Rolf Harris arrested in "Operation Yew Tree"

I can't imagine what sort of evidence they can produce in some of these "historic" cases. I was once on a jury for a sexual abuse case and we ended up acquitting the man on one charge and being unable to reach a verdict on the other charges because there was no evidence for us to work with. And this was a case that only went back a few years. So much of it ends up as one person's word against another.

It was very different years ago. We had a lecturer at college who was well known as someone not to be left alone with or accept a lift from. It never crossed our minds to report him, we just didn't give him any opportunities. A nice man I worked with in the late 60's found attractive girls irresistible and had to be practically tied down if one came into the office. He eventually married one of them and they were very happy, he had his pretty wife and she had stability and a nice house. Nowadays he'd be up before a tribunal the first time he put his hand on a girl's shoulder.

A witch hunt is a witch hunt (and I do not mean in the supernatural sense). In both Cleveland and Orkney, whatever the validation or lack of it in each case, once the wagon started to role, the stories got out, the rumours started, innocent people had their reputations damaged or were accused of all sorts of vile behaviour whether there was evidence or not and that is exactly what is happening now.

Following the revelations about Jimmy Savile, there has been a determination to nail every celebrity past and present who has ever behaved, even slightly, inappropriately with a person of any age and sex. There have been a raft of arrests and questionings but so far few charges, some people have been cleared of any crime. But as soon as the arrest is made the internet is full of rumours of what that person may or may not be questioned about. Many people have been named and rumours spread even though they have not been arrested.

Nobody has any idea what Rolf Harris has been questioned about; it may be that groped an 18 year old at a party; he could have been involved with a child. We have absolutely no idea.

You cannot say that if someone commits one sex offence they are often serial abusers. At the serious end that may well be true, but at the moment it seems that every sexual contact however mild and non-invasive male celebrity gets classified as sexual abuse.

Oh, I've just remembered a friends husband groped me at a party sometime in the late 70s, I think I will report this act of gross sexual abuse to the police. Oh, no point he isn't a celebrity.

The Orkney and Rochdale cases have no bearing on the current investigations. They were the result of Liz MacLean, a social worker, bringing back some theories from America which were fatally flawed. The children denied abuse and there was no medical evidence to support it. In Ronaldsway, there was much hostility to 'comers-in' which may have fuelled the accusations. The children were wrenched from their homes at night, denied even a favourite toy, and subjected to repeated interrogations. Some children's replies were so alike they had obviously been coached.
I hope and believe that such an approach would not be possible today.

wisewoman and Flickety I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately, the poor prosecution results in sex offence cases is still being addressed, and the detection methods that are being successfully used in Canada and North America have gradually been introduced here. Where police and CPS believe there is sufficient evidence to take a case to trial, they have been permitted to allow reporting to include the name of the alleged adult offender, because there is much evidence that sex offences are often not 'one-offs' and ther victims are empowered to complain, too, knowing they are not alone and more likely to be believed.

It's wrong to let a guilty sex abuser go free, and wrong to persecute innocent people. They still haven't got the balance right, but there are many sex offenders who got away with it last time, that get prosecuted successfully now.

It's heart-wrenching to see likeable old men being accused of something no-one would ever believe of them. It shakes our own value systems to the core because we think we can discern between goodies and baddies. Even hardened professionals have been shown that their ability to dstinguish lies from truth, and sex offenders from non-sex offenders has been shown to be little more than chance, unless they are able to access polygraph results or previous police records. The police and CPS have the advantage of accessing intelligence, records of complaints not actioned and partial admissions. Even then, as Greatnan has mentioned, there are acquittals that make victims and police wonder why they tried to get justice.

Flicketyb I agree with everything you say. What has the world come to? While the country has so many serious problems, the newspapers are full of witch hunts, rumour and innuendo. Abuse is wrong but is it not abuse to label someone an abuser with no evidence and to plaster their names all over the press? Can't the police quietly get on with their job and once they have the evidence they need, arrest and charge the suspect. Peoples' lives are being destroyed by this, even when innocent.

It is true that few rape trials end in a conviction - I am not convinced that this means that all the accused were innocent. However, I do agree that we must abide by the law. I hope that the relentless harping on the accuser's sexual history, style of clothes, etc. is no longer permitted, especially where the accuser is a child.
I will never forget two of the daftest things said by judges (amongst many). Lord Denning said 'When a lady says 'no', she doesn't always mean 'no' Another judge said an 8-year old girl (working class, of course) was 'no angel' when she was repeatedy abused by her 17 year old cousin.

glassortwo, you are being unreasonable. The majority of people charged and acquitted after a trial are acquitted because they did not commit the crime. False accusations of sexual abuse and rape are not unknown, and the current interest in high profile abusers opens the door to blackmail, especially when the celebrity is being accused of something that happened decades ago. If one of your children's childhood friends suddenly accused you of an act of abuse 20 years ago, could you immediately prove without any doubt at all that you did not commit it?

