Rolf Harris

Thank you, Jingle

Reminds me of the time my computer picked up a virus, which must have come from one of a group of linked organisations I was connected with a few years ago. I had been constructing them a website and had lots of emails back and forth, hard work because most of them were new to emails. I contacted the chairman of the group and suggested that it was not really enough for all his branches to have virus protection, they needed to update it regularly to catch all the new viruses as they were created and sent the rounds. His reply referred to my email as "technobabble".

Thankfully I have not been marked for life - but at the time I was a married woman in my 40s, and took a reasoned decision not to take the matter any further. I was not physically harmed in any way, but had I been younger I might have found the situation more difficult to deal with. For example, I might been left not knowing quite where the boundaries lay, or have felt that I might have precipitated it by my behaviour and gone on to feel insecure in how I approached men. Men in situations of power can precipitate a lot of confusion in women's minds, particularly those who are young, vulnerable and sexually inexperienced. And as for children.....

It is important that women report these incidents and that they are not condemned for not doing so at the time - there is safety in numbers, and when they see others coming forward it gives them the confidence to speak out.

My post was meant to indicate that I do understand why women find it hard to speak out.

Rolf Harris has been found guilty and he must suffer the penalty.

Elgran I think perhaps you misunderstood me. (your post 19.47) I never worked with abusers. Most of my work was with the NSPCC, specifically working with young women who'd experienced sexual violence. Thanks for the 'well done' though. Appreciated

...and yes, when - I do know what you mean.

Glad mishap that it did not affect you for life. I had bad experience with my brother in law and I was only 12 when it started he would suggest hide and seem and of course guess who he hid with ! I was scared and confused my mum knew but it was different culture and I don't think she wanted upset my sister. He said no one would believe me because I had a temper !

I have nothing to do I with him now and he is disabled. It didn't mar my life but it did damage my sense of self worth In Regard to men. However been happily married for 37 years, often wonder if he thinks about it with all these scandals coming to light.

I think worst thing is how roof Harris went to broadmoor with Saville to look at the women who had to line up naked before bed! Taking advantage of vulnerable people is horrendous.

I must admit to being surprised by one or two posts on here which would appear to be cynical and show a lack of understanding for the victims of abuse. Some posters seem to be looking at the abuse from the point of view of a mature woman with plenty of life experience - not as a young child or young person who may have had no idea what was happening to them and how to deal with it. They would be too embarrassed to have told anyone and probably thought they would have not been believed anyway.

There will have been a lot more evidence presented to the jury than we have read about in the media and, I think, the verdict was unanimous.

During my working life I have been aware of some extremely horrendous cases of such offences against children, and other victims. It has not hardened me to what is coming to light in these present cases involving celebrities, rather it has given me more insight and empathy with the victims.

The perpetrators usually pick their victims well, and it sounds as if Harris was clever, devious and adept grooming as well as an opportunistic molester.

One poster said that he might be able to turn his life around - personally I hope his sentence is long enough for him to end his days inside prison.

For all the cynics and those who may still have doubts about his guilt I would tell them to thank their lucky stars that their child or grandchild was not introduced to the jolly children's entertainer at a 'fun' event.

It has always surprised me how ready some mothers are to let their children be alone with celebrity entertainers. Michael Jackson and his sleepovers, Saville, Harris and others. They are so dazzled by being close to fame that they forget to take care of their children.

Yes, elegran. And some mothers are happy to leave their babies and children with babysitters they really do not know well. If I say 'male babysitters' I will be castigated of course, but I remember many cases, not all of which would have hit the headlines.

Elegran, total agreement with your comments about Michael Jackson. Thanks also for your earlier post (the 'psychobabble one)

Rosequartz makes another good point about the risks involved in allowing people who aren't well known to parents to babysit. We should never forget though, that the main risks to children are from relatives or family friends, people who are well known and trusted.

Yes, iam64, and often they will spend a long time befriending a family with that aim in mind, so that they are trusted.

