Rolf Harris

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.

Not a user of course - abuser

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

He's obviously guilty of the charges, but there has to be a small amount of sorrow for the man when a past catched up at such a vulnerable old age. (I know that will get GNrs shrieking in horror, but still)

He's not a nazi war criminal. He hasn't committed unspeakable cruelties on whole nations.

Having said that, I never have liked him, and I wonder what they will do with the official portrait of the queen.

I think we feel let down by Rolf Harris because he didn't seem overtly "creepy" like Jimmy Saville. I always liked Rolf and his silly songs and clever paintings - I feel a real loss.

As long as the jury were given more than enough evidence to confidently convict, Annie, most people will be ok with it.

I am still not convinced of his guilt an am not a fan

Thanks When for your contributions to this thread. Yes, the UK has a good reputation in research, assessments and treatment of sex offenders. We need that work to continue, alongside further investment in services for their victims. I include in this, the wives, children, family/friends of men who betray the love and trust invested in them.

I hope that the conviction of Rolf Harris will help people who haven't worked in this area, to accept that sex offenders rarely stand out from the crowd. It may also nudge those people who claim that there is a celebrity witch hunt, or that "they're only in it for the compensation". I'm not disputing that false allegations can be made, but my experience is that they are very quickly identified by police/other professionals, as exactly that.

Isn't it strange how many women would agree with the above comments regarding an intuitive dislike for Saville, Hall and Clifford - regardless of the media image they put forward.

I didn't want it to be true about Rolf Harris as both of my children loved watching him on tv and he seemed such a personable character.

I was a specialist probation officer, assessing and treating sex offenders and training workers from all involved agencies for much of my career, and undertook private work as a psychologist associate with a forensic/clinical psychologist who was contracted by various social services depts around the north to train their staff or assess Cafcass referrals. Very interesting, but stressful work.

When you obviously have a great deal of professional experience with abusive offenders, and often shed light on these discussions. What was your role, if it's not intrusive to ask?