Rolf Harris

excellent article

Sorry, that should say Dan Davies. His book is 'In Plain Sight.'

I agree about using the word 'victim' but hesitate to indicate they might have had any power when talking about the sex offender and the consequences of their abuse. Don't want to give sex offenders a get-out, as so many seize on 'survivor' to tell themselves they musn't have done much harm. Different context and, as you say, devious.

Worthwhile looking at the interviews Dan Dailey has done about his book on Jimmy Savile. Slippery and devious in the extreme.

1st line should read manipulative sorry

The fact that abusers can be defended shows just how clever and mani,pula rive they can be. They don't call it "grooming" for nothing. If Rolf Harris and others were not convicted until now all it means is they were not caught earlier or their "victims" were not believed. Most agencies who offer children and adults counselling and support prefer to call the abused survivors. There is power in surviving there is no power for someone labelled a victim. I hope Rolf Harris has a very unpleasant time in prison wherever they have sent him. I have no sympathy, working with perpetrators gives you a very different view point. No one has the right to take a child's innocence away.

When I was 11, in the last year of primary school (1952), the 'naughty' boy in the class took to 'goosing' the girls. I am sure that none of us reported it, but just kept very clear of him. I doubt that we had the vocabulary to tell a teacher about his actions, so he got away with them. I imagine that the teacher would have reacted with extreme embarrassment. And I wonder what became of the culprit, who didn't pass the exams to get into the secondary department of our school so we never saw him again.

The world's upside down, isn't it? Counselling for professionals, treatment for offenders, and some courts/barristers telling the victims of abuse not to undergo counselling before a trial because it could be interpreted as coaching! Fortunately, that particular tide is turning.

I have to be careful what I watch film/television wise because once something is in my head it never goes away [eg The Exorcist] and still scares me years later. Which makes me wonder how children cope with such terrible things happening to them .

I once completely by accident read some details about a child murder which involved some sexual acts- I so wish I hadn't.

when that is so true about not being able to 'unknow' what you know. I was a social worker and for many years worked with children who were abused. There were occasions when I was given a case file and just sobbed as I read graphic accounts of what adults had done to children. I was a trained and qualified professional with support from supervisors and counsellors but was still deeply affected by the images I had in my head. In one particular instance the accounts of what was done to one little boy have never left me - and that was twenty years ago.
We don't need to know the details of what happened. The people who do need to know are the judge and jury.

Here's the article, Tegan

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jul/20/lauren-laverne-how-rolf-harris-bit-me-got-away-with-it

Very good article by Lauren Laverne in yesterdays Observer about Harris, Savile etc. I don't think I can cut'n'paste it but it might be googleable. She said when she was a young interviewer she went to shake Harris's hand and he bit her on the neck, but then goes on to explain why she did nothing about it. It makes very interesting reading.

Another difficulty about publishing the graphic detail, is the way in which that information may be used by other people with sexual interest in children. It isn't unknown for victim statements to be passed between paedophiles/perpetrators, for their own enjoyment.

Some of the detail in the RH case was made known, to illustrate what an indecent assault against a 7 year old was. Nauseating.

We don't really need to know, but many want to because they just aren't aware of the things that sex offenders are capable of, and/or they aren't convinced of guilt. Most people only know about loving, intimate sexual contact between consenting adults and can't conceive the perversity of child sexual abuse. Once you know, you can't unknow - graphic detail will confirm that the authorities have done the right thing, but having those awful images in your head is not healthy. Professionals who deal with this stuff usually have counselling and support on offer, but the public don't.

Rose - also agree about the victims and their families

Absent - I have very mixed feelings about that - balancing voyeurism, feeding others sexual fantasies and our 'right' to know

I think that much of the graphic evidence in cases is not published because some would be too horrifying and because of the sensitivities of victims and their families.
I am not saying this in relation to the Harris case particularly but in general.

Perhaps he will now begin to realise the enormity of what he has done and at least show some remorse, if not empathy, for his victims.
I hope he stays inside at least long enough to complete the programme.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

What is happening I meant

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.

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.