Was any evidence given in a closed court or was there restrictions placed on the media as to what could be reported ? I didn't follow this case closely but apart from the alleged abuse of his daughters friend I only heard allegations of incidents which took place in public, on a hall stage etc

Which have been proven. Just shows the arrogance of the perpetrator to molest a child in plain sight.

Thank you rosequartz, so people watched and did nothing?

I was groped at a craft fair [and obscene comments were whispered in my ear]. I was an adult at the time and, having young children with me I didn't want to cause a fuss. In fact, if was in total disbelief that it was happening/had happened. All I could think was to get the children away and get home as soon as possible. No one around had any awareness of it happening. I should have tirned round and slapped him or something but it was so unexpected my head was spinning. No, it didn't cause any lasting damage other than the fact that it's still vivid in my imagination and I regret not 'outing' him.

Obviously so cleverly done whilst distracting the crowd with chat, painting etc, as did others who did things on tv.
Some people are so cynical about the victims and obviously have no experience either directly or through the type of work they did that they remain blissfully naive, which must be a lovely state of mind.

There is far more openness these days, so victims may feel more courageous about coming forward, and many people will be more aware to enable them to protect their children and grandchildren - indeed any child they know. We can't go through life suspecting everyone and being suspicious, but even the nicest, jolliest person could be capable of the unthinkable.

so people watched and did nothing

I am left shaking my head in disbelief at that statement.

Some posters have no idea of the devious and, yes, clever nature of these paedophiles. Like a magician - all smoke and mirrors.

Sex offenders plan for opportunities arising, or they'll create the opportunities themselves. Someone like Rolf Harris, mingling with children as part of his work, being tactile and inviting children to sit close to him or on his knee, would not have been suspected of molesting a child he was 'cuddling' with one hand in sight and the other out of view of those present who would stop him. Also, he followed one child out to toilets when she went on her own and waylaid her when she came out. Children don't expect a man who is tickling or cuddling them to be intrusive with their hands, especially when the language they are using normalises what they are doing. Planning, fantasising and putting sex offending into practice is done with stealth to ensure they are not detected.

anniebach apparently some of the evidence was so graphic that it was deemed unsuitable to be published. As I said before, the jury would have had sight of evidence which the general public didn't and made their decision based on ALL the evidence, not just that published in newspapers or on TV.

And in response to atqui's blunt but apt post, unfortunately a child will probably not come home and tell what happened (or tell what us happening in the home). There may be oblique references to 'not liking' someone or just a change in behaviour which could be attributed to anything else. But they may 'not like' someone for many other reasons which could be nothing at all.

What is happening I meant

Reports in the news that Rolf Harris has been 'fast-tracked to a cushy prison.'

He's been appropriately transferred as Category B/C which serves the courts and geographical area where he has lived, to the correct prison (not cushy) where the Sex Offender Treatment Programme will be available to him. Exactly what you would expect to happen. I do wish the papers would get a grip.

Here's the regime:

www.justice.gov.uk/contacts/prison-finder/bullingdon/regime

Well it's not an open prison at any rate. However, at 84 years old any treatment offered to him is immaterial now as he has spent those years as a nasty dirty old man. Hardly worth the effort and money. Best to keep him out of the way. The money could be well spent helping his many victims.

Unless undergoing treatment, prolific sex offenders continue to fantasise about the people they have abused, so I would prefer to see him engaged in the treatment which will focus on ruining his fantasies and dismantling his urge to touch people inappropriately. Much better than allowing him to be at a loose end in his cell or pandering to him by letting him teach art, which would be more fodder for the tabloids.

As far as I am aware he has never admitted the assaults, so I think undergoing treatment may make him face up to what he has done and the damage he caused.

As for the type of prison he has been transferred to, I assume it will be the correct type for the offences - surely for someone like him the greatest punishment is his loss of reputation and standing.

Perhaps the "graphic" evidence should have been published and then the public, including we Gransnetters, would be in a better position to comment. Perhaps the law needs to be seen to be done.