Rolf Harris

I just feel angry that he did not plead guilty but put those women through the embarrassment of having to detail his actions in court.

When Thanks for the information , and for your informative contributions. Yes indeed a stressful career .

It doesn't leave me shrieking in horror, Jingle. We don't have to stoop to the level of the sex offenders who have harmed children and showing some humanity to the abuser whose life is now in bits is no bad thing. I hope he will now disclose everything he's done and save the rest of the women he harmed from having to go through another trial.

Reading between the lines of what he has said or written in the past, I get a sense that his denial is linked to his shame and fear of being imprisoned. He's partially admitted some of his offences and his lawyer will have laid down clear instructions as to what he should and shouldn't say. Once he's sentenced, he'll be expected to give a clear, responsible account of his offending. The publicity about him fronting a child protection awareness raising campaign tells me he could have started to change his attitude a few years back. He'll be one if those celebs who were dreading the knock on the door. Prison and psychology workers will be looking for him 'walking the walk' as he will know what to say to sound credible now. He could still turn his life around.

But, how many juries have found innocent people guilty ? People were ok with those cases too whenim

Mishap, if he had paid the thousands that woman asked for , no court case, no embarrassment for this woman who entertained him in her flat until she was was almost thirty . I do not trust a woman who asks for money then goes to the police if the money isn't given , sounds closer to revenge than trauma

Isn't that an argument to have on a separate thread, Annie? Rolf Harris has admitted sexually inappropriate behaviour and independent complainants from the UK and Australia have given remarkably similar accounts of how he abused them. He's been found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt.' Many more sex offenders have been acquitted because of insufficient evidence, not 'no evidence.' That isn't the case here.

Ahh....victims of sexual abuse. They won't behave and act above reproach, will they? Telling their stories to the media, angrily receiving bribes to shut them up, baring their souls to get a bit of compo! Attempting suicide to get some attention!

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!

I'm going out - it's depressing to hear victims of sexual abuse being pilloried in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I was not arguing on miscarriages of justice whenim, just replying to your post that a jury had found him guilty so must have had enough evidence

A jury has to find the accused guilty "beyond any reasonable doubt". They have heard evidence from both the prosecusion and the defence. If they have any doubts at all, they should bring in a verdict of "not guilty". It is far more likely that a guilty person will be acquitted for lack of evidence than that an innocent person is convicted.

Anniebach The jury will have heard evidence which will not necessarily have been printed or shown on TV. The judge will have told them if they found him guilty it must be beyond reasonable doubt. You may disagree with a jurys verdict but it is the basis of our justice system, trial by 12 men (and women).

Just because an offence is historic doesn't make it any less true.

It must be so difficult for men that want to work/work with children as it's hard not to be suspicious of their motives these days. When my children were small I would never let any men babysit [it was sometimes offered as part of our babysitting circle but I always refused]; not because I didn't trust them but because of any embarrassment that might be caused if I felt any lines had been crossed.

On BBC News, website www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28012985 Jane Peel BBC News correspondent, Southwark Crown Court, says -

"Much of it was too graphic for the mainstream media to report. Inevitably, it will have left the public with a misleading impression of the seriousness of the charges.

The allegations were not simply a case of over-familiarity of the kind said to be have been prevalent in another age. One of those involved was aged just seven or eight at the time."

The jury will have heard all this evidence.

What bothers me is that so much of it went on. A bit of light groping/ bottom pinching was the norm in the 60s so those with more power did have the opportunity to go further. How much more has been swept under the carpet? Was it mostly media? Celebrities? Politicians? What about bosses, teachers? Thank goodness children are now being listened to more often - although there's still a long way to go.

Yes Elegan - not only that but seen and heard all the witnesses. That in itself is very very powerful. Annie- I really don't understand where you are coming from on this

When people ( such as Hall, Harris) are convicted of historic abuse and are in their 80s I do not have a shred of sympathy based on their age. I think instead that they had a life they didn't deserve, with fame, money, esteem, honours , in Halls case with grandchildren and meanwhile their victims lives were changed for ever over decades in some cases. If anything can be worse than this sort of abuse it must be living with it whilst you see your a user feted.

Not a user of course - abuser

Also - RH's daughter took an active part in the PR charade of arriving with them every morning. Apparently she was picked up by the car round the corner so they could then stage their arrival hand in hand which was so clearly aimed at trying to influence opinion about his guilt.

Yes Elegran, the seven or eight year old victim is the totally unforgivable part of the whole thing. That and the ones in Broadmoor hospital.

I do wonder why some of the older victims did n't speak out louder at the time. And why some of them did n't get themselves away from him.

I also wonder how soon the subject of compensation will arise.

I agree grannytwice.

And just because a victim fails to live up to sainthood, does not mean that she is not a victim.

The jury would not have convicted unless they had been convinced that he truly was guilty. He deserves a stiff custodial sentence, regardless of his age.

Can you be sure he did n't simply need her hand to hold when actually going into the court grannytwice? Why always think the worst in any situation?

And why should there not be compensation paid? He has amassed millions - on the back of a completely false persona. Let those who suffered ( and will have to prove it) have at least some money out of it all. I get a bit tired of complaints about 'the compensation culture'. Of course it was so much better in the old days when the victim ( of all kinds) had no access to any form of compensation. Just because the media publicise ( usually without the full or even correct facts) compensation stories doesn't mean we shouldn't accept the basic principle

Jingle - I didn't come up on the down train

I find the criticism of adult women who didn't speak out early enough and now have the nerve to feel financial compensation for the years of mental health problems precipitated by sexual abuse sickening.

There is so much research evidence about why it's so difficult to speak out about abuse experiences, particularly those involving sexual abuse. My work was similar to whenim64's. I live close to the areas in which I worked, and occasionally bump into the now 40 plus year old adults I knew as children who'd experienced sexual abuse. I'll be focussed on shopping, for example, hear my name, and find myself hugged by some woman (occasionally a man) who will have a question they've been waiting to ask someone. I'm going out to avoid feeling upset on their behalf, by the few comments on this thread that demonstrate a lack of empathy as well as a lack of understanding.

If it's difficult to report abuse by a relative or family friend, think how difficult it must be to report abuse by a much-loved celebrity. Until the Savile abuse came to light, who would have believed it of Rolf Harris of whom the adjective 'avuncular' has frequently been used. But then, how much intra-family abuse has been committed by uncles? Surely now the credibility gap is being quickly closed.

It wasn't just celebrities who could get away with it. We had a teacher at our school who would try to grope the girls. This was known amongst us and we would avoid being alone with him. As far as I am aware it was never reported but at the time we didn't know who we could report it to and whether we would be believed.