Plenty more videos if you've got the stomach after that.

Oh go **** yourself, you're going back 2 years to the Red Tractor discussion. I haven't eaten meat for a long while and if I did I'd make damn sure I knew where it was from and how it was cared for, unlike people like you who couldn't give a toss.

If you watch that video and it doesn't affect your moral senses you must be made of granite.

Yes I probably was but it doesn't mean I was eating meat at the time. Jan 1st. The only NYR I've stuck with.

I felt sorry for Rolf but if he touched up Vanessa Veltz he deserves to go down

does he act and look like an innocent man to you tony

Did he do it? Did he do all of it? Did he do any of it?

Those ought to be separate questions but the media and the jury seem to have treated them as one. My own view is that Rolf is guilty and deserves to be locked up. Having said that, I am surprised he was convicted on all counts as the evidence for the first two seemed very shaky -- if they can't prove he was in the right place or get the date to within two years, then all that is left is that the allegations look similar to the ones they could prove.

As I said, I do not think there has been any great miscarriage of justice but it seems a step back to the bad old days of "noble cause corruption" when known villains would be sent down for jobs they hadn't actually done. "George Davis is innocent" never meant George Davis was in line for sainthood.

Humanely slaughtering animals for human consumption is of course important.

However, abusing human minors is more important. If you don't see that Kenny Mann then you truly are as big an imbecile as you portray yourself to be. A jumped up, pious human hating hypocrite.

ha ha, maybe later.

charwell, I have no problem when animals are slaughtered as long as it is done as humanely as possible, and they have led a good life. It's the ones in the above (and below) video and 100s of other similar videos that I'm referring to which have probably led a horrible existence and certainly met a disgusting end.

as regards being an apologist for sex abusers although I'm sure it happens it seems to me that all you need to do is prove that you were in an area during the same time as Rolf Harris, the further back in time, the better, then your case will be cut and dry. Just sit back and let the media, the law and the courts do all the crucifying on your behalf at the tax payers expense while you remain behind the scenes.
If you decide to wave your anonymity and come out front with your allegations of the horrific touching of your body by our Rolfy, claiming he  ruined the rest of your life, then you will be offered thousands of pounds by the media for your story and TV appearances as the long and suffering victim of having yourself touched by a celebrity back in 1857  Even if your story is a load of lies and total bollocks it makes no difference, as all you need to be is convincing enough.

They have to prove it I should think, and explain why they waited 40 years.

Well I doubt if all of the accusers have photographic evidence, but can prove they were in the same place as the alleged molester at the time of the assault which I did say.

And how else would the perpetrator compensate his many victims? A lot of these peoples' lives will have been screwed up by the psychological effects of his acts. They are the ones who have not, and will never, come forward. They will keep their dark, sordid secret to themselves, as they have done all of their lives.

I will agree that there may well be some sham claims put forward but these claims are checked by the police. It is not just a matter of 'stick your name on the list'. They are criminal charges and are treated as such.

that nolan woman is  a vile person

apparently rolf's art is not wanted anymore. even ebay don't want to sell it.

Rolf's portrait of the queen made her look like an axe murderer. She was not amused. In fact she called him a fooooking cnunt to his face

I was just wondering what proof they might deem as acceptable, naydam, for them to consider the accusation as upheld, so to speak.Can they just say they were in the same place in a certain year as the accused or would they need more than that? More than that would be difficult to supply I would imagine.