Rolf Harris

A slight side line to this, there is a guy I have now met several times on different holidays. He is very open and funny, and usually gives "old friends" a hug when we meet on arrival or are going home.
It really is just that, a friendly bear hug style and the body language there seems clearly to be that. The sort that goes on with my old work colleagues when we meet up.

I and most others have never encountered that as anything other than innocently friendly on his part, but another woman used the expression "He's all over women like a rash."

There is a real difference of interpretation here depending on how someone reacts. I do not find X as intimidating at all, just a warm and friendly person, a lot of this is probably in the subtleties of the body language used.

(I have met someone else in a very similar setting where a hand on the shoulder felt very different and I really wanted to move away.)

I suspect that we all vary in our ability to interpret these clues of body language, some will be better than others about getting a sense of "menace" particularly with the "usual perpetrators" (who are adults generally known to a children's family.)
It is probably something that younger or particularly vulnerable children find very difficult to assess.

It might be that some erudite person out there might be able to suggest some research on this "interpretation" business. That is (gut feelings about dodgy geezers) stuff.

problematic in the workplace the touching thing. One persons friendly is another persons creepy and someone else's harassment. In my first teaching job, in a boy's school, the head was very arm round the shoulder-y - to everyone on the staff, nobody liked it but nobody liked him either. Not sure how much of the dislike was the touching thing.
Often "creepy" or unwelcome when there is touching by someone with more power?

An ex male colleague of mine used to stand, in my opinion, too close to me, not giving me personal space when speaking to me. I would move backwards and he would step forwards. I found this creepy.

Charleygirl As a teenager I worked with a perfectly respectable man who begged me to allow him to kiss my feet!...I said, no thank you.

I feel the prosecuting counsel's cross examination of RH yesterday was good. He was unable to avoid acknowledging his admiring comments about his daughters 13 year old best friends body could be interpreted as him finding the girl sexually attractive.

I've just posted on the thread about what we learned from our father's. I was one of the lucky ones, my father never behaved towards me, or my sisters, or any of our friends in an inappropriate manner. Even if RH is telling the truth, and a sexual relationship with his daughter's friend began when she was 18, his behaviour is totally unacceptable.

I was impressed by the more probing questions that gleaned explanations about the way the family present themselves to the media. Knowing that they put their best foot forward on the way into court, but he goes home alone, speaks volumes.

There may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for him going home alone when. I believe his wife is very frail and has some major health issues. We don't know if she is being cared for somewhere. Presumably his daughter has her own home and maybe he just wants some space after the intense scrutiny he is undergoing each day. Maybe this will come out when the defence starts its case.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/m/74c047c1/2d420d21/498a6c0d/4659d7c7/3431358704/VEsE/

This may be an appropriate place to post this. It's about Gove's plans to outsource child protection.

Having an affair with an 18 year old is certainly reprehensible but not illegal.

The fact that Harris's wife and daughter turn up to court with him each morning, facing a barrage of reporters and hostility from the crowd, is something I admire.

They could so easily just stay at home.

Better shortcut.

https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/child-protection-consultation

I am disappointed that someone who seemed so wholesome may have done these things.

It irritates me (as I said before on this thread) that he arrives like an old man being helped along each day, but on the day he is describing his career they say he broke into song and was upbeat.

He either is frail or he's not. You will have to make your own minds up.

I would have expected the defence lawyer to leap up and use the 'going home alone' comment to explain those points about his wife's frailty or his daughter's residence elsewhere, but as this didn't happen I'm still thinking it speaks volumes. I've known a few spouses go to court with their husbands to make sure he goes in and deals with it.

However, it appears Rolf Harris isn't denying at the level the likes of Stuart Hall did. From what I've seen quoted from him, he would probably (if convicted) respond well, and quite quickly, to treatment. He appears to have changed over the years and those of us who have liked him in the last few years have seen a kind, caring side to his nature. It's an interesting case that highlights how unwilling we are to contemplate that nice men harm children.

Why would he need, or be eligible for 'treatment' if convicted? At 84, he's hardly likely to re-offend and it seems like a waste of money to me.

84 year olds are still capable of offending and any convicted sex offender is required to engage with treatment, Ana. At the least, they would need to show a 'treated profile' that demonstrates their risk to children has lowered. If imprisoned and on the sex offender register, the police would regularly call on him and/or bring him in for regular checks about his behaviour, and any computer equipment would be checked for abusive images.

The cases brought against him go back 30 or 40 years. One would expect, if he had been continually offending, that other more recent ones would have emerged.

I am uneasy about the lapse of time between offence and prosecution and the fact that the victims stand to make quite a bit of money if the defendant is found guilty. One woman who was abused by Clifford sold her story to a newspaper for £30,000.

If prosecutions weren't brought against sex offenders, many of whom will still be sexually attracted to children decades later, how would we protect children whose company they are in, now? 80 and 90 year old sex offenders still touch children inappropriately, still access abusive images of children, still trundle down to the precinct in wheelchairs and try to proposition children, still invite them into their houses to help with a little job, or get them to run an errand as a ruse to get them alone. Probation hostels that take sex offenders have to provide disabled access and space for elderly and frail sex offenders coming out of prison who despite treatment, are still a risk to children.

He would n't need treatment! He was a chanced, not the kind of paedophile who couldn't help himself. Probably not even a paedophile at all in the true sense of the word.

How do you know that, Jingle? He won't be assessed unless he is convicted of a sex offence, and then it would be determined whether he was the sort of sex offender who has a preference that includes children (paedophile-type) or the sort that elevates children to the status of adult and kids themselves it's a grown-up who can give informed consent to their sexual advances. Either way, if convicted, a history of committing sex offences against children says it can't be assumed that passage of time alone will stop that behaviour. Professionals working in child protection realised that long ago when children were being abused by elderly sex offenders and safeguards had to be put in.

You're probably right. I never could stand the man. Creepy. Eugh!

'Paedophile in the true sense of the word' - odd statement jingle could you perhaps elaborate.

I am waiting until the court case is over before submitting further comment.

As we are not sitting in the court hearing all the evidence and cross examinations we can only go by what is being reported in the news. I'm a firm believer in innocent until proven guilty and although I never liked RH I will wait until the verdict of the jury is known before expressing my own opinion as to his guilt or innocence.

Not a lot of point in expressing an opinion after the jury's verdict, unless it's to agree with them

Why not merlot I may disagree with the verdict. Any opinion I, or anyone, expresses either now or later will not make one iota of difference will it.

Willingly dorsetpent. I think of a true paedophile as a person who craves sex with children of all ages all or most of the time. In such a way that they cannot resist their urge. That kind definitely need treatment. Is Rolfe Harris that kind? Who knows. But I doubt it. He probably thinks any girl from adolescence onwards is fair game.