We have no idea what Rolf Harris has been accused of, no reason to think it has anything to do with children, no idea whether it is one isolated incident or committed over a prolonged period, no idea whether it was a blackmail attempt and he called his accusers bluff. Remember charges against at least one of the many people arrested and bailed have been dropped. All we have is rumour innuendo, press and twitter information. It may be right, it may not.

I sometimes think there are elements of a witch hunt about the current crisis over child abuse. Remember the Cleveland and Orkneys sex abuse scandals?

It was reported in the 10 o'clock news tonight that there was just one complaint against RH and it was not a child. So where does that take us?

Well tell that to the people they have abused....they are innocent until proven guilty. But those people live with that abuse their whole lives. But at the end of the day they might convince a jury they are innocent .

No it does not depend on the abuse...... abuse is abuse under whatever name it may be given. If these incidents involved girls under 16, the men deserve everything they have coming to them, as under 16 they are vulnerable and as grown men they should know better. But these men have a manipulating way about them so there's are not aware what goes on under their noses.

No, even charging doesn't make a difference. The defendant is innocent until proved guilty. Jurys do find people not guilty. Others are found not guilty after many years. Remember the Guildford bombers?

I'll believe it about Rolf Harris when he's found guilty in court, until then I don't believe it.

If someone hasn't been charged with anything, why are the police giving his or her name to the press. Surely you are innocent until proved guilty. If any of the people involved in this scandal are eventually proved to be innocent (like Lord McAlpine?) the mud will still stick and they will always be associated with sex crimes. It seem very unfair to me. Once someone is charged (with evidence) it is a different story.

it is difficut Petallus ..is it worse to punch a 10 year old than a 16 year old?

Because it may be cases of 'legal' sex with a vulnerable 16 yr old who did not have the assertiveness to say no & then realises, as an older person, that it was wrong to be taken advantage of by a 'sleb'.

Petallus from what I've read, the abuse allegedly continued from the child being primary school age until just 3 years ago, over approx 8 years, and was reported to police about a year after it's said to have ceased. There's a single complainant, but his name has been released in case others come forward. This is information from an open court with a local reporter sitting in. His trial is not till September.

Petallus - no doubt the courts will make a distinction. The police and Public Prosecutor have to follow the law.

MY DD2 will be devastated! She loved RH! But it is true that some men can cultivate a persona that appears benign and avuncular just so they can access vulnerable people & take advantage.

Oh dear!

I didn't read that about M Le V.

You would expect that if someone raped a six year old child years ago he would have committed many more similar acts between now and then.

I still think there should be a distinction between different kinds of abuse though.

It's been reported previosly that the alleged victim of Michael Le Vell claims she was raped at the age of six. Her complaint coincided with him and his wife separating.

I don't think everyone who has been "investigated" is suspected of abuse of children in the same way as Jimmy Saville.

For some, I think it may be just one incident with a woman over the age of consent, possibly inappropriate behaviour and maybe this has come to light with all the police investigations. Things were very different then, and many men behaved in a way that wouldn't be tolerated now.Not meaning anything to do with children of course.

I really hope this is all it is with Rolf Harris.

I'm inclined to agree with you petallus. There have been cases of older men having a sexual relationship with a girl under 16 and then going on to marry her. It is, of course, a crime and should be treated as such because there is an inequality of power involved. But I don't think that sort of scenario is the same as a predatory abuser of young children.

As for Rolf, the last person I would have imagined!

It depends on what the abuse was as far as I'm concerned. I feel a bit sorry for the actor who plays Kevin in Coronation Street who is presently being accused of sexual assault. Seems the eight or so charges all relate to one young woman who he was in a relationship with twenty or thirty years ago.

That's got to be different to someone who is a prolific abuser of young children.

Investigating allegations of sexual abuse is nothing whatsoever like the Salem Witch Trials. Nobody would suggest that the police did not pursue a murderer because the crime happened a long time ago. The victims want justice and closure.
I don't care how kind Savile appeared to be - many abusers present a kind and loving face to the world, it is the way they get access to the vulnerable victims.

If he is charged with abuse, I truly will give up on the human race!!