Rolf Harris

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Reported

Twice.

How rude!

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Thank you for your kind and reassuring words, Micelf & WhenIm64. Hopefully goodness will triumph.

Snap MiceElf

I hear what you say, papaoscar but I don't agree that everyday relationships with children should be scrutinised and poked at to see whether there has been any impropriety. Neither do I think that men in general are tainted because of these few sex offenders. We bring children up to be aware of risks around them, from falling off the sofa to learning at an appropriate age that they should be able to consent to or refuse anyone touching their bodies in a way that upsets them or makes them feel uncomfortable. Till they get to that age, their carers and protectors have a responsible job to do in keeping them as safe as they can without stifling them.

The default position is that children's carers are expected to, and do generally, protect them. None of us is immune from harm befalling us in some way, but we take appropriate measures. I wouldn't want to scare the life out of the children I know, nor would I place them at risk to test whether they can manage. I certainly don't want loving dads, uncles and grandads to be looked at with suspicion (unless they give rise to suspicion, of course). To think of my adult, responsible son being banned from changing the odd nappy whilst he gets in practise for his own children, or questioned with suspicion, is just not right. The moral panic that these cases bring should just remind us to try and protect all children and raise awareness about how sex offenders operate. You should be able to cuddle and care for the children in your family without worrying what anyone else thinks.

Unfortunately, some children will still be harmed - our whole society needs to look out for them to try to reduce the risks, as has been discussed over children recently in the news.

PapaOscar, I don't think, although Whenim will know the stats, that the vast majority of men behave other than appropriately. And I don't think that false accusations are common either. I think it must be horrible for all the lovely decent men out there whose interactions with women and girls are as they should be, to be anxious about caring for children - their own or others.

The professions all have codes of conduct designed to protect both adults and children, and as a loving grandfather your daughter or son will know that you are just that.

But you know, as I do, that there's a world of difference between a grandfatherly hug and the type of behaviour that has been referred to on this thread and elsewhere. All adults need to be vigilant and protective of children, it's a collective responsibility, and, although, paedophiles can look as normal as the next one, there are behaviours which arouse unease when witnessed.

I think it would be a sad day if a grandfather or teacher or nurse couldn't comfort a child or give them a friendly hug. But they will know if it's welcome and observers will know that too.

Harris and the other vile beasts found guilty of these offences against women and children have tainted the reputations of decent, ordinary men for evermore. And to think that they did it while masquerading as happy, friendly family-orientated media figures is sickening. I condemn them without mercy and hope that they suffer agonies of remorse and regret. As regards the historic nature of the charges I have to accept that our legal system, with all its imperfections, has exposed these men to judgement by their peers and found them guilty. I am content to accept that so let them suffer the harsh consequences whatever their age.

Now, for the future, let us consider what can be done to protect the vulnerable from abuse. Tougher codes of behaviour and legal penalties must obviously be introduced and properly policed. Sadly, this means that just about all male contact with females young and old is going to come under much more scrutiny, and that is going to result in false accusations. For example, I have young grandchildren and my contact with them will in future have to adjusted to eliminate any possibility of risk to either party. What can we do about that? Insist that all such contact is chaperoned of witnessed? Not really practical. Revert to single-sex schools and clubs etc? There are still risks with that. Anybody else got any bright ideas?

RH found guilty - furthermore complaints are still being investigated, "proof" of a criminal offence in this type of behaviour is oft difficult to locate - can well imagine that there are far more incidences than are being reported - that he is morally reprehensible there is no doubt.

I still cant believe it

Well having read some of the reviews from tomorrow's papers Rolf Harris looks to be rapidly 'going down the tubes'.

A couple of Australian TV presenters have now also said that they were assaulted by him.

I had really hoped this was a horrid mistake and he was innocent but there is far too much convincing evidence against him.

People are not always what they seem.

Yes NanKate I totally agree. All I can say is if your husband had already admitted two affairs and was also facing serious sexual charges, would you be walking into court grinning from ear-to-ear like a Cheshire Cat? That struck me as quite strange too.

Well I suppose it is time he started supporting his wife, from what we have heard he has been far from a reliable husband in the past.

It is sad that over the years this show of being a good family man, has just been a facade. Things are not always what they seem.

I don't think Rolf is putting it on. Apparently he is supporting his wife. In one news clip he was shown very upright, walking easily. Then, turning to his wife, he clasped her hand, supporting her, and they proceeded slowly together. His wife uses walking sticks, which she dropped and had to be aided with one day on entering court.

thanks Mishap for your reasoned message. So much better than I managed.

The jury will decide whether he is guilty of a criminal offence; that does not mean that members of the public might not also feel that some of the behaviour that has been revealed was inappropriate, even if it is decided that it is not criminal.

Personally I think that some of the actions that he has admitted to were inappropriate. That does not mean I am subjecting him to "trial by gossip", but just expressing my disappointment that a man who was a child entertainer was not as trustworthy as I might have wished.

There is indeed the problem with these retrospective trials that what was once regarded as just unfortunate is now looked at rather more seriously. But, if the victims feel that their lives have been detrimentally affected, then this must be looked at.

As women, most of us can cite instances when approaches from the opposite sex were not as we wished and indeed say that we emerged unscathed; but some did not and people in positions of power (as "celebs" are) should be expected to behave with particular discretion and honour.

That really isn't relevant. I'm neither a public figure nor a (previously) well-loved children's entertainer.

Have you never done anything "distasteful" . .