Or possibly they're just aware that, unlike the others (forgive me DLT), he's very much liked and trusted. I agree it's odd though.
Its similar to the whole omerta with the original Jimmy Saville accusations, imo, which makes it doubly odd
after hiding it all for 30 or 40 years police now seen to be doing something by racing around in circles and operating fishing expeditions -catching all and sundry who groped ladys' bottoms at partys in the 60s - beware any of you 70 to 90 year olds out there - we are after you!!!
Clungehungry
30 Mar 13 10:39
Brendan it's been in every newspaper and tv news channel I've seen, they're certainly not suppressing it. What they've not done is reveal his name, my guess as to why is below, but it is rather odd.
It's not below, it's above ffs.
30 Mar 13 10:39
Brendan it's been in every newspaper and tv news channel I've seen, they're certainly not suppressing it. What they've not done is reveal his name, my guess as to why is below, but it is rather odd.
It's not below, it's above ffs.
agree moisok , christ just watch the benny hill hour, its a disgrace what theyre doing to these people now
SqueezeFirmly 30 Mar 13 12:12
Clungehungry
It's not below, it's above ffs.
Get a grip SF it is below
Clungehungry
It's not below, it's above ffs.
Get a grip SF it is below
I think any claims would have to be a bit more serious than a pseudo-lustful comedy sketch.
It is also a disgrace what was done to many young girls by 'these people'. The difference is that 'these people' were breaking the law. Why are you so determined to trivialise what may well be cases of assault/rape or offences against minors.
Somehow, I just don't think that all these claimants are liars. I don't believe they are all vindictive women who are out to ruin an innocent man's reputation. Perhaps, as has been mentioned, there ARE cases where the claims are FALSE and instigated solely by greed. But that would seem to be a minority, if any.
In any case, if the girl/woman HAS been a victim of a predatory molester, it could be argued that they are entitled to sue.
It is also a disgrace what was done to many young girls by 'these people'. The difference is that 'these people' were breaking the law. Why are you so determined to trivialise what may well be cases of assault/rape or offences against minors.
Somehow, I just don't think that all these claimants are liars. I don't believe they are all vindictive women who are out to ruin an innocent man's reputation. Perhaps, as has been mentioned, there ARE cases where the claims are FALSE and instigated solely by greed. But that would seem to be a minority, if any.
In any case, if the girl/woman HAS been a victim of a predatory molester, it could be argued that they are entitled to sue.
Only the court can decide guilt. Until that time they are innocent. Does the same not apply to the accusers? You are quick to condemn them as liars. Why? How do you know the seriousness of the charges?
All this media hullabaloo is not the fault of the women involved, unless you think that they go to the press first to announce that they are going to make a report to the police.
No need for the names, Kenny. I am not a fop of any kind, feminist or otherwise.
All this media hullabaloo is not the fault of the women involved, unless you think that they go to the press first to announce that they are going to make a report to the police.
No need for the names, Kenny. I am not a fop of any kind, feminist or otherwise.
this whole matter is now ridiculous....if you were youngish and virile in the 60s and 70s you screw ed ....simple as that and everyone was doing it.....and let's be honest the chicks were willing.
And still, a remarkable lack of living Politicians, Judges or Police officers being named or accused.
Hmmm, i guess historically these people's behaviour is beyond reproach.
Hmmm, i guess historically these people's behaviour is beyond reproach.
Surely no masonic brotherhood collusion?
I use to work in different banks in London in the 80s,the girls were worse than the blokes, and if grabbing someones ar5e,t1ts,and ba11s were worthy of an arrest,then about 2000 people will be nicked,and they were the ones we knew about. It was accepted back then. although Savile was in a completely different league/planet. to others, i believe.
bbc saville paedo graph :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20984284
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20984284
Savile...or this other chap? That troubles me is that everyone had indeed heard rumours about Savile, there had been several complaints, but they could apparently make nothing stick, despite it being an age when numerous other celebrities and politicians were questioned, arrested, charged, and sometimes found guilty. If guilty, what was protecting them?
The Press deciding not to name him 'because of his popularity' is curious, if thats what has happened , as keeping the lid on Savile rumours was supposedly the lesson that had been learnt from that
But the police could surely simply name him themselves and they would hardly blank his name out of the reports .
The idea of naming suspected sex offenders upon arrest is so 'other victims' will come forward knowing they are not alone .Hard to see why this applies in some cases and not others
But the police could surely simply name him themselves and they would hardly blank his name out of the reports .
The idea of naming suspected sex offenders upon arrest is so 'other victims' will come forward knowing they are not alone .Hard to see why this applies in some cases and not others
If guilty, what was protecting them?
I can't think of many examples of celebrities in the 1970s/80s being convicted of sex offences .Len Fairclough the only trial that comes to mind and the jury believed his lies.
Easy to see why they did not expect to be believed .
I can't think of many examples of celebrities in the 1970s/80s being convicted of sex offences .Len Fairclough the only trial that comes to mind and the jury believed his lies.
Easy to see why they did not expect to be believed .
A friend of the latest showbiz figure held by police probing Jimmy Savile’s sordid past has told how the arrest has left him in a “fragile state”.
The 82-year-old celebrity, who we are not naming, was quizzed for hours by Operation Yewtree officers on suspicion of sexual offences, four months after they interviewed him under caution.
The pal said: “This is destroying him. He’s in excruciating agony and at his wits’ end.
"He’s a private man and is tormented by what’s happened.
"He’s shocked and distressed and simply cannot understand why he’s been arrested.
"He’s trying to get on with his life, but finding it really, really quite impossible to think straight.
“My friend is a lovely, loyal devoted husband and father and I can’t imagine him ever doing anything to tarnish his rightfully-earned image.”
The 82-year-old celebrity, who we are not naming, was quizzed for hours by Operation Yewtree officers on suspicion of sexual offences, four months after they interviewed him under caution.
The pal said: “This is destroying him. He’s in excruciating agony and at his wits’ end.
"He’s a private man and is tormented by what’s happened.
"He’s shocked and distressed and simply cannot understand why he’s been arrested.
"He’s trying to get on with his life, but finding it really, really quite impossible to think straight.
“My friend is a lovely, loyal devoted husband and father and I can’t imagine him ever doing anything to tarnish his rightfully-earned image.”
simply cannot understand why he’s been arrested.
should of asked the coppers when he was down the station
should of asked the coppers when he was down the station
That Saville graph is a bit scary, but must be a great comfort to the victims who were given the brush off by the Met.
"Yeh, sorry about that, but hey with the information you gave us, WPC Smith, along with some of her colleagues, and helpers at the NSPCC, have been hard at work over the past 3 months, and have come up with this snazzy graph.
Look its got coloured bits and everything"
"Yeh, sorry about that, but hey with the information you gave us, WPC Smith, along with some of her colleagues, and helpers at the NSPCC, have been hard at work over the past 3 months, and have come up with this snazzy graph.
Look its got coloured bits and everything"
Imagine the s**t Benny Hill would be in if he was still alive........
My mum worked with Benny Hill in theatre land in the 1950's when he was Reg Varney's stooge.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539