Rolf Harris arrested in "Operation Yew Tree"

They could make a start on the legal profession.

No!! I bet the papers would love to get their teeth into some dirt about an A list-er, or a member of the aristocracy. (who actually are they nowadays though?)

I meant that gillybob. I'm afraid I was being sarcastic.

What I think is that some people are so well/connected/high status/wealthy that they will not be investigated for sex crimes.

If someone shows they can sue and win they will probably be immune from them on (as we know).

Or is it that they just haven't been caught petallus. Sorry don't mean to make light of a very serious subject.

Intrigued Ella46

Interesting that no A list celebs or members of the aristocracy are paedophiles!

These enquiries are clearly still ongoing, they must be trawling the net for any reference to the cases. I had a couple of pms a few weeks ago from a detective who wanted to interview me, re the JS scandal, due to the mention of a person (not going to mention him again) involved in the enquiry.
So, more arrests will probably be made over time.

The most shocking, to me, were the allegations made about Uncle Mac from Children's Hour. I loved Uncle Mac! He's dead and apparently no complaints were made during his lifetime but 'it was known'. You can't slander the dead.

Yes all these "C list, has been celebrities" will be quaking in their boots now and cursing the grave of Jimmy Saville for bringing all this out in the open.

Wasnt Ken Barlow from corrie also accused?
There must be hundreds of ordinary blokes guilty of the same crimes but only celebrities are being charged. Wonder why? Do you think its anything to do with monsy? Perish the thought!!

I still cannot believe it

What happened about Jimmy Tarbuck?

not off the hook yet

Funny- that one of the ones I cant stand Tegan! I like the bio graphical ones - I can usually match the girlfriends to the song ! Emily Kane was lovely

he's doing theatre at the moment with another ex, Amy Mason, they're playing Edinburgh in August

Bang Bang Rock & Roll. I seem to remember buying it after reading an article in The Observer.

Tegan- which one?

susieb It must be very upsetting for people who think a defendant is guilty to then see them go free. It's difficult to know, though, how else someone could have a fair trial. Once the jury was aware that a defendant had previous convictions for a similar offence it would be almost impossible for them not to be influenced by that information.

The unfairness seems the other way round in rape cases. It doesn't seem just that an alleged rapist is named, whereas his alleged victim is not. But the reason given is that it gives an opportunity for other possible victims to come forward.

There are anomalies like this in law but it's difficult to see how else things could be organised.

susie; apologies for going off at a tangent, but I re played one of your sons cd's that I bought a few years back. Going back to the original topic I can't believe how many other convictions the man had who burned his house down last year.

whenim54 - i was about to say that, my sister is in the police force, and has been so frustrated about not being able to disclose previous convictions - she has seen jury members in tears when it has come out after the acquittal that the accused had a string of similar convictions, and they have just let them off.....

How frustrating Deedaa. For CPS to be pushing for a retrial, they must have believed they had good reason, but going for trial with a complainant who wasn't able to give sufficient evidence isn't going to help anyone. I have seen police officers leave court in tears after acquittals where they were certain they had gathered good evidence, knowing the sex offender had a string of previous offences and complaints that couldn't be disclosed during the trial, and that he had got away with it. Terrible for the victims of abuse..

whenim64 the thing that amazed me about the case I was involved with was that there was really no corroborating evidence at all - with one of the charges even the girl herself said she didn't know if anything had happened. Yet when we left the prosecution were pushing for a retrial. I never heard what happened in the end but I can't imagine another jury could have made much more of it than we did. If he was innocent it was an awful ordeal for the man to go through and he would have been left with no way to clear his name satisfactorily.

PRINTMISS yes, there has to be a reasonable and sensible response to what the police and employment harrassment policies call low-level sexual harrassment, and villifying a well-known person in public for something minor, simply because they are well-known, is unnecessary and inappropriate - a sledgeammer to crack a nut. The authorities have guidance for dealing with such issues, and do not usually find it is in the interest of the public to pursue such matters, but will keep information on file - this happened too many times in the Savile case.

Your daughter will know about police intelligence systems, and the amount of relevant infrmation they gather during the detection process. Police areas that disseminate information in order to gather more evdence have to show that their success rates justify this process. Gratuitous dissemination of poor grade information results in rigorous inspections and CID teams that step out of line get the book thrown at them. Senior probation officers in certain high risk teams have limited access to violent and sex offender intelligence, and they are aware of the amount of profiling and evidence that is held behind an investigation. What is seen by the public is the tip of the iceberg.

Unfortunately, it seems that many young men and boys are so inured to pornographic images of women that they once again feel empowered to harrass and abuse them. One step forward..........

Sexual Abuse is of course totally unacceptable, and the effects long standing. I just wonder however, how many of these cases which are being brought against the well known and famouse are of the really serious kind - some will be I know, and need to be accounted for, but we have to remember the word 'historical'. In the past some things were just accepted (although probably not acceptable), and we learned to live with them, as Deedaa says. A man would think nothing of putting his arm round your waist (heaven forbid now) or a hand on your shoulder whilst talking over a problem at work - possibly wandering a little, but you put a stop to that! If it happens now, and is reported, the man can be fired from their job for sexual harrassment. Not sure what sort of victory that is. We also get back to the 'claiming compensation' for anything and everything which seems to be sweeping the country. I feel genuinely sorry for anyone who has been sexually assaulted, or abused, I know the effects of assault, my daugher was assaulted in daylight, walking home through the park, and we lived with her fear for a long time - she is now a probation officer and works with sex offenders!

I really cannot believe this about Rolf- its one allegation, and not a child as I understand, he is my hero

It was no surprise with saville - it was an open secret - My DH worked in a hotel in Torquay where he molested a young chambermaid, and the BBc sent someone down to 'sort it out' so it was a lie to say they had no idea..

But Rolf ???? No way

Deedaa yes, it is difficult to prove beyond doubt that abuse has taken place historically. It often hinges on the memory of the complainant, who is able to describe intimate physical details of the alleged abuser and/or the environment in which the abuse took place, that they would otherwise have no way of knowing. Offenders deny abuse on different levels, from claiming that they weren't even on the same planet at that time, to saying that they might have touched the victim, but were too drunk to remember. Partial admissions, independent corroboration of the same behaviour from other victims, school, medical and police records of complaints not acted on, and many other sources of evidence that, on their own are insufficient, all add up during the trial, which would not stand much chance of taking place without the CPS thinking there is sufficient evidence to proceed. Then it's up to the jury to decide whether it's been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Many sex offenders eventually talk more honestly about their trials during group treatment. Not only did they lie and deny to try to escape conviction, they claimed their victim was insane, hysterical, deluded, mistaken, actually consented - anything rather than take responsibility and acknowledge that their behaviour had caused many years of distress. Vehement denial takes many forms and detectives, psychiatrists and sex offender treatment facilitators have learned how to interview sex abusers and identify the discrepancies in their accounts. If the CPS do prosecute Rolf Harris and others, there needs to be some evidence to begin with that needs close examination. Charges will be dropped if there isn't.